tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post6494208091872767904..comments2023-12-25T23:40:17.701-05:00Comments on Confessions of a Carioca: Some Good Straws to Grasp AtDaniel Martinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15980949721733826978noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-2516002551145145772008-05-15T09:25:00.000-04:002008-05-15T09:25:00.000-04:00Since the border crossings to date have all been a...Since the border crossings to date have all been a punitive reaction to the "violation" of a Lambeth resolution, pointing to how border crossings violate other Lambeth resolutions merely highlights the inconsistency (or the selective consistency) of the conservatives.<BR/><BR/>I have no doubt that 1.10 - all of 1.10, not just that one clause on it's own - represents something close to the general opinion of Anglicans world wide. That isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the minority are obliged to submit.<BR/><BR/>If you want to refer to British (and Commonwealth) precedents, I direct your attention to Bagehot, who said that the monarch has the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn. A rather better analogy. Lambeth was consulted, and they warned that they collectively thought it was a bad idea.<BR/><BR/>I expect that HM (and her vice-regal representatives in the Dominions) occasionally do warn their ministers that such and so course of action is problematical. Sometimes, doubtless, the minister is persuaded. Doubtless sometimes not. To my knowledge, no first minister has been dismissed by HM or her viceroys since the King-Byng Thing in Canada in 1926.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-1530500790162007942008-05-15T03:39:00.000-04:002008-05-15T03:39:00.000-04:00Malcolm: Except that TEC always cites Lambeth res...Malcolm: Except that TEC always cites Lambeth resolutions to support its argument against border crossing.<BR/><BR/>And that the Windsor Report and the Anglican Instruments of Unity cite Lambeth Resolution I.10 as representing Anglican teaching on the subject.<BR/><BR/>For resolutions that have no status, they sure seem to be bandied about a lot to support other propositions. Kind of like lawyers cite case law.<BR/><BR/>Things that aren't laid out in black-and-white legalese, but which have become precedential and expected to be followed, is a very British way to do things. And the "Anglican" Communion is nothing if not English in origin.<BR/><BR/>But, as Forrest Gump said "that's all I have to say about that."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-27806758634904030902008-05-14T12:47:00.000-04:002008-05-14T12:47:00.000-04:00The invitation to the first Lambeth made it clear ...The invitation to the first Lambeth made it clear the meeting woulod not have the status of a council. Subsequent statements and resolutions restate the same point. Various attempts to turn it into a council or an Anglican Supreme Court consistently failed.<BR/><BR/>With respect, I cannot see a single hitorical or logical argument for your position, It depends on the outright denial of history.<BR/><BR/>No council, Lambeth.<BR/><BR/>(On a side point, the United States is a Republic and Canada a monarchy. Imagine what would happen if the President of the United States or the Queen of Canada decided to act as though they governed on their own.)Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-83904627449886340792008-05-13T19:58:00.000-04:002008-05-13T19:58:00.000-04:00Malcolm: The Anglican Communion is "episcopal", t...Malcolm: The Anglican Communion is "episcopal", that is to say, "ruled by bishops." That means that bishops are the guardians of the faith. All of the assembled Anglican bishops get together at Lambeth (or did until this year). That means that - whether you like it or not - that Lambeth speaks with a conciliar voice for the Anglican Communion (or did until this year).<BR/><BR/>You simply can't get more representative of all Anglican bishops then a meeting of all Anglican bishops.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-67975759271495363662008-05-13T18:55:00.000-04:002008-05-13T18:55:00.000-04:00Phil, this is essentially the same process followe...Phil, this is essentially the same process followed regarding the ordination of women. And the ordination of women was at least as great a departure.<BR/><BR/>James, you keep saying that Lambeth 1998 1.10 was a conciliar decision. There is no way to claim that except by completely rewriting the history of Lambeth. Lambeth is not a council. It is a meeting.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-50898510723898275372008-05-13T15:51:00.000-04:002008-05-13T15:51:00.000-04:00Malcolm: There is no hypocrisy in the conservativ...Malcolm: There is no hypocrisy in the conservative position. They see the Anglican Communion as a communion and expect member provinces to act like they are in a communion. If an individual member province decides - by word or deed - that it doesn't want to live as a communion, they will be treated as such.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing magical about Lambeth resolutions. But, since you are so fixated on them, let me explain to you that there is rationale behind them. Respecting diocesan boundaries is something that is useful in a COMMUNION because it promotes the effective and efficient administration of the Church. Respecting core Christian and Anglican doctrine is something that is ESSENTIAL in a COOMUNION because it goes to the very heart of the Communion - communicating the faith of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.<BR/><BR/>It's sort of like, Malcolm, a door marked "Authorized Personnel Only." Ordinarily, unauthorized folks should not use that door. But let's say there is a crazed gunman, or a fire. Then unauthorized folk can certainly use that door, even if they aren't authorized to do so. Because there is a heirarchy of rules.<BR/><BR/>So, conservatives certainly do recognize that ordinarily, diocesan boundaries ought not to be violated. But is TEC decides - openly and unrepentantly - to grossly violate the catholic Chrisitan faith - then an emergency situation has been created. TEC's decision to violate Lambeth I.10 (dealing with a core doctrine of faith) is of a higher level then a decision to violate the Lambeth resolution on diocesan boundaries (dealing with the efficient running of the Church).<BR/><BR/>There is no hypocrisy at all, Malcolm. Just a well thought out response to liberal communion-breaking.<BR/><BR/>Malcolm - regarding your comment that perhaps the vast majority of Christians might be wrong about sexuality. Perhaps they might be. But y'all haven't even begun to make a convincing case. I could just as easily declare that the Bible was written by Martians who declared that I should become the Pope in 2008. And if you object I could say, "well, folks have been wrong before."<BR/><BR/>Your job Malcolm is not to cause schism and breakup in the Church by ignoring conciliar decisions because of some half-baked ideas from a culturally-captivated small denomination. Your job is to uphold the catholic faith while making your alternative arguments. If they hold water, they will be adopted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-70107046371752491052008-05-13T14:12:00.000-04:002008-05-13T14:12:00.000-04:00Malcolm+ - Yes: I can acknowledge the possibility ...Malcolm+ - Yes: I can acknowledge the possibility the ACC and ECUSA are right, though I wouldn't want to understate how vanishing a probability I attach to that, nor how foundational I would consider such a reversal to be.<BR/><BR/>However, I can't really bring myself to entertain the notion that this is adiaphoron in such a way that ACC/ECUSA ought to go down this path in contravention of nearly the entire rest of Christendom. As such, I think they ought to be honest enough to admit the magnitude of this change and restrained enough to forgo putting it into practice absent the consent of <I>at least</I> their own Communion. If it were up to me, I’d uphold an even higher standard, that Rome and Orthodoxy ought to also agree – but, in that, I’m only being consistent with Anglicanism’s own self-identity as a “branch” of the Church Catholic. Put simply, Anglicanism doesn’t have, and has never claimed for itself, the authority to unilaterally alter a historic teaching of the Faith.<BR/><BR/>We’re frequently told that “gays have always been part of the church.” No doubt they have, including, by definition, during most of the time when it would have been unthinkable for Christianity to accept their behavior as moral, let alone bless it. But, if that’s true, I see no reason – especially given the laissez-faire attitude given to these things by today’s society – why a change has to be rammed through <I>right now</I>, especially when the fallout is going to be a mortal wound to yet one more of the shrinking areas of unity in Christ’s Body.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-39755500897448894492008-05-13T13:15:00.000-04:002008-05-13T13:15:00.000-04:00James,At the end of the day, the foreign prelates ...James,<BR/><BR/>At the end of the day, the foreign prelates are free to do what they will - and the Canadian and American primates are free to write letters criticizing them for doing it. Just as the foreign prelates are free to write letters ticking off the Canadian and American primates for the actions of their respective provinces.<BR/><BR/>The hypocrisy, it seems to me, is in the double standard of the conservative position. If Peter of Abuja and Greg of Buenos Aries want to argue that Lambeth resolutions are sancrosant, they can't just argue it for the resolutions they like and ignore it for the ones they don't. In this regard, it is the conservative position that is inconsistent.<BR/><BR/>Phil,<BR/><BR/>This isn't the first time that parts of the Church have departed from long established practice, nor will it be the last. There were departures over usury, slavery, the role of women and divorce, just to name a few. (Of those, the last is the only one on which we actually have a recorded dominical comment, btw.)<BR/><BR/>The Holy Spirit (see, a definite article and everything) did not die after the Council of Ephesus. It is possible that she is not finished leading us into all truth. (Which is not, of course, evidence that the present actions are or are not an example of that, but merely raise the possibility that they could be.)<BR/><BR/>Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley broke with the long established religious order. As did Peter and Paul. As, for that matter, did Jesus.<BR/><BR/>It is entirely possible that the Canadians and the Americans are a wrong as wrong can be. Can you not acknowledge even the notional possibility that they are not?Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-39409692416430493592008-05-13T11:43:00.000-04:002008-05-13T11:43:00.000-04:00Malcolm: You make a very good argument for why th...Malcolm: You make a very good argument for why the Anglican cluster of churches should be considered to be a Federation and not a Communion.<BR/><BR/>My point, is, then don't complain when others return your favor. That will mean that those who want a Communion will work to create a Communion, and will therefore, necessarily, exclude those who only desire a Federation.<BR/><BR/>You always revert to the specific legal status of Lambeth resolutions. Then you make the ridiculous claim that Lambeth resolutions have always been seen as "take it or leave it" yet TEC's heirarchy always use the Lambeth resolutions they LIKE as absolute rules (i.e. diocesan turf is sacrosanct). The point is:<BR/>1) Provinces of the Anglican Communion have always been "mutually accountable" to each other. That has always been understood to mean - don't take unilateral action on fundamental doctrinal questions.<BR/>2) The West wanted the Communion to address the sexuality question (remember that George Carey warned Spong on this prior to the 1998 Conference).<BR/>3) The Lambeth Conference, made up of all Anglican bishops, affirmed the long-standing, universally held, catholic Christian position on sexuality.<BR/>4) This position has since been upheld repeatedly by the Anglican Instruments of Unity.<BR/>5) Despite this, TEC has insisted on going its own way.<BR/><BR/>By the way Malcolm - please tell me exactly WHY foreign interventions are wrong? Remember, you can't appeal to Lambeth resolutions or ancient catholic teachings. Same rules as you apply to the conservatives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-51615629514351557152008-05-13T10:36:00.000-04:002008-05-13T10:36:00.000-04:00Malcolm+, your last post is crystal clear. I unde...Malcolm+, your last post is crystal clear. I understand your position, and, in some ways, I sympathize with it. We're trying to draw a bright line where one hasn't been necessary in the past. But, for goodness' sake, we're not talking about an edict that we all wear yellow in church. Lambeth 1.10 only <I>restates</I> the uninterrupted, undivided, unquestioned moral view of the Church <I>since its founding and by its Founder</I> - and beyond. Doesn't that count for anything to you? If ECUSA isn't to show forbearance in this case, the case where it will doesn't exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-32319141687415689342008-05-13T02:01:00.000-04:002008-05-13T02:01:00.000-04:00My wife the lawyer dances quite nicely, thanks. B...My wife the lawyer dances quite nicely, thanks. But I'm not dancing around anything. Lambeth resolutions are not binding - and 1998 1.10 is no more binding than any other Lambeth resolution. There is no basis for any claim that 1.10 has a unique status. Indeed, James, it is so far-fetched that no conservative to my knowledge has ever offered up this extraordinary bit of revisionism before.<BR/><BR/>Lambeths are not conciliar. The invitation to the first Lambeths made it clear they were not conciliar. Attempts to raise their status have consistently failed.<BR/><BR/>1998 1.10 is the majority opinion of a group of bishops who met in 1998 at a university campus in Kent. C'est tout.<BR/><BR/>If a group of bishops send me a note, I will read the note and consider what it says. (Heck, if one bishop sends me a note.) But I am not bound by the contents of that correspondence, unless the bishop in question is one to whom I owe canonical obedience.<BR/><BR/>1998 1.10 is not conciliar.<BR/><BR/>1998 1.10 is not doctrine, but rather a meeting's opinion on doctrine.<BR/><BR/>1998 1.10 is not canonically binding on anyone, anywhere, ever.<BR/><BR/>1998 1.10 is not morally binding on anyone, anywhere, ever. The moral weight of its collective supporters earns it the right to be duly, respectfully and prayerfully considered. It does not command anyone's obedience.<BR/><BR/>One may wish that Lambeth Conferences had the status of Councils. Wishing does not make it so.<BR/><BR/>So, James, at the end of the day we come down to a fundamental disagreement about the facts.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-33905786946971132172008-05-12T19:30:00.000-04:002008-05-12T19:30:00.000-04:00Malcolm: Lambeth I.10 represents core Anglican do...Malcolm: Lambeth I.10 represents core Anglican doctrine. It is much more then just a Lambeth resolution. You are acting like a lawyer dancing around the edges and trying to draw lines of what can be required or not. The Anglican Communion has held as its two principles mutual accountablity and provincial autonomy. These two principles had always worked together until 2003. It is quite clear (and was clear in 2003) that sexuality doctrine is considered by the Communion not to be an area that permits differences in practice. A decision on such a core decision by the Lambeth Conference is a conciliar communion decision. If TEC chooses not to abide by the conciliar communion decisions, then it should not be surprised that those that want an Anglican Communion (instead of a Federation) will work to those ends.<BR/><BR/>I have said all along that the Global South/GAFCON folks are building a Communion within the Federation and that is exactly what they are doing. That is what the "interventions" are about. TEC was warned about this and chose to ignore it.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the listening process - a basic concept of legislative interpretation is that you take a clause in its overall context. The call in Resolution I.10 was made in the context of the rest of the resolution. Anecdotal evidence about what some bishops who voted for it might want you to think they intended to vote for really is beside the point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-28568850328991467372008-05-12T17:42:00.000-04:002008-05-12T17:42:00.000-04:00It might well have been better that the Anglican C...It might well have been better that the Anglican Communion had been called the Anglican Federation. But it isn't. However, the claim that the constituent churches are obliged (be that obligation canonical or moral) to submit to resolutions is unprecedented and explicitly rejected by Lambeth after Lambeth. The obligation of the constituent churches is to give prayerful considerations to the items (be they resolutions, pastoral letters, whatever) issuing forth.<BR/><BR/>While the American and Canadian primates have issued letters criticizing the boundary crossers, I've seen nothing from either of them claiming that the boundary-crossers should be thrown out of the Communion, or asserting some sort of quasi-excommunication (impaired communion). <BR/><BR/>Complaining about an action is not quite the same as demanding sanctions. But if one chooses to demand sanctions - or to impose them vigilante style like the boundary crossers - for one set of violations are hypocritical if they persist in their own set of violations.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I've spoken to several bishops who were at Lambeth 1998, including at least one who voted for 1.10. All of them were clear that the call for listening was never presented in the limited way you propose - and the one who voted for the resolution was clear that it was the listening clause - and a much broader interpretation of it than yours - which tipped the balance.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I wouldn't have voted for 1.10 had any diocese been foolish enough to make me a bishop. But I would expect those demanding that one clause be enforced to be equally demanding about the other clauses as well.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-64123526619600020152008-05-12T13:56:00.000-04:002008-05-12T13:56:00.000-04:00Malcolm: Being in communion means that if a theol...Malcolm: Being in communion means that if a theological point has been settled by the wider Church, that settlement is accepted. I.10 was passed by the Lambeth Conference and has been reaffirmed many times since by other Anglican Communion bodies. If you say "well, that's fine, but in my version of the Anglican Communion, it really doesn't matter", then your vision of the AC is a Federation and not a Communion. It is entirely your choice to advocate for that, but please call it by what it is. And if you believe that TEC has the right to set aside Communion decisions, then don't be surprised if others do so also.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the Lambeth listening process, it was not called for in a vacuum Malcolm. You might wish for the Anglican Communion to hold a listening process with the hoped for goal of overturning the Anglican, Christian and Biblical doctrine on sexuality. But that is not what Lambeth called for. Listening processes always exist for a purpose. The purpose of the Lambeth listening process was how to address the pastoral needs of persons living in a sinful lifestyle. To change the purpose, as you are trying to do, is to undermine the Lambeth listening process. Again, it is your choice to so advocate, but don't pretend you are trying to honor Lambeth I.10 by doing so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-74792345162237593092008-05-12T13:34:00.000-04:002008-05-12T13:34:00.000-04:00Certainly I have never argued that Lambeth resolut...Certainly I have never argued that Lambeth resolutions are meaningless bits of paper. I agree that they do have some moral authority. You and I clearly disagree on the application of that moral authority. Particularly in a case where support for the resolution was divided. <BR/><BR/>Certainly 1.10 obtained a significant majority - but would that majority have been such if the clause at the crux of it had stood on its own? The entire resolution was more nuanced than the one clause. Would it have obtained the same minority if someone had clearly stated that "listening" meant that the substantive debate was to be closed forever?<BR/><BR/>Previous Lambeth resolutions regarding contraception, regarding inter-racial relationships passes by substantive margins - and had not been overturned by subsequent Lambeths prior to the practice on the ground being changed. (In fact, I don't believe the resolution counselling against inter-racial relationships has ever actually been set aside.)<BR/><BR/>To a certain degree, however, that's a sideshow. The larger issue has to do with the obligations - legal or moral - of the member churches regarding Lambeth resolutions.<BR/><BR/>You have conceded that there is no legal authority (a position many conservatives flatly refuse to acknowledge). But your subsequent position seems to be that we are bound by them anyway, regardless.<BR/><BR/>I can't agree with you here. Communion and interdependence do not mean a surrender of all autonomy. Lambeth resolutions should be given serious and sincere consideration. Their conclusions and recommendations should not be set aside lightly. But if they are not binding they are not binding.<BR/><BR/>Some African churches sought the advice of previous Lambeths regarding the treatment of polygamous converts. Lambeth concurred in what the African churches proposed to do. But what if Lambeth had not? Would the African churches have been obliged to set aside their pastoral plan - with the resultant disruption both to mission and to the well-being of polygamists wives?<BR/><BR/>The property debate does become interesting. If we had followed your position in the 1540s, I rather suspect there'd be no Anglicanism at all. We are an heirarchical body, not a congregational body. To date, I gather, the court rulings in both Canada and the US have tended to support this position - as have several conservatives like Howe.<BR/><BR/>Finally, listening with conditions is not really listening. Lambeth 1.10 didn't call for the Church to listen to parts of the experience of homosexual persons, but to listen to them in their whole humanity. At the end of the day this does not oblige the Church to change its view. But it does, I think, oblige the Church to lsten without conditions, without limitations and without walls.<BR/><BR/>I remember once being part of a dispute where the one party proposed mediation. But before mediation, we would have had to agree to certain conditions. Thing was, if we agreed to the preconditions, there was nothing left to mediate. Your approach to the listening process, in which the possibility of conversion seems to exist only for the other, reminds me of this.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-25946032811714236842008-05-12T11:54:00.000-04:002008-05-12T11:54:00.000-04:00Malcolm: Regarding the "binidng" quality of Lambe...Malcolm: Regarding the "binidng" quality of Lambeth resolutions, there is a difference between something that is "morally binding" and something that is "legally binding." Lambeth resolutions fall into the former, but clearly not the latter category. There is no legal mechanism one can turn to to force TEC's GC to accept I.10. But as a member of the Anglican Communion, it is morally bound to do so.<BR/><BR/>An analogy - suppose that I am a Neighborhood Watch advocate, loudly calling for neighbors to keep a watch out for criminal activity in the neighborhood. Then one day I come home and see a moving truck parked in front of my neighbor's house when I know they are on vacation with suspicious looking characters all around. I do nothing. Was I legally bound to call the police? No, I was not. Was I morally bound to call the police if I claim that I want to live in a Neighborhood Watch community? Yes, I was.<BR/><BR/>I do not recall any Great Schisms on the question of usury, Malcolm. If TEC thinks that the rest of Christendom is all wrong about homosexuality, then the proper chanel is to make its case. But TEC made its case, the case was rejected, and TEC made its changes anyway. That is certainly one option, but don't try to claim catholicity or that you are part of a Communion while doing so.<BR/><BR/>Regarding property, I argue that the same rules that apply to everyone else should apply to the churches. Namely, "who is on the title?" and "was an irrevocable trust ever created for the national church?"<BR/><BR/>Regarding the Lambeth listening process, I have never said the listening is just for repentance. What I am saying is that Lambeth was faced with two issues: the first was "is homosexual behavior an acceptable thing for Christians to engage in?" The answer was no. The second issue then became "how does the Church respond pastorally to those who are currently homosexuals?" The answer to that was "in light of our resolution to the first issue, listen to their experiences and their needs." I don't really see the difficulty in understanding this. But note that the listening process for the second issue requires all parties to accept the resolution to the first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-22066001298620498082008-05-12T01:19:00.000-04:002008-05-12T01:19:00.000-04:00James, I'm really trying to follow you here. You ...James, I'm really trying to follow you here. <BR/><BR/>You have conceded that Lambeth resolutions are not binding. It is entirely coherent to argue that 'twere better the American and Canadian Churches had acceded to that specific clause of 1.10 even though they were not obliged to do so.<BR/><BR/>But your claim that "Communion is Communion. Either it is or it isn't" see,s, at least rhetorically, to move beyond a "'twere better" back to an "obligation."<BR/><BR/>At the point when the Christian Church - over some time and with no small controversy - changed its position on usury, it was turning its back on what was believed by "overwhelming majority of . . . bishops from across time and cultures." This is not the only example of the Church (hopefully under the guidance of the Spirit) changing her mind. Such changes do not occur with everyone waking u0p one morning agreeing to a new thing.<BR/><BR/>(This point, of course, does not argue that the Americans and Canadians are right on the substantive points of same sex blessings and ordained homosexuals, but merely that the Church has the capacity to re-examine issues - even those which previously seemed clear and unalterable.)<BR/><BR/>You are quite correct that there is no formula in place to "force" the Nigerians or the pseudo-Argentinians to refrain from border crossing. That does not preclude the right of Jefferts-Schori and Hiltz to condemn the intrusions as wrong headed. Just as no one has questioned the right of Akinola, Venables et al to criticize the North American events as wrong headed.<BR/><BR/>Where the question gets interesting, of course, is in the issue of property. Even conservatives like Howe of Central Florida argue against the geographical revisionism of the boundary crossers.<BR/><BR/>Finally, on the issue of the listening process. It is curious that both Sarah and (to a lesser extent) you have supposed to delimit the listening process in a manner that neither Akinola nor Venables have tried to do. And there is no basis in the resolution to assume that "listening" means only listening for repentance. <BR/><BR/>I suggest that the man on the Chatham omnibus would take "listening" to mean a process of listening as part of seeking to understand. Listening to understand often has the surprising effect of changing everyone involved.Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-21858926156793030542008-05-11T19:26:00.000-04:002008-05-11T19:26:00.000-04:00Malcolm: Communion is communion. Either it is or...Malcolm: Communion is communion. Either it is or it isn't. There is no legally binding requirement that TEC accept a Lambeth Resolution on sexuality, just as there is no legally binding prohibition against Nigeria from founding churches in the U.S. if TEC chooses to ignore it. If TEC wants a "pick and choose" Federation, then they should stop whining about the consequences.<BR/><BR/>Yes, bishops can be wrong. But consider the bigger picture. On the one side of the debate is the overwhelming majority of Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox bishops from across time and cultures. On the other side is a tiny majority of culturally captive bishops who also typically have other heretical opinions (I use the term quite specifically Malcolm - meaning TEC's bishops don't just differ from other Christians on just sexuality, but on other, deeper issues). It would be like having a Global Warming Conference and having the scientists that work for the auto makers all argue that car emissions don't affect global warming, but with everyone else saying car emissions do. Yeah, scientists might be wrong, but use some common sense here.<BR/><BR/>As to the listening process, I both agree and disagree with Sarah. I do not believe that Resolution I.10 envisioned a specific "process" that would later be checked off. I think the intent was to say "in light of our decision to say that homosexuality is not appropriate, we will listen to homosexuals in coming up with an approriate pastoral response." It was meant to be an ongoing listening.<BR/><BR/>But I also don't think this "listening" has really started because TEC has undermined the premise on which it was to be based (as I have pointed out above). TEC is the main obstacle to any "listening process" from moving forward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-87898931851628323592008-05-11T10:13:00.000-04:002008-05-11T10:13:00.000-04:00RE: "Sharon, if the Listening Process was already ...RE: "Sharon, if the Listening Process was already completed, then why did both the Windsor Report and the 2005 Primates Meeting in Dromantine ask for it to begin?"<BR/><BR/>There was no "Listening Process" to "complete" Malcolm. All the 1998 resolution indicated was that they would "listen".<BR/><BR/>The Windsor Report desired to put together a "process" . . . and that's perfectly fine.<BR/><BR/>The end result will, of course, be the same as both sides are committed to their respective and mutually opposing gospels.<BR/><BR/><BR/>SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-89906178451370264622008-05-11T01:16:00.000-04:002008-05-11T01:16:00.000-04:00Phil, James (and I think ASH is making a similar a...Phil, James (and I think ASH is making a similar argument),<BR/><BR/>It is a unique balancing act to say that Lambeth resolutions are not binding, but that everyone should abide by them anyway - which is what you seem to be saying. The danger is, of course, that the majority of a collection of bishops is not always right. You would all (I suspect) argue that this is the case with the American House of Bishops. Athanasius certainly found majority decisions of bishops to be problematical. And those majorities actually do have canonical authority - a canonical authority Lambeth does not have, has never claimed, and has specifically rejected several times.<BR/><BR/>You will find, I think, that there have been any number of liberals who have taken an institutionally conservative position on the question - one example being at least two Canadian bishops who "outed themselves" as having voted against the General Synod resolution to authorize dioceses to proceed with blessing same sex unions on the grounds that the advocates had not done their theological homework.<BR/><BR/>I can certainly respect (and indeed, have some sympathy with) the argument that the Canadians and Americans "should" have acceded to the Lambeth resolution while conceding that they were not obligated to do so.<BR/><BR/>This does lead me back to my initial comment on this thread. Arguably, the tactics that Akinola, Venables et al have pursued have been counterproductive in moving the Canadian and American Churches to refrain from eating this metaphorical meat.<BR/><BR/>Sharon, if the Listening Process was already completed, then why did both the Windsor Report and the 2005 Primates Meeting in Dromantine ask for it to begin?<BR/><BR/>(Windsor - ". . . [W]e recommend that the Instruments of Unity, through the Joint Standing Committee, find practical ways in which the ‘listening’ process commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 may be taken forward, . . .")<BR/><BR/>(Dromantine - ". . . [W]e pledge ourselves afresh to that resolution in its entirety, and request the Anglican Consultative Council in June 2005 to take positive steps to initiate the listening and study process . . .")Malcolm+https://www.blogger.com/profile/08469936715413110334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-78691940392186251252008-05-08T22:37:00.000-04:002008-05-08T22:37:00.000-04:00Anonymous (#15), you have set up a false dichotomy...Anonymous (#15), you have set up a false dichotomy. Your choice is between a Communion in which all partners except two respect the recommendations of the majority at Lambeth, and no Communion, in which <I>nobody</I> respects them. The problem of the Communion, as I have attempted to explain (at greater length) <A HREF="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/03/what-authority-does-general-convention.html" REL="nofollow">here,</A> is that it works only so long as its members are willing to abide by its (non-binding) recommendations. TEC and the ACC (Canada) were not willing to do that, and were willing to "tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level," so now we are working through the consequences of their deciding to do that at the expense of the Communion.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-30762566249992701722008-05-08T19:44:00.000-04:002008-05-08T19:44:00.000-04:00Either we are a Communion in which case TEC has a ...Either we are a Communion in which case TEC has a case to make about "incursions" - which of course aren't breaking and Communion wide Canon Law and are only prohibited by Lambeth Resolutions which have no canonical force.<BR/><BR/>Or<BR/><BR/>We aren't a Communion and each Provine is entirely free to do as it sees fit. Thus TEC pursues its own "distinctive" path and affirms that Nigeria and Rwanda can do just as they see fit too, including setting up churches where ever they fancy.<BR/><BR/>You can't have it both ways.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-48825787316467424382008-05-08T17:54:00.000-04:002008-05-08T17:54:00.000-04:00Of course, if Lambeth resolutions WERE binding, th...Of course, if Lambeth resolutions WERE binding, then Nigeria and some other provinces would be in a pickle since 1998 1.10 also called for provinces to undertake a deliberate process of listening to the experiences of homosexual persons.<BR/><BR/><BR/>No, it didn't. It stated one thing entirely different: "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons . . . "<BR/><BR/>And in fact, ABC Carey led a series of listening times amongst provinces.<BR/><BR/>Mission accomplished. They listened . . . and they didn't change their minds.<BR/><BR/>SarahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-10507305826990072222008-05-08T17:43:00.000-04:002008-05-08T17:43:00.000-04:00This is actually a good example to cut against you...This is actually a good example to cut against your overall point. If TEC had actually decided to follow <I>"Lambeth I.10, then the Communion as a whole would be involved in the listening process right now, and the Communion as a whole could look at the Nigerian legislation and decide on whether that violated the spirit of Lambeth I.10 or not. But TEC, by undermining I.10, has prevented that from happening."</I><BR/>Exactly! Nothing like cutting your own nose off to spite your own face!<BR/>JamesW always speaks words of wisdom! thank you JamesW!<BR/>One Day CloserAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34346296.post-79314391343578875962008-05-08T13:13:00.000-04:002008-05-08T13:13:00.000-04:00Malcolm: Nobody is claiming that Lambeth resoluti...Malcolm: Nobody is claiming that Lambeth resolutions have binding legal authority over the Anglican Provinces. However, being "in Communion" means that important doctrinal decisions made by the conciliar Church bodies will be respected and adhered to. Not because it is legally required, but because that is what Communion partners do. The difference between being a Communion and being a Federation is largley one of attitude, not legality.<BR/><BR/>As I have stated, the listening process called for by Lambeth I.10 cannot start on a Communion-wide basis until the basic issue is settled. It is not settled because TEC and its allies continue to fight the resolution.<BR/><BR/>An analogy: there is a crosswalk in front of a school. Some commuters complain and say that this causes a traffic jam making them late for work and that they should get to ignore the crosswalk. There is a community meeting and it is decided that in the interests of student safety, the crosswalk will remain in place. It is further decided that meetings will begin with the commuters to see if a solution can be found for them to get to work on time.<BR/><BR/>Then after the meeting, the commuters begin to call again for the crosswalk to be eliminated and they turn all the subsequent meetings into strategy sessions for eliminating the crosswalk. The school administrators then decline to participate in any further meetings.<BR/><BR/>It is impossible to hold listening process meetings if a significant player (TEC and its liberal allies) are seeking to undermine the very structure in which the listening process is to take place, and indeed, the very core rationale for the listening process.<BR/><BR/>Malcolm, you also speak to Akinola's apparent support of legislation prohibiting homosexual displays of affection in public. This is actually a good example to cut against your overall point. If TEC had actually decided to follow Lambeth I.10, then the Communion as a whole would be involved in the listening process right now, and the Communion as a whole could look at the Nigerian legislation and decide on whether that violated the spirit of Lambeth I.10 or not. But TEC, by undermining I.10, has prevented that from happening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com