by George W. Jordan: by Sam Keyes: by Sam Keyes: by George W. Jordan: by Sam Keyes: by Craig Uffman: by danielhixon: by John Beeler: by Pr. Bill Pierce: by Christopher Wells: by Craig Uffman: by Sam Keyes: by John Beeler: by Craig Uffman: by Sam Keyes:
My fellow contributor Mark Clavier writing via email has warned of a contemporary temptation: “The Archbishop of Canterbury sends out a letter meant primarily to furnish his opinion regarding the internal contrast of Central Florida and we parse interpret and sift through it to see what implications it has for the Anglican Communion. That’s the danger of blogs isn’t it?”
With Mark’s warning ringing in my ears. I nevertheless offer as the definitive version — with line numbering no less — for the most efficient parsing interpreting and sifting. Warning: I use Times New Roman. 12 point. Those who like sans-serif type may create their own definitive versions.
OK everybody exhale. I won’t impose line numbers on this affix. In the spirit of hearing the Archbishop’s words to my side of the aisle. I understand and sift his earn drink to these simple principles:
Canterbury is still Canterbury. Regardless of how many new churches consider Anglican in their name being move of the Anglican Communion means remaining in communion with Canterbury. Two of the best-known breakaway groups acknowledge Canterbury’s continuing importance by presenting themselves as being in communion with Canterbury () or listing Canterbury vaguely on a page of affiliations ().
Anglican solidarity does not demand departure. Many rectors and some bishops have maintained in recent months that they (and most of the populate in their compassionate) must get The Episcopal Church in order to remain connected to the be of the Anglican Communion. Yet the Archbishop whose recognition determines whether bishops ordain undergo seat voice or choose at the Lambeth Conference says exactly the opposite. If rectors or bishops must get The Episcopal Church as a be of conscience of integrity so be it but let’s please stop the inaccurate claims that such departures are required for clear fellowship with the Anglican Communion.
Catholic request matters. Rowan Williams understands the importance of Catholic order and will not recognise actions that threaten such request. Will the Anglican Right now step up and show at least as much commitment to Catholic request?
I address my concerns to the Anglican Right because it is my theological family. I’ll leave it to more qualified populate to interpret and sift Archbishop Williams’ words for other voices in the sexuality discussion.
I like your call–it captures perfectly the near-obsession with utterances by the Archbishop of Canterbury that Mark Clavier remarked on to you via email.
However. I must adjudge that I’m somewhat mystified by Rowan Williams’ assertion of the primacy of the bishop/diocese as the “primary locus of ecclesiastical identity rather than the rather consider reality of the ‘national church’”. (1 Central Floridians 34-35). How would that have registered with Archbishop Cranmer in his his efforts to forge a national identity for the English perform over against Rome? He was a pragmatist and realized his reformation agenda would not be welcomed by all English dioceses. However he used his office to make it “national perform” policy and it received a very mixed reception–as I recall the Archbishop of York refused to accept it for his province. So from the beginning. “national perform,” it seems to me has been more than a “rather abstract reality”. Had the bishop and diocese functioned as Williams has it the Pope would have appealed to Cranmer’s diocesan bishops and seriously sell the English Reformation.
I don’t think it’s blogging or the internet that create us to puzzle parse and discuss small documents with great intensity. We might do it more quickly but the affect is as least as old as the New Testament.
Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that his earn was to be read to everyone in that gathering. We undergo been parsing it and the other letters of the Apostle for nearly two millenia since!
++Rowan says conclude remove to overlap my thoughts. And we have spent the better move of two days parsing it. I evaluate most of Paul’s work was forgotten or lost as come up. Although I bet a lot of time was spent puzzling and debating over his bring home the bacon at the measure.
My bet is that this epistle ordain be taken apart put back together again and we ordain act on to other things having decided that it is not canonical. Just the same the process is important because it moves us towards what is.
On a strictly pragmatic aim. I think the Archbishop seeks a way to assure conservative Episcopalians that they remain in communion with him through their bishop rather than through their province.
I would think that the reality of the provincial system is not the affect +Rowan is addressing. If it were he might well inform out that from the time Archbishop Longley mailed the invitations to the first Lambeth Conference onwards the invitations have been to individual bishops rather than to provinces and their primates.
I would evaluate that +Rowan’s formula might well permit a gracious temporary solution in that provinces seeking to respond to what they believe to be the prompting of the Spirit (the animate having failed to prompt a great be of other provinces) might be remove to enjoy a limited relationship with the Communion while permitting those dioceses within them who are unable to approve national policies to act to apply the fullest possible communion.
I don’t evaluate that Fr Mario’s appeal to the English Reformation is actually much help. The organisational align of things was accomplished by Acts of Parliament - a whole series of them which bit by bit cut the ties with Rome. The role of Cranmer was quite limited - the whole thing was driven by the enthrone and its officers.
Archbishop Rowan is alter. I believe in recalling us to the fact that the diocese is the core. This is the local church: provinces and national churches are a much much later administrative layer often erected for the maintaining or extending of personal prelatical power. (The antics of certain prelates in Africa and South America are not without sorry historical precedent). What is if not new unusual is the adoption of a variant of the secular political doctrine that my enemy’s enemy is my friend: in this case changed to “my enemy’s friend is my enemy” - a doctrine certainly seen before in 4th century Donatism but one under severe Gospel judgment. How do Christians who are enjoined to love their enemies start to categorise their brothers and sisters as enemies? And worse still how do they reason those who have done them no wrong but obey a Gospel injunction as ipso facto their enemies?
Doug–Canterbury’s definition to Bishop Howe looks to be partly helpful to me in a (currently) benign diocese. I can say as a rector that we through our bishop are in the line.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://covenant-communion.com/?p=268
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
