6 forum messages posted by
L Weber+
| Messages (newest first): |
[Sort by Oldest first]
|
|
| General Synod motion concerning ACNA |
| 1 [15318] Posted by: L Weber+ |
Sunday 14 February 2010 - 01:20am |
Mr. Sawyer, I guess I was user # 2090. I've added my name now. I am an assistant priest in the Diocese of the Holy Spirit, ACNA, in Albuquerque, NM. |
|
|
|
| General Synod motion concerning ACNA |
| 2 [15284] Posted by: L Weber+ |
Thursday 11 February 2010 - 03:53am |
I wonder if I could get your comments, Bp. Kings, on the following quote, which comes from an old friend of mine from seminary days. He's helped me to see things differently in this situation -- would you agree with his points? [This is from the Stand Firm discussion of the Synod's decision.] Thanks, LW+
Let’s be clear about a few things:
1. Liberals and TEC are unhappy with the resolution. Undoubtedly they will try to spin it along the lines of some of the above comments, but there can be no doubt that if the liberals held sway, it would have been defeated.
2. The original vote would have had no practical effect either - it simply was expressing a “desire” of Synod.
3. In light of point #2, this resolution was always ever going to be “symbolic” in nature. Parsing it out legally is of little use, because neither this motion nor the original one was going to make the ACNA part of the Anglican Communion.
4. The resolution which was passed makes some important points:
a) The Synod indicated it is “aware of the distress cause by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada”. BabyBlue is right to point out this significant language. The Brits recognize what is going on in North America as a split WITHIN the “Anglican churches”. How would TEC frame the issue? They would say “distress caused by recent schismatic actions prompted by foreign bishops interfering in TEC.” The Synod has framed this issue very positively for ACNA.
b) The Synod “recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family”. Much is being made that it is only the ACNA “desire” that is being “recognized” and “affirmed” but I think that this mistakes the import of this declaration. The terms “recognize” and “affirm” are not neutral terms - they imply a positive quality. The motion did not say that Synod “acknowledged” the desire, but rather “affirmed” the desire. If your daughter brought home a suitor and you met with this gentleman, and at the end you said “well, I recognize and affirm your interest in my daughter. Let’s see how this relationship develops over the next six months”, the clear indication is that of tentative approval. If you said “well, I acknowledge your interest…”, the indication is one of uncertain tolerance. If you said “well, I recognize your interest, but my daughter isn’t dating right now”, the indication is one of rejection.
I see this statement as saying basically “we are not rejecting you. We’d like to continue a relationship with you, but we need to study this further.” Realize that this motion could have been shot down, there could have been a motion critical of the ACNA, this motion could have been passed with very neutral language towards the ACNA. None of this was done.
In conclusion, let’s be realistic about what this Synod motion could have accomplished, the timing of it, and the vested interests which undoubtedly opposed it. What message will this send to Rowan Williams? A large majority of his Synod has just passed a resolution which speaks positively about the ACNA. I think that those suggesting that this is good news have the right perception.
|
|
|
|
| General Synod motion concerning ACNA |
| 3 [15282] Posted by: L Weber+ |
Thursday 11 February 2010 - 12:16am |
Bishop Kings, you write, "Interestingly, the summary of the debate, and most of the comments on the Stand Firm site, are somewhat negative. One commentator wrote, 'The amended resolution is a joke. It’s pretty much a reversal of their original resolution.'" Why 'interestingly'? I'm curious... LW+
|
|
|
|
| General Synod motion concerning ACNA |
| 4 [15277] Posted by: L Weber+ |
Wednesday 10 February 2010 - 09:32pm |
It's worth adding this link -- http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/2548 -- to the current discussion, as it has occurred so recently, the postponing of the South Carolina convention for reasons of encroachment there on the part of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. Here is a diocese that still remains in that church, but is now being harassed in a similar manner to what so many others of us have experienced personally, by parish, and by diocese across the country (and in Canada). Here's the latest round of the truth on the ground that needs to be addressed by our sisters and brothers in Christ in England and elsewhere with honesty, courage, and real compassion. L. Weber+ |
|
|
|
| General Synod motion concerning ACNA |
| 5 [15264] Posted by: L Weber+ |
Wednesday 10 February 2010 - 04:17am |
I still need to get more up-to-date on this discussion and the details of Ms. Ashworth's motion. But my husband, who is also an ACNA priest, and I were looking into your synod vote this evening here in NM. It was so discouraging to hear your response, Bishop Kings. What you say sounds right and good and logical about the Covenant -- and we would have gone along with you for several years. But the truth on the ground here is so much different than how you express it. I want to say this respectfully, but clearly: there has been what I would now call a real purge of orthodox Episcopal (now Anglican) parishes in the United States. You know that, but I'd like you somehow to hear more, and more deeply, how it has been. My husband and I are ones who held out so long -- and then have been disappointed over and over again by the inaction of the more northern and western bodies of Anglicanism. (We finally joined the ACNA in late September of this year, forming a new parish.) We used to be what we thought was fairly moderate -- but that has all changed, although we're trying to maintain soft hearts, with God's grace. What we've been under here is a strange but not uncommon kind of psychological persecution -- lies expressed as truth, truth expressed as lies. And it's not going to change. The US Episcopal Church is not going to abide by the Covenant, so what does that do for the rest of us who just couldn't stomach it any more and truly want to be in communion with fellow Anglican believers worldwide? Dean Key of Jersey will be here this coming week to hear some of our details. I beg you to ask for and consider some more, too -- not necessarily from the voices you're used to hearing, but others, on the ground here. Consider that the letter of the 'law' may be what you're following in your interview response, but it's not touching the spirit nor the reality of what is actually going on. It's crazy-making! And it's caused a lot of physical and mental illness here among clergy. We're always wanting to yell, 'Help!' and the very people to whom we'd like to yell just don't seem to 'get it'!! After spending a year in England, at Wycliffe Hall in the '90's through the Regent College/Vancouver Anglican Studies program, one of the best years of our lives and one of the best years of our education at so many levels, we keep thinking you'll hear. |
|
|
|
| Gen Con Rescinding Moratorium on Rites for Same Sex Blessings |
| 6 [12116] Posted by: L Weber+ |
Thursday 16 July 2009 - 06:36pm |
Yes, '...autonomy trumps interdependence'! So ironic given the trumpeting of the convention theme: 'ubuntu' -- 'I am, because we are'. No matter that that statement is already either heretical or completely theologically tone-deaf. But who cares about the 'we are'?!? Well, we've been experiencing this irony and double-think/speak for years!! From New Mexico... |
|
|
|
|
THE brutal murder of a soldier in Woolwich on Wednesday, in a suspected terrorist attack, has shocked and saddened people in the area, the Bishop of Woolwich, the Rt Revd Michael Ipgrave, has said.
Ed Thornton. Church Times 24 MAY 2013
Posted today
The Bishop of Woolwich has said he is "deeply saddened and distressed" to hear of a fatal machete attack on a man in south-east London.
Christian Today. 22 May 2013
22 May 2013
Iran has launched a public crackdown on dissent before next month's presidential election, executing two men charged with espionage and waging war against God, arresting a group of activists, including Christians, and summoning campaigners for questioning. Political prisoners in some of the country's most notorious jails have had their parole or visiting rights withdrawn and some transferred to solitary confinement.
Saeed Kamali Deghan Guardian 21 May 2013
22 May 2013
Michael Bourdeaux gives us a new insight into Margaret Thatcher
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
|
I wonder if I could get your comments, Bp. Kings, on the following quote, which comes from an old friend of mine from seminary days. He's helped me to see things differently in this situation -- would you agree with his points? [This is from the Stand Firm discussion of the Synod's decision.] Thanks, LW+
Let’s be clear about a few things:
1. Liberals and TEC are unhappy with the resolution. Undoubtedly they will try to spin it along the lines of some of the above comments, but there can be no doubt that if the liberals held sway, it would have been defeated.
2. The original vote would have had no practical effect either - it simply was expressing a “desire” of Synod.
3. In light of point #2, this resolution was always ever going to be “symbolic” in nature. Parsing it out legally is of little use, because neither this motion nor the original one was going to make the ACNA part of the Anglican Communion.
4. The resolution which was passed makes some important points:
a) The Synod indicated it is “aware of the distress cause by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada”. BabyBlue is right to point out this significant language. The Brits recognize what is going on in North America as a split WITHIN the “Anglican churches”. How would TEC frame the issue? They would say “distress caused by recent schismatic actions prompted by foreign bishops interfering in TEC.” The Synod has framed this issue very positively for ACNA.
b) The Synod “recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family”. Much is being made that it is only the ACNA “desire” that is being “recognized” and “affirmed” but I think that this mistakes the import of this declaration. The terms “recognize” and “affirm” are not neutral terms - they imply a positive quality. The motion did not say that Synod “acknowledged” the desire, but rather “affirmed” the desire. If your daughter brought home a suitor and you met with this gentleman, and at the end you said “well, I recognize and affirm your interest in my daughter. Let’s see how this relationship develops over the next six months”, the clear indication is that of tentative approval. If you said “well, I acknowledge your interest…”, the indication is one of uncertain tolerance. If you said “well, I recognize your interest, but my daughter isn’t dating right now”, the indication is one of rejection.
I see this statement as saying basically “we are not rejecting you. We’d like to continue a relationship with you, but we need to study this further.” Realize that this motion could have been shot down, there could have been a motion critical of the ACNA, this motion could have been passed with very neutral language towards the ACNA. None of this was done.
In conclusion, let’s be realistic about what this Synod motion could have accomplished, the timing of it, and the vested interests which undoubtedly opposed it. What message will this send to Rowan Williams? A large majority of his Synod has just passed a resolution which speaks positively about the ACNA. I think that those suggesting that this is good news have the right perception.