Pete Hobson wrote:

"Come on Carl, that's coming on a bit strong isn't it? It was, indeed, a gentle suggestion."

No, I don't think it was strong at all.  For two reason:

1.  It was self-evident that the attacks on nerson were motivated by ideological animus.  It was not the fact that nerson was posting frequently that earned him any attention.  It was the fact the nerson was posting conservative arguments.  Do you honestly think the commenter in question would have made such a comment about (say) pluralist?  The suggestion is laughable on its face.  This was simply an appeal by a specific commenter to the weblog owners to silence a particular commenter because of the ideology of his comments.  Although this is entirely consistent with my experience of 'tolerant, inclusive' liberalism, it is not what I have come to expect from Fulcrum.

2.  By making any suggestion at all (however gentle, and I admit that it was gentle) that nerson take a 'breather,' the weblog owners gave the commenter in question exactly what she wanted.  It put pressure on nerson to post less, and validated the case against nerson.  It rewarded what was in effect an ideologically motivated attempt to silence an opponent.  Such behavior should be clearly repudiated and not rewarded. 

"As it is, if a few more people don't join in the discussions, with some fresh points, maybe i'll take my keyboard elsewhere too for a bit. They do get a bit repetitive."

Just curious.  What 'fresh points' are missing? 

carl

James - I respect the call to simply leave the property because that is not the main concern, and beyond a certain point that may be the thing to do. Still for the sake of clarity if it is the case that the diocese is simply being what it has aimed to be all along, committed to the gospel and part of historic Anglicanism, then staying with what has been been built by the people and in the keeping of the diocese may make a statement or give witness.

Certainly be generous and give up properties where there is a real issue, e. g. because a substantial number of people in a particular church are remaining with TEC. The further point is that if the property is simply left behind the diocese may be occupied with generating or building facilities for some years to come and what happens to mission?

Ben W

James - I agree with you totally re just leaving property rather than going to court, even if that is not fair etc. That would be in line with the bible.  I think +Duncan and +Schofield would be on even stronger ground if they did that........the law suits are sad to see, a sign of horrible failure  -  and another reason for the exclusion of TEC from the councils of the AC. But, you are right, +Duncan et al could just give up the property, showing how unimportant it is to their faith and mission ultimately....hard to do, very hard indeed, but probably the right thing in this situation and something that would bear much good fruit.  (But I can understnad why they do not....not saying I would do any better than them in the tough situtation in which they live and work)

Ben, I'm sure there are all sorts of arguments to be made - probably on both sides. I'm very much an outsider to all that, and just commenting on how it looks from an outsider's POV.

If this is how the people of the diocese feel it's hard to imagine a more powerful testimony than seventy or so silent empty churches without, and no one to pay the stipends of anyone that might come in. Meanwhile in meeting rooms or private homes or other temporary facilities across the diocese lively vibrant churches would be meeting and worshipping.

To James - I think you have a point if it can be said that the diocese is leaving historic Anglicanism or if this had been imposed on the diocese in some arbitrary way. As it is they are standing with the wider AC (and continuing in the faith they have received), and the whole process was very deliberate with the full participation of the people. 

Keeping the properties is not "the issue." Only if the above is true, they are continiung as part of the historic AC and this was done in an open valid way with the support of the people, does it follow. What is right about a "departing" group coming in and taking over what has been in the keeping under God of the diocese that remains part of the AC? What is right about people who have not given to or built the facilities of the diocese to think they can just come in and assume them? The diocese will simply continue as they have with the resources that God has granted to them to serve the mission of Christ.

Ben W

As I said below, I think Bishop Bob Duncan has compromised the clarity of the moral and theological stance he seems to wish to take by his attempt to take the worldly wealth of the church with him.

I think Matthew 10.11ff provides a better guide to how he should have behaved if his action was to have true prophetic power.

Thanks Carl -  actually, what I found strange was that I was put down for posts responding to issues on the basis of a post from Madeline which was neither on topic nor constructive...... I guess different rules apply to "conservatives".

Still, I am pleased to see that people like +Duncan, +Iker and +Schofield are not falling into the trap of "listening" forever, even to ideas which are contrary to scripture, for fear of being labelled in some negative way if those ideas are not accepted.  I hope the CofE contains enough  leaders who do not fear being labelled "conservative" and will stand up against false teaching so that we do not, in time,  get into the same mess as TEC. 

I still think that ST Paul had the right idea (being inspired and all that!) about how to deal with false teachers in the church (eg Galatians and Corinthians) -  he was more of a Churchill than a Chamberlain, but then he was an apostle of one who said that He did not come to bring peace but division......... on the basis of truth.

"perhaps, Nersen, it may be worth having a breather for a short time and see what develops. No need to do so, of course, just a suggestion..."

Even so, how is he supposed to take this suggestion from the owner of the blog?  This seems to put the onus of nerson for doing nothing wrong.  The frequency of his posts do not affect whether other people can or cannot post.  If liberals do not find sufficient representation of their viewpoint, they are free to pick up a keyboard and post.  But this seems a deliberate attempt to quiet nerson by those who don't appreciate his views.  His posts are neither aggressive nor unbalanced.  But they do seem to irritate some individuals.  "Shut up, nerson, we don't want to hear from you!" seem an unfortunate message for the owners of this blog to implicitly validate.

carl

If the split is to be kept in the USA there's already the problem of the split in Canada; then when you look South from there, into the Spanish-speaking world, you realize that the split is along the lines of TEC vs. UK influence; then when you note that there's a lot of traffic between North America and the old country it's a little hard to see just how the split isn't a problem for the whole institution...  That's not to say 'bring it on', but to take seriously the fact that the decisions of two provinces have severely damaged the ecosystem...