Comments on: Archbishop of Canterbury’s Statement on Los Angeles Episcopal Elections

By: Kelvin

Kelvin — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:48:55 +0000

Do I read the Archbishop correctly? Is he actually implying that he may remove the Episcopal Church from full communion if they confirm this election? Lets see what happens next.

By: Winter Traveler

Winter Traveler — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:57:33 +0000

Kelvin (#1), have you been eating those funny looking mushrooms again? The ABC is attempting to spin this situation based on the fallacy that the Episcopal Church (TEC) currently is still in full communion with the Global Anglican Communion, when in fact the Provinces which represent approximately 70% of the global Anglican population have been in a state of impaired communion or out of communion with TEC for a long, long time; well before this recent event took place. He conveniently chooses to forget that the “fabric of the communion” has already been “torn at its deepest level” as a result of the consecration of Vicky Gene Robinson. Everthing he says is so nuanced as to be meaningless. He intentionally muddies the water so no one can figure out what is really happening. He is a major part of the problem and no part of the solution. Why does anyone still give a hoot what he says? Watch what he does and not what he says, and you will see nothing but obfuscation and misrepresentation. Nero supposedly played the fiddle while Rome burned. Rowan is trying to play us while the Communion is unravelling under his very nose.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:05:37 +0000

Based on what happened after Gene Robinson, I would be skeptical of any significant action this time. The tear in communion is already very apparent, right now we’re left with damage control on behalf of instruments of communion that have shown themselves unwilling and / or unable to act.

By: Don't Panic

Don't Panic — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:00:58 +0000

I think he is saying, “Don’t confirm her…if you do there is little I can do to stop what will follow.”

The truth is, after TEC’s last general convention, this will simply make clear what many have been saying, that in fact the moratorium is over, and TEC itself has no resolve to reign these factions in. Indeed she approves. The worldwide communion is preparing to move on without TEC, and the next general convention in Canada may seal our fate as well in the ACC as well. Very many of the remaining conservatives (so-called traditionalists, evangelicals, anglo-catholics, and even some moderates I suspect) will see General Synod embracing same-sex blessings/marriages as the line they cannot cross. Others will no doubt see being second-class Anglicans (which is coming) in the communion as the last straw. Either way, the judgment upon the ACC may enter overdrive next summer.

By: AMPisAgnlican

AMPisAgnlican — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:55:42 +0000

TEC has made it clear that they don’t care what anyone else says, thinks or believes. They are going to do their own thing no matter what, even no matter what ABC says. Unfortunately for us, ACoC is going to follow suit.
We should all remember, and remind others of, Matthew 12:30

By: Don't Panic

Don't Panic — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:08:02 +0000

I don’t think the jury is out on what the ACofC will do. Oddly enough, it was a now ANiC Regent prof. (no not Packer) who told me “the future of the ACofC is evangelical.” The thing is, COGS is now about 40% conservative (and note, they tabled adjusting the marriage canon). The new prolocutor (+Stephen Andrews) is conservative. There are signs that as the boomers retire, the are being replaced in the HOB with a faithful lot (+Frazer Lawton, +Hawkins SK, +Andrews - and I suspect the list will grow and be more conservative in the future).

That said, I do not have a lot of hope - but I have hope. Truth be told, the number of bishops and priests who remain on the side of Jesus and the Scriptures in the ACofC still outweighs ANiC. And in my opinion, the battle is still being waged.

By: Don't Panic

Don't Panic — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:10:01 +0000

Just so there is no confusion, I meant “numbers” above when I said “the number of bishops and priests who remain on the side of Jesus and the Scriptures in the ACofC still outweighs ANiC” and should not be read to indicate in any way that ANiC folks or any of them are not on the side of Jesus or the scriptures. Of course, they all are (as far as I know).

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:10:57 +0000

So if numbers are on the conservative side, how did so many liberals get elected to positions of authority where they are leading the ACoC astray?

By: Ernest

Ernest — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:25:25 +0000

Political acumen.

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:36:01 +0000

#6 I really think that is largely dependent upon where in the country you live. I certainly don’t think that it is the case where I live - conservative people simply aren’t being ordained.

By: Don't Panic

Don't Panic — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:53:12 +0000

I agree Kate, and there is so much I could say of late about all of this (especially lawsuit in BC), but some might get me banned from the blog, and the rest is putting grey hair on the noggin.

By: Gerry O'Brien

Gerry O'Brien — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:11:09 +0000

Seems to me that everything the ABC says is nothing more than the same old, same old that has been coming from Canterbury for the past number of years. Nothing changes there and not likely anything will.
The TEC will continue on down their road as will the ACoC regardless of what “don’t panic” is “hoping?”.
We need to keep our vision forward and not backward. Forward on Jerusalem and not backward to Canterbury. I hope and pray that our leadership will keep steering in that direction.

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:35:30 +0000

#11 We’ve never outright banned anybody. Folks get put on comment moderation from time to time, but that’s it.

By: Eph 3:20

Eph 3:20 — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:49:22 +0000

Friends,

I have followed the whole divisive process now for seven years. The writing is on the wall. The genie is out of the bottle and will not be put back in. What we see in the US will now snowball. And the same will happen in the ACoC, just at a slower pace. Do not delude yourselves about the # of conservatives on COGS or among the Bishops. Even Conservative ones (Claude in NB and Patrick in Toronto) will not break. The marriage canon may not be on the table at Halifax, but that is to avoid and immediate and irrevocable split. Wait three years and CoGs will give its blessing to SSM, besides we already know it’s not a matter of core doctrine.

By: Don't Panic

Don't Panic — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:15:19 +0000

Eph 3:20, you sound like me most of the time. The personal problem I have in all of this is that God called me to serve in the Anglican Church of Canada as a priest, and I have struggled with the fact that he could do this, and has done this, and not only with me, but many others I have known, who I also know to be evangelical. I take comfort that in the days of Josiah things were way worse than they are for us now, and still the Spirit had not left the temple. I also take comfort when I see the state of the church in Corinth, a church that Paul calls “saints”. And I take comfort that the five censured churches in Revelation 2-3 still had lampstands during the rebuke. So the writing may be on the wall, and the genie may be out of the bottle, but the jury is still out, in my opinion. In my Bible, God does whatever he wants, and no one can stop him, and I am sure he has a plan for the ACofC. If I discover that His plan is for it to sink under his judgment, I will reassess to find out if I am supposed to go down with the ship, or not. And yes, the Bible has precedence for this too - his name was Jeremiah.

By: Eph 3:20

Eph 3:20 — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:55:23 +0000

Don’t Panic,
Here’s the rub though… if the Niagara sharing arrangement can be seen as an example, perhaps there is a way for all Anglicans to reconcile themselves within the ACoC and Communion. It may be dual tiered, but it just might work. I realize that SSM/SSB is the line in the sand for Conservatives, but need it be? Why this issue? There are all sorts of issues that could have divided us over the centuries and we always found a way to ameliorate them - music, liturgy, bells and smells, high church, low church, graven images, Mary - why make sex the final straw. I mean if scripture is the definitive guide we say it is, then why to we allow divorce, why don’t we tolerate poligymy, why don’t we invest more in teaching about authentic stewardship. Why, make this the dividing issue?

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:13:41 +0000

Eph 3:20 (#16), SSM/SSB was not the “line in the sand” for me. Maybe I’m not representative of others here, but my line in the sand concerning mainline Canadian Anglicanism as a whole came long before those terms had ever been coined. It has far more to do with liberal theology going back to the early part of the last century than it does with recent “innovations”. These recent innovations are just a natural outworking of that liberal theology and low view of Scripture.

By: stuck in Toronto

stuck in Toronto — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:43:40 +0000

It is my strong opinion (I have trouble being humble) that we must not lose sight of the fact that forces beyond human ones like “human sexuality” “polity” and various paradigms such as left and right or liberal/conservative are at work continually. The evil of P&P in the person of the prince of this world works with our various “human” fraility. The weapons available to us in our constant resistance are Spiritual and Devine, summed up in the saving Grace that is Christ Jesus. To put it another way ( I love doing that) - “Lean not on your own understanding”.