I am an Anglican captive of the Episcopal Church!

Response to the article below from a friend who is a Navy chaplain:
This comes from compromising with liberals since even before WW II.  Rowan Williams is a pussy and always has been.  He's a liberal in all, but name.  Sadly, even reading the African Bishop's BS it seems his mired in the same leftist crap that is killing the Western Anglican Church.  Keep of the victim mentality and his followers will be ordaining queers in a generation or two.  Anglican Churches have got to divorce themselves from cry baby politics.  The best thing that happened to Africa was European colonialism.  The worst thing was independence and being ruled by savages.  Blaming Europeans and the West for the failures of African civilization or the lack of it is not going to make for a strong Church.


As posted on the BBC:

In Error and Apostate --

The Anglican Division Looms

Posted: Monday, June 23, 2008 at 4:22 am ET

The world-wide Anglican Communion has been skating on thin ice for decades now, skirting disaster only by an infinitely creative arrangement of compromises. Now, with the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops coming in just a few weeks, a group of 300 conservative Anglican bishops is meeting in Jerusalem. Their meeting will make history, and may well define the ultimate breakup of global Anglicanism.

The Global Anglican Future Conference [GAFCON] featured an address by Dr. Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria, on Sunday evening. Archbishop Akinola has emerged as one of the most courageous and theologically committed leaders of worldwide Anglicanism.

In his address, delivered as something of a keynote for the event, Archbishop Akinola declared that "a sizable part of the Communion is in error and not a few are apostate."  This gets to the heart of The Anglican dilemma. The issues now separating liberals and conservatives within the global Anglican Communion are no longer matters on which compromise can be reached. To the contrary, the doctrinal and theological explosions connected to the issues of human sexuality and biblical authority have distilled the fundamental issues down to what is considered non-negotiable by both sides. Conservatives are unwilling to surrender biblical authority and the liberals are unwilling to surrender their determination to normalize homosexuality and other liberal causes. In reality, the division has already happened -- all that remains is the final form of the division.

As Archbishop Akinola lamented, doctrinal "revisionists" have attempted to create a new religion in the place of historic biblical Christianity. In his words: "Clearly the bedrock of the revisionist perspective is the humanist, rather than theological approach. This is the crux of the problem: they are going in the opposite direction from what Biblical orthodoxy demands, and with such a mindset, a meeting-point with those who are labeled conservatives – who have chosen to stand where the Bible stands, becomes a very remote possibility."

As Ruth Gledhill of The Times [London] reported, Archbishop Akinola expressed frustration that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams had arranged the upcoming Lambeth Conference in such a way that dealing with the fundamental issues would be virtually impossible. "Rejecting all entreaties, Lambeth Palace chose not to be bothered about that which troubles us; decided to stick to its own plans and to erect the walls of the 2008 Lambeth Conference on the shaky and unsafe foundations of our brokenness," he said.

Meanwhile, Archbishop Peter Jensen of the Australian archdiocese of Sydney described the Anglican breakup as tragic. Nevertheless, Dr. Jensen insisted that the issue of truth was more important than the imperative of unity. "We're not dealing with the secular world here, we are dealing with the Christian church, and the Christian church has a constitution which is the Bible," he said [see coverage in The Age [Melbourne].

In his address, Archbishop Akinola described how many Anglican believers around the world, especially in Africa, view the liberals in Western churches [see The Times]:

"Having survived the inhuman physical slavery of the 19th century, the political slavery called colonialism of the 20th century, the developing world economic enslavement, we cannot, we dare not, allow ourselves and the millions we represent to be kept in a religious and spiritual dungeon."

"We will not abdicate our God-given responsibility and simply acquiesce to destructive modern cultural and political dictates."

Even as the meeting began in Jerusalem, observers were warning that the day of the Archbishop of Canterbury's spiritual leadership over the Anglican Communion "is over."  The GAFCON meeting produced a plan for a new fellowship of more orthodox Anglican churches.  As Ruth Gledhill explains:

The new fellowship for orthodox Anglicans would have a leadership of six or seven senior conservative bishops and archbishops, such as the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Right Rev Bob Duncan, who chairs the US Common Cause partnership that acts as an umbrella for American conservatives, Archbishop Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda, and the Church of England's Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali.

The aim is not to split with the worldwide Anglican Communion, which counts 80 million members in 38 provinces, but to reform it from within.

Formal ties will be maintained with the Archbishop of Canterbury but fellowship members will consider themselves out of communion with provinces such as the US and Canada.

There are orthodox and faithful Christians in the American and Canadian churches, but those in leadership in those churches have steadfastly refused to stop an onward march into theological and ecclesiastical disaster. 

Jerusalem was a controversial location for the GAFCON meeting.  But, after all, the famous "Jerusalem Council" of the early church was held there as recorded in Acts 15:6-21.  In that council, the apostles and elders of the early church met and reached the consensus that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for both Jews and Gentiles, and that Gentile converts to Christ were not required to first become, in effect, Jews.

Perhaps we are seeing before our eyes what we should have anticipated -- that Jerusalem is a good place to remember what the Gospel is.

 
   

 


 
 
semiomniscient on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
I think he's is a bit out there.  The Africans and other third-world Anglicans are in great affect what's keeping the Anglican church from total apostacy.  They aren't going to be ordaining "queers" any time soon... Africans would be the last folks to allow it.  And they are victims.

  Divorcing from "cry-baby politics?"  What do you suppose they do?  Schism?  That's such a tired, worn out, Protestant tactic.  IT DOESN'T WORK.  I don't see how this is cry-baby politics either really.  Churches do things by calling councils... they are making resolutions, calling the heretics out on their heresy. 

 

Colonialism the best thing that happened to Africa?  Colonialism based upon the satanic idea of Social Darwinism and the enslavement and oppression of fellow human beings?  Oh yes, that's the best thing since sliced bread.  Colonial authority carves up their land on arbitrary lines and says "happy independence!"  Oh yes, such greatness.  Give me a break.

culdeedeacon on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
Actually yes, Africa North of the Sahara is largely Muslim and South of the Sahara it is still largely pagan. It is being turned toward Christ with the largest groups being the Roman Catholic and the Anglican Faiths. I do not see Africa doing at all well. Let's see, AIDS started there and is pandemic. The cry baby politics is the African bishops worried about what the Muslims will think about them because of what is being done here in the US or Canada. Besides did you read the letters from the African Bishops? When the colonial powers were there there was reasonable stability. Look a Sudan! People are starving. Look at the genocide that has taken place in East Africa in the past 15 years or so! Do I buy that Africa is a place of Light? Not hardly! Actually, I find it interesting that many of these meddling African bishops RETIRE here to the USA! How do I know this? I have met them! So, if these African bishops want to ostracize TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, etc. I say good riddance!

CuldeeDeacon +  
semiomniscient on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
The Africans HAVE to care about what the Muslims think about Christians.  Muslim communities are either ignorant or deceived about what Christianity teaches... they judge Christianity by looking at the adherents... And they're probably right in doing it.  Giving God "Glory" is about reputation... if we can't give our God a good reputation, then why bother pretending to serve Him?  We're not in a position in our country where we need to pander to Muslims to avoid our people being slaughtered or otherwise persecuted.  We worry more about what liberal-thinkers think about us because we are vying for power with them--in our Churches, in our Homes, in our Governments, in our Public Places, and in our Schools.  The African Christians have to worry about different things than we do.  Why should they not seek to right wrongs in their own Communion?  Isn't that what Bishops are called to do?  Homosexuals in the clergy is just wrong.  Allowing or performing same-sex unions in a church with Christian blessings is again, simply wrong.  Little has been done by Rowan Williams.  "Now, now, we want you to not do that anymore.  But we won't do anything if you do."  It's stupid and inneffectual.  What's the point of having bishops without extending authority?  Do we just want guys in funny hats?  I can go Roman if I want funny hats... they're better at it. 

Colonial authority was ineffectual and they left their own damn mess and expected the natives to clean it up.  You cannot go conquer a bunch of rival savage tribes who live by violence and "might makes right," give them khaki shorts, boots, and guns--then abandon them whenever they are having major cultural clashes.  They were set up to fall, not out of malevolence, but ignorance, arrogance, and utter stupidity.  Africa is indeed a place of darkness, but there, the pin-points of light appear all the greater--and should be extolled with greater honor for their perseverance.

culdeedeacon on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
James, You know that I have great respect for you and your faith. I believe you know my position as well and know that I too believe. I am quite upset over the course of events within the Episcopal Church (TEC). However, I am less than thrilled these days over the meddling of the African Archbishops. Here is an editoral that appeared in our local newspaper which was written by Father Ken. I like what he says.

CuldeeDeacon +

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am disappointed with your article of June 21 titled “An Anglican mission: African bishop encourages Baton Rouge church.” I believe that the article could unnecessarily confuse or offend some readers. I wish to clarify some items.

Episcopalians are Anglicans and are recognized as such by the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is the official representative of the Anglican Communion in America. It is erroneous to suggest otherwise.

The Anglican Mission of the Americas Church mentioned in the article is not recognized throughout the Anglican Communion in this way. It should not have been suggested through the comments of the interviewees alone what the Episcopal Church teaches.

To wit, the Episcopal Church does not deny the Resurrection or Deity of Jesus Christ. The article could seem to suggest otherwise. Belief in the Resurrection and the Divinity of Christ are the bedrock of the Episcopal faith.

The Anglican bishop featured in the article did not have (or seek) permission from the local Anglican bishop as is required to even be present on official church business. His presence violates protocols among Anglican dioceses and bishops, and violates the Windsor agreement in which bishops were asked not to do what this bishop did in visiting this congregation.

The bishop’s comments about the Episcopal Church are also unfortunate and divisive. It is scandalous that an Anglican bishop would foment division in this way.

I believe that your article is unbalanced and misleading in its reporting of the Episcopal Church. While this is likely unintended, nevertheless a reader could easily be confused by its content. Certain teachings presented in the article could be understood by readers to be factual teachings of the Episcopal Church. The article suggests in comments that the Episcopal Church is heretical and disintegrating. On the contrary, the Episcopal Church affirms its faith in the Resurrection and the Deity of Christ, is growing in many areas and is doing much good ministry among the faithful.

In fact, the Episcopal Church and this diocese have been leaders in the post-Katrina recovery in our state.  The author should have made it clear that the statements made by those interviewed do not necessarily reflect the teaching of the Episcopal Church. He should have mentioned that this bishop violated protocol. He should have also mentioned any attempt (if any) to corroborate certain facts with a responsible authority of the Episcopal Church.

It is wrong to feature one church while allowing another to be unfairly criticized and impugned. Perhaps The Advocate could obtain a response to this article in regard to the teaching of the Episcopal Church and comments made about the Episcopal Church in the article, and perhaps feature the significant and good work being accomplished by this church.

The Rev. Ken Ritter
rector, Trinity Episcopal Church
dean, Baton Rouge-South Deanery, Diocese of La.
Baton Rouge

semiomniscient on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
Father Ken is probably right.  But I want to know where the authority in TEC is... and the Anglican Communion at large.  Where's the Queen in all of this?  (And on a side note, what happens if the monarchy falls?)

Honestly, I think the Episcopal Church is failing.  It is terribly sad, but it is.  The same can be said for the PCUSA and the ELCA and the United Methodist Church (among others).  They have greatly forgotten the Gospel and have replaced it with "altruistic generic-theism."  You can't simply call a generic god "Jesus" and call yourself Christian.  I know there are many of the faithful in all of those church-bodies I named, but there are many of the unbelieving serving as clergy and leading many astray and hijacking the communions for corrupt ends. I am beginning to understand the trouble with the African bishops, but I have to see their position too.  They are standing for the Truth of the Gospel without swaying for an incredibly politically unstable Episcopal church.  I applaud them for not choosing schism, but revival.  But the fact of the matter is that Protestantism has proved that schism is so much easier--and the attempts at revival usually lead to schism anyway.

culdeedeacon on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
James,
This is exactly what Father Ken is getting at. Yes, there are some ultra-liberals who have done exactly what you are saying but to paint the vast majority of Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists as not being faithful to the Gospel I would beg to differ. The problem is that during the Vietnam War there were some liberal thinking men who tried to avoid the draft by escaping into divinity schools and seminaries. Now some of these men and a few women have made it into positions of leadership within these mainline denominations. However, regardless of these ultra-liberals, these churches have, by and large, remained faithful to the Gospel.

There have been more serious theological issues presented by the ultra-liberals. Some have been the result of feminist thought that has attempted to blur the lines of gender by using things like gender neutral language when making reference to man, i.e., mankind. This attempt at being gender neutral has spilled over into the way some of these people talk about God. Even to the point of heresy regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by "altruistic generic-theism" or not. To me, this is way more serious than the issue of female bishops or homosexual bishops. (I personally do not have a problem with female deacons as I believe that can be supported from the New Testament. I do not think female presbyters (priests) or bishops are supported by either scripture or tradition.)

As for the African Bishops...I have been thinking hard about this for the past few days and of course for the past few years. I toyed with the idea of AMiA (African Mission in America) myself but I think it is in error itself. It has, as Father Ken said, violated the Windsor Agreement.  I do not see these African and South Asian bishops as modern day prophets. In fact, just the opposite. I see what they have done is in truth schism in the name of so called orthodoxy. They come off looking for all the world like a bunch of prissy holier than thou firebrands.

As for their choosing "revival"...I do not think that is something the bishops have any control over. That is the sole provence of the Holy Spirit. (Remember that the Charismatic Renewal begain within the Episcopal Church in 1958 or 1959 and continues to this day!) If He decides to spark revival or another "Great Awakening" it will happen. If this is the time of the "Great Falling Away" then that also will happen.
semiomniscient on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
Revival is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is men that are often the means of God.  King Josiah was such a man of God's means.  He was a lot more schismatic don't you think?  "Go back to the orthodox ways or die."  I think the African and South Asian bishops are in the right as far as sticking to orthodoxy.  If you're part of a communion that teaches or allows heresy (or does nothing to its bishops when they are blatant heretics and blasphemers), what can you do but leave if reform does not work.  God gives men the power to run His Holy Church.  He makes some men shepherds of others.  Shall a good shepherd let his fellow shepherd lead their shared flock over a cliff?  A good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. 

Again, what is the Windsor Agreement, and why can it not be broken?  If it allows heresy such as is being condoned through silence, then it should, by God, be null and void.

semiomniscient on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
Bytheway, the general congregants of the aforementioned churches, might here in the south often be believers... but much of elsewhere (and including the south) they are led astray to varying degrees.  
culdeedeacon on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me..." John 10:27

Interesting that I should be taking a position that relies on God's Sovereignty as opposed to you the Calvinist. Smiley

Yes, of course the Lord uses men to do his Will but He has been known to use an ass and a whale as well. My point is God chooses the time and the place for revival. I think it is going to take a whole lot more prayer and desire for revival to take place.

the Windsor Report was an agreement undertaken by the Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 2004. If I remember correctly it asked that for the time being that no further homosexual bishops be ordained and that the bishops wouldn't meddle in the affairs of other bishops dioceses or something to the effect that primates wouldn't interfere with other provinces.

There are various points of view on this as evidenced in the following sites/blogs:
http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/08/non-windsor-compliant-bishops.html

http://www.anglican.org.nz/Resources/windsor2004full.pdf

http://www2.anglican.ca/faith/identity/wrrg-response.htm
semiomniscient on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
Well the Windsor Agreement is I think an error in that it prohibits bishops from doing their jobs on a larger scale as leaders of the Anglican communion.

And it was a big fish, not a whale, that swallowed Jonah.

culdeedeacon on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
James,
Bishops are responsible for their dioceses while the primates (archbishops) are responsible for their provinces. It is bad form to interfere in another bishop's territory. That is what some of the African bishops have been doing.

Whale or big fish it doesn't matter, the point is that the Lord can use more than mere man to do His will.
semiomniscient on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
Well that's where the Anglican communion is apparently faulty in its governing structure.  I mean there's obviously a problem there.... little accountability it appears.
culdeedeacon on
Re: In Error and Apostate -- The Anglican Division Looms
James, here is Tom Wright's take on the situation:

Anglican communion a 'train wreck', says bishop

The Anglican Communion is like a "slow moving train wreck", according to a senior Church of England bishop who has given an extraordinary insight into the crisis that is engulfing the Church.

 

The Rt Rev Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, has revealed that there is deep unease over the future of the communion and an atmosphere of mutual suspicion among bishops.

His comments come as about 650 bishops meet at the once-a-decade Lambeth conference in Canterbury, with continuing division over the issue of homosexuality.

Bishop Wright, a senior figure in the Church hierarchy, expressed concern that the summit was lacking direction and admitted that the Anglican Church was in a mess. "All sorts of forces have built up over the years in the communion through misunderstanding and people doing things differently without really consulting," he said.

"Sooner or later this was all going to meet and hit the buffers. It's been like a slow-moving train wreck."

The bishop, who is highly respected and a close friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury, told The Sunday Telegraph that the presence of American bishops involved in the consecration of Gene Robinson, the first openly homosexual Anglican bishop, was proving divisive.

"A lot of people here have a lot of questions about why the American bishops are here," he said. "Those questions are in the room."

Around 250 bishops, mainly from Africa, have boycotted the conference in protest at Dr Rowan Williams's decision to invite the American bishops, whom they hold responsible for causing the schism. Organisers have drawn up an agenda lacking any major votes or debates in the hope that it will limit ­conflict.

But Bishop Wright said that there was mistrust between the different factions over who was going to make the next significant move. "It's like a very odd game of cards," he said. "We're all being very civil and talking politely, but people are wondering who is going to play which card next and hence what responses may be possible."

Bishop Wright added that the summit was lacking direction and questioned how effective it would be.

"There's a sense that we're all not quite sure where this is going. That's the mood of the conference. It is gloriously confusing at the moment and slightly worrying in that one has no idea what's actually going on."

The bishops will spend the majority of the next two weeks in private "indaba" groups – modelled on the consultations held between Zulus.

"It's impossible to see how this is likely to play out," said Bishop Wright. "It'll be 40 people around a table for two hours. Three minutes each and that's your two hours gone."

Dr Williams has admitted that the crises in the "wounded" Church are not likely to be resolved by the conference, but he is keen to gain support for an "Anglican covenant" which could act as a rule book of beliefs that can unify the Church.

Bishop Wright stressed that the adoption of the covenant would be a "hugely important" breakthrough. However, the chances of its succeeding look bleak after leaders of the Global Anglican Future conference – a breakaway movement – attacked the role of Dr Williams yesterday.

They expressed concern at recent comments by the archbishop, complained that discipline in the Anglican Church was "long overdue" and backed a statement that described plans for the covenant as "seriously limited and severely flawed".


 
Login to replyToggle picture size
 

Latest Comment
Re: so excited i could scream - hey laur, it's Mel >.> Long time no see chica! I have been trying to fin

Read...


 
© 2005-2007 MindSay Interactive LLC
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
My Account
Inbox
Account Settings
Lost Password?
Logout
Blog
Update Blog
Edit Old Entries
Pick a Theme
Customize Design
Modify Plugins
Community
Your Profile
Wiki Pages
MindSay Tags
Video & Photos
Geographic Directory
Inside MindSay
About MindSay
MindSay and RSS
Report Spam
Contact Us
Help