Posted on 07/13/2004 11:22:47 AM PDT by ahadams2
AFRICANS WILL LEAVE ANGLICAN COMMUNION SAYS CHURCH SOCIETY LEADER
By David W. Virtue
Come October the Africans will leave the Anglican Communion following the conclusion of the Lambeth-Eames Commission, because they think the report will be little more than a "fudge", says David Phillips, General Secretary, Church Society.
Writing in Anglican Mainstream, the online voice of orthodoxy in the Church of England, Phillips said, "There is no doubt that the Africans in particular do not really understand the western church. They do not understand they way it plays politics in bodies such as the General Synod or the Primates meetings. They do not understand how 'fundamentalist revisionist' Bishops in the US can persecute Christians and others turn a blind eye, they do not understand how some leaders can blatantly lie to them and they do not understand why we are so lifeless as a church and why we have sold out so thoroughly to the culture around us."
These views were expressed at a meeting called by Anglican Mainstream at General Synod and included various leaders in the Anglican Communion - Greg Venables (Primate of the Southern Cone), Stephen Nyorsok (Bishop of Kitale, Kenya), Peter Rwaboma (Uganda) and Ellis Brusk (the new Network in the US).
"It is evident that none of them expect the Lambeth Commission to do any more than Rowan Williams and Robin Eames wanted it to do - produce a fudge," Phillips is reported as saying.
Anglican Mainstream is a community within the Anglican Communion teaching and preserving the Scriptural truths on which the Anglican Church was founded.
Church Society exists to promote a biblical faith which shapes both the Church of England and the society in which we live for the sake of Christ.
END
Ping.
LOL! it's only Tuesday and it looks like Ken may have already come up with the Anglican suggestion of the week!
It must be confusing, to say the least, to grow up in Africa reading and believing the Bible and the Faith that was imparted to them by Western missionaries of old, and then run into frauds like the current Archbishop of Canterbury and the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA.
Ahh, yes, that response registers with me. In the olden days 200 years ago before the Western missionaries came, my ancestors had a merry old time committing incest, fornication, murder and a host of other evils.
We gave up the old ways and became good Christians. Now we are being called homophobic, old-fashioned, intolerant and a host of other names for not approving a return to the immorality of the past. I can tell you, this does not play well in Christianized Polynesia, including Tonga, Samoa and Aotearoa (New Zealand). The Maori primate of New Zealand speaks for many Pacific Island Christians.
Regards,
Kaehu Rowing
As a postscript, for those who have been Christianized by Western missionaries, we feel a lot like John the Savage in Huxley's Brave New World. In fact, Brave New World is a pretty close analogy to what is now going on in the Church.
Am I crazy, or has anyone else noticed this great racial divide? It seems to me that the vast majority of "faithful" Christians are just about every race and ethnicity except White. Why do you suppose that would be the case?
Try this one on for size:
Instead of leaving the Anglican Communion, the Primates could inform Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair that if they don't act quickly and decisively (QE2 is "Defender of the Faith"), then they would have no choice but to depose the Archbishop of Canterbury and install a new Archbishop. Then ask the Queen if the ensuing schism within the Church of England and its demise would be something she would like to have as part of her legacy.
I would submit that the heretics neither know, nor understand their own history. Prior to being converted to Christianity, the ancestors of many of us who are of European descent were doing everything Polynesians were, plus ritual human sacrifice, openly trafficking with demons, and so forth...I half expect to see one of the members of the heretical leadership show up for some important event with his/her/it's body painted blue; thinking it's some new fad he/she/it just discovered.
"Instead of leaving the Anglican Communion, the Primates could inform Queen Elizabeth and Tony Blair that if they don't act quickly and decisively (QE2 is "Defender of the Faith"), then they would have no choice but to depose the Archbishop of Canterbury and install a new Archbishop."
It has already been repeatedly implied that this in fact will happen under the circumstances cited in this article. I'm also fairly certain that HM is aware of the situation. Tony Blair, on the other hand, is a 'new agey' wacko who I fear doesn't even really understand the problem.
Queen Elizabeth is a life-long traditional Anglican, who must be appalled by the crisis. However, her hands are completely tied by the current system. She can only rubber-stamp what is given to her by the Archbishop of Canterbury. She does have influence with him but it's a secret how much she can influence church affairs as Defender of the Faith.
Another problem of her problems is Prince Charles, 'new-age'-influenced heir to the title, and openly living in sin. On the other hand, the Queen doesn't want him to marry his mistress either because she could have already used her influence with Rowan Williams to push this forward.
Here's a prediction. The Anglican Communion will split apart in October. The western portion (except for Bishop Duncan's Network) will stay under the Church of England. The rest will go along with the African Primates. Rowan Williams will push to allow Prince Charles to marry Camilla and this splits the evangelicals from the liberals in the Church of England's House of Bishops. All of this makes the Queen very unhappy but she has to give in because her hands are tied. Implosion of the worldwide Anglican Communion as we know it but watch the rise of the worldwide Anglican bible-based conservative Network.
I guess the bottom line question in my mind is whether or not HM is willing to exercise Royal Authority which still exists on paper, but hasn't been used in several hundred years.
Good question. The way the Queen works with the Commonwealth ministers is discreet behind-the-scenes pushing and pulling. She might become much more forceful with the Church of England if she sees the worldwide Anglican Communion coming apart under "her watch".
The inside scoop is that HRH already acted on behalf of defending the Faith: that it was she who turned tide when Jeffrey John was appointed bishop. (I have heard this from more than one reliable source).
According to the Elizabethan Settlement, which I do not believe has ever been done away with in any manner, the Sovereign is still sovereign in matters of the Church. While she has better sense than to intervene often or lightly, she can still put her royal foot down. The foot has been put and can be again.
This whole thing is the very antithesis of boring. When I get to heaven, I am going to ask for just the first 20 minutes to be some boredom, just for a rest.
I concur - I have received the same information about the Jeffrey John incident.
Well, keep the faith! What goes around comes around, and we may need you to send missionaries over here to Christianize US someday!
You wrote "I've heard that as well, but if so, why did the Supreme Governess not stop Johns from being appointed Dean of St. Alban's?"
Because a dean isn't a bishop. I know, I know, but remember in the UK bishops are 'peers of the realm' - members of the House of Lords - while deans are not. It would appear that HM sees that as the 'break point' so to speak.
HRH didn't put her royal foot down very hard; Jeffrey John is now Dean of St Albans- arguably a higher profile position than Bishop Suffragan for Reading. Part of the Elizabethan Settlement was that no shenanigans were tolerated. Can you imagine how any of the Tudors, as well as James I and even Oliver Cromwell would handle the problems in the CoE?
If the Defender of the Faith wants to live up to her first name and first title, she should initiate a royal house cleaning in the Church of England from bottom to top. Otherwise, it's an open question as to who would last longer- Elizabeth II or the Church of England.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.