Skip to comments.+Wright spells it out for us [ECUSA] again
Posted on 05/04/2006 12:59:06 PM PDT by sionnsar
Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham, England, was a member of the Lambeth Commission, which issued The Windsor Report. He is also one of a select group of English church leaders who have met with the Archbishop of Canterbury to prepare for the aftermath of ECUSA's General Convention. On April 28 he wrote an article for The Church Times (England) that spells things out again for ECUSA.
His very good homey illustrations don't hide his beartrap mind. ECUSA Bishops and Deputies to GC will blow this off to their own harm.
To understand all the recommendations in Section D (moratoria, etc.), he urges us to:
Note carefully what is said in the crucial paragraphs 134 and 144: We invite the persons concerned with the events in New Hampshire and New Westminster to express regret that "the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached" in the actions that were taken.
This is far more than merely saying, in effect: "We regret that some of you werent up to speed with modern thinking, and so have been puzzled and hurt." It is saying: "We recognise that there were proper constraints, belonging to the bonds of affection at the heart of our common life, and we went ahead and breached them." Everything else follows from this.
I'll admit I'm a little slow sometimes, but I just got the full dynamics of the request about regret. I wasn't snowed by the language of the Special Commission's Report regarding regrets and repentance, but I may have been thrown off track.
I saw in the initial regret statement by the House of Bishops that they were regreting the pain they caused. And the Report of the Special Commission has that offensive, sneering: "We repent of any failure to consult," rather than the direct "our sure-nuf failure to consult." Puke!
But Wright opens the request up perfectly: "there were proper constraints and we went ahead and breached them" by our actions regarding New Hampshire.
Coming after a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, this lesson must be heard by GC if it wants to remain in the Anglican Communion. The stakes have been raised. How good is our hand, really?
Thanks to Kendall Harmon for picking up the Times article.
"We recognise that there were proper constraints, belonging to the bonds of affection at the heart of our common life, and we went ahead and breached them."
How about.... we were WRONG. Homosexuality is a sin and should not be glorified or blessed any more than adultery or stealing or any other SIN should be.
I can dream, can't I?
This is obviously a term of art. Can anyone explain in simple term what this refers to? 39 Articles? The [Something] Quadrilateral? Book of Common Prayer?
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.