Posted on 06/13/2005 4:47:22 PM PDT by sionnsar
ECUSA isn't even pretending anymore. Louisiana's Chuck Jenkins, the Nottingham delegation's "conservative," writes his clergy:
In an attempt to honor the Windsor Report and a request made by the primates of the Anglican Communion, a series of presentations will be made to the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) which convenes on June 18 in Nottingham, England. The ACC represents one of the four “instruments of unity” of the Anglican Communion, serving as an advisory panel to the Archbishop of Canterbury. These presentations make up only one part of an ongoing process. They seek to explore the theological issues surrounding human sexuality when viewed through the lens of “scripture, tradition, and reason.”
The presentations will be made by members of an ad hoc committee that has been charged with the specific task of evaluating how a fuller understanding of the issues of human sexuality might enrich the Anglican Communion; it has not been asked to represent in any official capacity the views of the House of Bishops or the Episcopal Church as a whole. After thoughtful consideration the committee was selected by the Presiding Bishop and his Canon Theologian. It is comprised mainly of the theologians who are best able to articulate the viewpoint being addressed by the Anglican Consultative Council at this time. Each presenter will represent his or her own convictions; they have not been charged with representing the position of the Episcopal Church.
From the February, 2005 Anglican Primates' statement:
Notwithstanding the request of paragraph 14 of this communiqué, we encourage the Anglican Consultative Council to organise a hearing at its meeting in Nottingham, England, in June 2005 at which representatives of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada, invited for that specific purpose, may have an opportunity to set out the thinking behind the recent actions of their Provinces, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the Windsor Report.
Paragraphs 140 and 141 of the Windsor Report:
Within the Episcopal Church (USA), the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops concluded as late as March 2003, that
"Because at this time we are nowhere near consensus in the Church regarding the blessing of homosexual relationships, we cannot recommend authorizing the development of new rites for such blessings. For these reasons, we urge the greatest caution as the Church continues to seek the mind of Christ in these matters."
but in August of that year, the 74th General Convention commended the development of public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions as being within the bounds of the Episcopal Church (USA)’s common life (see , paragraphs 27 and 123) without formal theological justification or consultation in the Communion.
The clear and repeated statements of the Instruments of Unity have also been to advise against the development and approval of such rites. Whilst proponents of actions in the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) may argue that such advice has only moral authority, we believe that it must be recognised that actions to move towards the authorisation of such rites in the face of opposition from the wider Anglican Communion constitutes a denial of the bonds of Communion. In order for these bonds to be properly acknowledged and addressed, the churches proposing to take action must be able, as a beginning, to demonstrate to the rest of the Communion why their proposal meets the criteria of scripture, tradition and reason. In order to be received as a legitimate development of the tradition, it must be possible to demonstrate how public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received.
"An attempt to honor the Windsor Report and a request made by the primates of the Anglican Communion," Gracie? If Chuck Jenkins asks me to turn down my CD player because three of his Precious Moments figurines have been knocked to the floor by Vaughn Williams, the Sex Pistols, Richard Wagner or the Modern Lovers, depending on what mood I'm in that day, and I tell him that I'll attempt to turn the volume down, does that mean that he'd go away happy?
I'll admit that since English is the only language I speak, I can't see loopholes nuance as well as ordained Episcopalians can. But that might have something to do with the fact that I don't make a habit of looking for them; if someone asks me to do something, I generally try to do it. I'll translate Chuck for you: we're only doing this so we can keep our "historicity" and so that it doesn't look like we caved in to a bunch of reactionary conservative Bush-supporting Nazi bigots and African reactionary conservative Bush-supporting Nazi bigots at that.
This is what ECUSA thinks of the rest of the Anglican world and of the Anglican and Christian traditions. So it would benefit orthodox Anglicanism in America immeasurably if the rest of the Anglican world would finally drop the idiotic Anglican inclination toward "dialogue," present ECUSA with an ultimatum and do so sooner rather than later. Because time is not on conservative Anglicanism's side; many of us won't wait forever.
Thanks to Stand Firm(Louisiana) who has just been added to the links here.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. The tipping point has already been reached. The traditionalists ( my term of art ) just want out. We've realzied there is nothing there for us anymore..Heck, If I miss it, I can always paint my garage door red..
My barf alert monitor is going crazy right 'bout now.
In order to be received as a legitimate development of the tradition, it must be possible to demonstrate how public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received.
It sounds to me as if they intend to ignore scripture and reason in order to manufacture an immoral "tradition."
Spot on.
The tradition of marriage was established immediately after the Creation of Adam and Eve, this tradition has existed unchanged, throughout history in all cultures. Any attempt to change this is to assert that the very term "tradition" has no real meaning whatsoever.
But remember, these are the same people busily engaged in redefining "tolerance," "diversity" and "is." Orwell was right.
Where are you headed? We are going to order these Tshirts:
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.