tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post113278288544140464..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: The Anglican TriadTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1133273204391845882005-11-29T09:06:00.000-05:002005-11-29T09:06:00.000-05:00That was a very good post; I found your discussion...That was a very good post; I found your discussion of provinciality especially helpful. As you seem to bring ideas into circulation here that need a much wider hearing, I think you should seriously consider working up and formally publishing this. On part III, concerning variety, you might add that we can only receive the fullness of God's perfection in a fragmented way: what is received is received in the mode of the receiver. It may well be that Anglican variety, and even disagreement, is necessary to a full imitation of Christ and reception of the Spirit. In that case, variety is something to be cherished and perhaps pursued--provided, as you might say, it is tempered with Humility and Provinciality.The Anglican Scotisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715779952262032127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1133194765882482802005-11-28T11:19:00.000-05:002005-11-28T11:19:00.000-05:00Tobias, Once again, I find that I agree more stron...Tobias, <BR/><BR/>Once again, I find that I agree more strongly with the classical Anglicanism in the ECUSA than the global south's innovative understanding of ecclesiology and authority. I pray that you are correct and that there will be "no serious schism."Jared Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01665647940543562091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1133191043385196552005-11-28T10:17:00.000-05:002005-11-28T10:17:00.000-05:00Thanks again, O, for the feedback. It is important...Thanks again, O, for the feedback. It is important to note that the recent directive to +Gene not to function in England is no different from the same directive that stands for all female bishops of the Communion. It is based on the "Clergy Ordained Abroad" measure, as I understand it, that says basically that no foreign cleric who could not be ordained in England can be licensed to function in England. Since the English rules at present disqualify "open" gay clergy (a risible situation given the rather open existence of a high percentage of gay clergy), +Gene was given the alert. It is his "fame" that brought this to public notice.<BR/><BR/>I do certainly agree that the situation we have is anomalous, and undermines the common definition of "communion" as concerning, among other things, mutual recognition of ministers and ministry. (In ecumenical talks this is often the sole serious point!) However, I'm willing to live with this in a process of reception, as the early church did with the matter of Gentile inclusion. This period of ambiguity is, I think, to be preferred to a formal schism. It is messier, but I think more in keeping with charity -- and practicality.<BR/><BR/>I do not think the Episcopal Church faces a "serious" schism. The number of dioceses that could muster enough votes within their borders to separate as a whole (probably leaving behind all real property) can be counted on one hand. In many dioceses there isn't a single parish that set on departure; in others again a few here or there. Don't get me wrong: this is a sad situation and I wish people could conform to the discipline of the church they vowed to uphold; but ultimately the American ethos of independence cuts all sorts of different ways. I still hope we may find a way to hang together, and as much as I dislike it, support plans for DEPO, and even, in some cases, retention of property by dissenting parishes. But a point does come when the communion must be more than "on the book" communion.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again,<BR/>TobiasTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1133159924592891642005-11-28T01:38:00.000-05:002005-11-28T01:38:00.000-05:00I am perhaps a three or four point tobiasist, not ...I am perhaps a three or four point tobiasist, not a full five pointer.<BR/>In his recent visit +NH was not allowed to take part in church services in London. So your point 3. is certainly a live option, as is point 4 especially if 3 applies.<BR/>Yet a communion of episcopal churches where not everyone is agreed who is a bishop or not is a strange thing in my view. But anglicanism is never neat.<BR/>Many western evangelicals wish that the communion loosens its ties, (reinforcing your point 1) and that some of the churches currently outside be invited in. <BR/>If there is a serious schism in ECUSA (and you are much better placed to determine the likelyhood of this than I) then your point 5 of bishops sitting with those they do not regard as bishops will have reached breaking point.<BR/>A looser communion may serve the interests of both right and left but neither side will get everything they want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1133122071683960312005-11-27T15:07:00.000-05:002005-11-27T15:07:00.000-05:00Thank you for the comment, Obadiahslope. Let me em...Thank you for the comment, Obadiahslope. Let me emphasize a couple of points:<BR/><BR/>1) The election of a bishop does not "touch" any other bishops than the ones who have the authority to affirm his or her election: that is, the bishops with jurisdiction of the Province, in our Episcopal governance. Even in this case his election in no way restricts the bishops who dissented from his election, or at least no more than in any other episcopal election.<BR/><BR/>2) The Lambeth meeting is <B>not</B> a synod or legislative body; it is, by its own terminology, a "conference" with no authority to make decisions binding upon anyone whatever.<BR/><BR/>3) Seats at Lambeth are by invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop could choose to address the concerns of those who are opposed to Bishop Robinson by not inviting him; or he could invite Bishop Robinson and let those who oppose him make their own choice.<BR/><BR/>4) How bishops who do not recognize (or approve of) Bishop Robinson choose to act is in their complete control; they are not "touched" by his election except as a matter of opinion, as his election in no way forces them to do anything.<BR/><BR/>5) In comparison with the election of women to the episcopate: While some still choose to believe that a woman <I>cannot</I> be a bishop, the most that can be said on the matter at hand is that a noncelibate gay or lesbian <I>should not</I> be a bishop; as far as I know, no one would question the validity of any ordinations performed by Bishop Robinson. Bishops seem to be able to sit in our own House of Bishops, and at Lambeth, with a number of persons whom <I><B>they do not regard to be bishops at all.</I></B><BR/><BR/>In conclusion, I think the Lambeth issue is likely the least problematic matter on the table. And I believe that having a real, live person to deal with is actually the best way to address this kind of situation in the church: it is a fiction that the church does abstract "theology" prior to action; almost all theology is reflective on things that actually take place. People baptized in the name of the Trinity long before there was a settled Trinitarian doctrine; and any number of significant theological questions remain unsettled after nearly 2,000 years of reflection.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1133113022542218052005-11-27T12:37:00.000-05:002005-11-27T12:37:00.000-05:00obadiah, my dictionary has "criteria" as (the plur...obadiah, my dictionary has "criteria" as (the plural of) "a standard, rule or test on which a judgment or decision can be based" . . . which in itself begs the question of who/how SETS the standards, rules or tests.<BR/><BR/>Was there (ever) an <I>agreed-upon standard</I> of <B>NO non-straight/non-male bishops</B>? Did any previous Lambeth ever lift up the cassocks to <I>test</I> for the required plumbing (and to test that said plumbing did react inappropriately around all the other bishop-boys?)<BR/><BR/>Have I made my point (ludicrously enough) yet? No EXPLICITLY agreed criteria, ergo no "unilaterally changed criteria". <BR/><BR/><I>If some provinces do not recognise +NH as a legitimate bishop how do you propse that we should get around this difficulty at Lambeth?</I><BR/><BR/>That's a very good question . . . but properly directed, IMO, at those having recognition problems. <BR/><BR/>However---since you asked: perhaps those who have the problem could simply abstain in their (episcopal) votes? That way, they could avoid acknowledging that +Gene's vote was equal to theirs (such a polite abstention would also be, needless to say, a dramatic witness of their humility and TRUST in God. It would then parallel the abstention that ECUSA and the AngChCanada made at the ACC this past summer).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1133084789027403762005-11-27T04:46:00.000-05:002005-11-27T04:46:00.000-05:00There is one rite, and possibly only one, that tou...There is one rite, and possibly only one, that touches all provinces in the Anglican Communion and that is the seating of a bishop in their see. Thats because they meet at Lambeth. To unilaterally change the criteria for Bishops as ECUSA has done twice seems to me to violate your second principle of humility. Or to put it another way it presumes upon the humility of the rest.<BR/>If some provinces do not recognise +NH as a legitimate bishop how do you propse that we should get around this difficulty at Lambeth? You might argue there has been no difficulty over Women bishops, but that followed consultation within the communion and logically proceeded from the communion discussion concerning womens ordination in general. <BR/>In choosing to bring the question of the ordination of gays before the communion ISTM ECUSA chose possibly the worst way to proceed. For bringing the issue forward in the person of a bishop invited(?) to Lambeth is a very messy way to proceed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1133022955261507852005-11-26T11:35:00.000-05:002005-11-26T11:35:00.000-05:00Dear JC,You are quite correct; that was sloppy on ...Dear JC,<BR/>You are quite correct; that was sloppy on my part and an instance of haste. I will correct the original document more accurately to reflect the issue of governance rather than communion.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1132986000592052082005-11-26T01:20:00.000-05:002005-11-26T01:20:00.000-05:00Another well-reasoned analysis, Tobias, except for...Another well-reasoned analysis, Tobias, except for this:<BR/><BR/><I>?The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.? (37)<BR/><BR/>Few things could be clearer than that the church of England separated itself from communion with Rome at the Reformation.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Huh?<BR/><BR/>I would say that the Church of England (under its Royal Governor) revoked the BofR's jurisdiction therein at the (predictable) <B>price</B> of communion . . . but NOT that "x=y". <BR/><BR/>We <I>will</I> (as we always would) share the <B>Kiss of Peace</B>. We will <I>not</I> (at this time, under past/present conditions) <B>Kiss the Ring</B>. ;-/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1132955758695980302005-11-25T16:55:00.000-05:002005-11-25T16:55:00.000-05:00Thanks Christopher and DC. Thessalonians was much ...Thanks Christopher and DC. Thessalonians was much in my mind, as I've been doing a <A HREF="http://ekklesiastes.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">"preaching series"</A> on it in the weeks leading up to the Last Sunday After Pentecost. I think it is time for the <I>real</I> "classical Anglicans" to stand up and be counted.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1132948569411657212005-11-25T14:56:00.000-05:002005-11-25T14:56:00.000-05:00Tobias, your thesis ties in nicely with 1 Thess. 5...Tobias, your thesis ties in nicely with 1 Thess. 5.19-21: "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. <I>Test everything. Hold on to the good.</I>" (Emphasis added.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-1132794555072289602005-11-23T20:09:00.000-05:002005-11-23T20:09:00.000-05:00This all seems very sensible as one who is a histo...This all seems very sensible as one who is a historian and liturgist...local development does and does not become universal practice in time, depending on reception. Humility in matters contested rather than reasserting the same old line when some portion no longer buys it. Most importantly, I liked you holographic rather than branch understanding as I think it explains more clearly my understanding of the marks of the Church from an eschatological perspective.Closedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04752595488795781895noreply@blogger.com