THE MCJ

I suspect that many moderates and liberals won't be comfortable in the presence of Abp. Venables who is a warrior for Christ and who is unashamed of the Gospel. All the more reason for him to be there and hold them accountable for their compromise of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the souls some are leading straight to perdition.

In the combox our host says: "I'm beginning to get a feeling that the final confrontation's coming at Lambeth, that a lot of orthodox bishops will go there just to tell Dr. Williams to his face that the game is over." Brings to mind Charlie Brown when Lucy's set up the football for yet another try. These Anglican bishops are the same people who have lived in thick rich fudge for decades (perhaps I should have said "lived into thick rich fudge").

I'm hoping that's what's going to happen. If you're going to break fellowship you need to make it a public declaration .

Hey, Windsor/Camp Allen Bishops know how to stand firm in faith. Remember how much noise they made at the New Orleans HOB meeting last year after the Network bishops left? They know how to stand up and be counted, and to have their dissenting voices heard because they really take their God-given responsibilities to protect and defend their flocks seriously.

Ain't no "fear" in Bishop McPherson. Bishop Howe, Bishop Stanton, and Bishop Salmon, three of ACI's board members, are courageous defenders of the faith according to academics Chris Seitz and Ephraim Radner. Bishop Marc Lawrence came from Bishop Schofield's San Joaquin diocese. Surely he must have gotten an infusion of +Schofield's moral courage. Sarah Hey loudly proclaimed that her Bishop Dorsey Henderson is most definitely orthodox. And what about that woman bishop who disciplined the Islamipalian priestess? Yowsa! That took a lot of moral courage, don't ya think?

So don't ya think you can get at least 3 of the bishops out of the bunch I named to file a presentment against PBess Schori? Tell me the truth. I can handle it.

Someone said that you need 3 bishops to file presentment charges against the PBess. If so, then ACI has three of them on their board: Bishops Howe, Salmon, and Stanton. Let those 3 ACI bishops file presentment charges against +KJS which will show that they are capable of action, and not just talk and position papers.

I read an article a little while ago (I cannot remember where right now) where the point was made that all that is required by the orthodox at this year's Lambeth Conference is for enough to show up and announce that since the Anglican Communion has failed to defend "the faith once delivered," that they are no longer going to participate in this foolishness. Then they must walk out. But the announcement must be made publicly and in person.

I would hope that is what +Iker, ++Venables and others plan to do. If they do not, then anathema to them also! It is time to call the Anglican Communion to accountability. If it refuses, then it is time to move on. Quite frankly, the present state of the vaunted Anglican Covenant is such that it is a meaningless effort. That way lies death.

So I would like to hear a clarion call for accountability after which those who truly serve the Lord shake the dust from their sandals and walk out. If they do not, then they truly are lost.

Well said, Chris. There's no chance that the PB will be disciplined by the same denomination which refused to discipline John Shelby Spong despite his numerous heresies. But someone needs to take a stand anyway.

I would hope that is what +Iker, ++Venables and others plan to do. If they do not, then anathema to them also!"

I fully agree.

Otherwise, if +Iker, ++Venables slavishly follow the published Lambeth agenda for the entire time like mindless, docile Stepford Wives and also share in the Eucharist with the PBess, +Bruno, +Chane, +Spong, +Ingham, et al, then they are aiding and abetting the raging fires of heresy and apostasy in TEc and the Anglican Communion. I hope they do exactly as you suggest Allen Lewis. If not, they are shaming Christ almost as much as the PBess and the ABC.

PEcUSA is lost to Christianity. The remaining (relative) “conservatives” in it thus should have two goals:

(1) Primarily, to help extricate anyone who wants to remain an Anglican Christian—indeed, a Christian of any denomination—out of it.

(2) Secondarily, to do so while keeping, if possible, the goods which the parishes have paid for (and the national organization has not) and which they hold in trust for preserving the faith which previous generations gave it to—rather than letting the national organization steal it to sell off to fund its continued persecution and destruction of that same faith.

 
Pushing for this presentment—which the objective facts clearly support, even though the politico-apostate-stacked committees would vote it down without any regard to honesty or truth—helps both these goals.

First, it raises yet another “red flag” which might help to catch the attention of all those ‘Piskies who keep their heads firmly planted in the sand and try to pretend that their national organization hasn’t abandoned Christianity or that it makes no difference to them, personally, if it has.

Second, it ties up those resources (financial, legal, staff, etc) in the national organization which would otherwise be used for the continued persecutions, theft, and inforced apostasy. Thus it creates more “space” for people to leave in good order, slowing down the timetable of the apostate destruction of PEcUSA, and it reduces the available resources available to the national campaign of theft and intimidation.

Sure, the resolution will never past the apostate committees of an apostate organization. But that really doesn’t matter—who cares who’s head of a non-Christian organization nor what Fascist policies she applies. Heck, once the current “conservatives” are gone, they’ll just turn on each other and continue to spiral into oblivion.

Yet even though it won’t pass—regardless of the obvious merits and strength of the case—it still can accomplish something positive.

 
pax,
LP

Title IV, Canon 3, Section 23a requires the consent of three bishops, or 10 or more priests, deacons and communicants “of whom at least two shall be priests. One priest and not less than six lay persons shall be of the diocese of which the respondent is canonically resident.”

If +Iker and ++Venables (et al) capitulate and betray their Global-South colleagues, history will NEVER, EVER forgive or forget them!!!!

So chill out dude.

1. as stated earlier, some things need to be said in person

2. Good excuse to get some good scotches and beers that are hard to find in the colonies

"It’s very welcome to see a new generation of laity and churchmen, as they confront what PEcUSA has become, to rediscover the proper catholic response to heresy and apostasy—to realize that spiritual schism requires institutional separation, rather than pretending that institutional union can some how paper over or excuse spiritual schism.

The fact is, though, that this principle has been applicable to PEcUSA for decades now—arguably since 1962, and certainly since 1976."

LP... spoken like a good pilgrim.

I actually agree with a commenter by the name of "Carl" over at StandFirm on this issue. Absence from Lambeth speaks far louder than presence at Lambeth. And if you're going to be present at Lambeth as an "orthodox" Anglican bishop, then the only genuine contribution you can make to the Body of Christ would be for you to follow what Allen Lewis suggested above. And it should be done collectively by all the GAFCON bishops who are also attending Lambeth. They should all stand up, make a statement about the charade at Lambeth, and then walk out en masse. Let the London newspapers report it and have Ruth Gledhill get into a juicy tizzy about the walkout.

But if ++Venables, +Iker, et al stay the whole time at Lambeth and docilely follow the planned agenda, then that's just a magnified equivalent to the Windsor Bishops who failed to register any audible noise of dissent at the New Orleans HOB. Nor were they even able to file a minority report. Pathetic. Sad. Moral cowardice.

Only two options for "orthodox" Anglican bishops with respect to Lambeth: (1) Go to GAFCON only and absent yourself from Lambeth. Or (2) Go to Lambeth with the pre-meditated plan to walk out en masse after making a public announcement.

Anything less would be moral cowardice, and make you essentially unworthy of being a bishop for Christ and a bishop for your flock dedicated to protecting and defending them by contending for the faith once delivered to all the saints.

A safe rule: if the ACI gets behind something, be as cautious as you would be approaching a skunk with its tail up.

Toral

Hmmmm, wise counsel Toral. If I'm not mistaken, ACI is also urging that all invited bishops to go to Lambeth too. So ACI must be rejoicing that ++Venables and +Iker are going to Lambeth. Then the "orthodox" bishops can say they were part of the Listening Process at Lambeth on how the Anglican Draft Covenant will work to the betterment of all concerned. Happy, happy, joy, joy. After all, the important thing is that Anglicans can all worship together.

Come on, Sasha, OK, so the Camp Allen bishops are spineless, but +Iker?! He's brave beyond belief, and has never put a foot wrong when it comes to defending the faith once delivered. I trust him, and I am confident there is a plan.

How is Jack Iker “brave beyond belief,” A-man? What make you “confident there is a plan?” What personal risks has Jack Iker taken for the Faith in the 15+ years that he's had a purple shirt? What price has he been willing to pay to stand up for his beliefs? How many times in the past 15+ years have you been “confident there is a plan,” only to see Jack Iker and his fellow ESA/FiF/Common Cause/group of the day “bishops” do nothing except issue yet another Strongly-Worded Letter™ that accomplished exactly nothing?

There have been men in Fort Worth who have been “brave beyond belief.” +A. Donald Davies was a brave man. Fr. Allan Hawkins was a brave man. Fr. Patrick McCauley, God rest his soul, was a brave man. Those are men whose birettas Jack Iker has not yet shown himself worthy to carry, much less Bp. Davies' crozier.

We have seen what Williams, Griswold, Shori, VGR, Crew, Russell, Wilkins and their colleagues in cause are (crosses absent on purpose)by what they say and do. Their cause is their own gratification and glorification. We have seen that they do not fear God nor respect His Word nor keep their own word. Their words are meant to adorn one kind of paper and then flushed.

OTOH, Fr. Hawkins walked away with the property of St. Mary the Virgin, including it's new mortgage, but the congregation shrunk dramatically in the 2-3 years it too to get the rescript back from Rome to ordain him and erect the parish. It was a hard time.

Fr. McCauley (May light perpetual shine on him) risked - and lost - the property of Holy Apostles/St. Peter's and lost about a third of his congregation. BTW, I don't know who thinks Texas will be good to secessionists; the diocese of Fort Worth won - in court - on that case. Probably the only reason St. Mary the Virgin kept it's property was Bp. Pope's sympathy toward Catholicism plus the new mortgage and the unanimous vote that would leave no one to pay it.

Fr. James Hart, now the chancellor of the Catholic diocese of Ft. Worth, passed over the call to a comfortable Dallas parish and became a Catholic priest. He resigned a comfortable living and led a congregation of 30-40 souls for about 2 years, meeting in a funeral home chapel until their rescripts came back. I could go on.

I really do admire these men for the stands they have taken, but it's always helpful to remember that this isn't Russia, China, nor an Islamic country, nor Nazi Germany. No one will go to jail or the gallows.

Who considers himself in the mold of historical, traditional, conservative, orthodox Anglicanism Christianity and who desires to be worthy of the name and calling of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then you have two choices with respect to Lambeth:

(1) Go to GAFCON only. Absent yourself from Lambeth.

(2) Go to GAFCON and Lambeth. Show up, make a public statement with numerous signatures, then walk out en masse.

If not dear Anglican bishop, then you are aiding and abetting, enabling, approving and affirming the charade and mockery of heresy and apostasy that's looking for dignified and respectable cover in the shallow proceedings of the Lambeth Conference.

Walk out or let enduring shame cover your legacy.

While I don't agree with some of them and while I think that attendance at Lambeth is not necessarily a bad thing, the people who comment here have been burned over and over again for the last five years. It should surprise no one that skepticism would be a first response.

Because that's what conservative Anglicans have earned.

However the emotional tenor of the orthodox may be far worse if by August 2008, repentance does not occur. A