Anglican Communion Partners = Quislings with an Anglican whitewash.

I simply cannot understand how anyone could be so naive as to imagine that there could be an inside strategy in TEC. I remain in it for much more mundane reasons – 1. I don’t want to spend the rest of my career in court, 2. I hate scandal and brouhaha, 3. I am preventing my parish church’s magnificent structure from becoming a preaching station for heresy while educating my people, 4. my congregation is healthy and even growing, which is not something I want to splinter and reverse, 5. I’m carefully observing, and acting, in a prudent and (hopefully) farsighted manner.

nuts, ochi, bupkis, that dog won’t hunt, not in my back yard, in yer dreams, when pigs fly, some assembly required, not suitable for children under 5, batteries not included.

I did rather like his analogy of fireproofing the building. The only problem with his analogy is that the Covenant will be a treatise on HOW to fireproof the building, but won’t ACTUALLY fireproof it. So we’ll be left with a burning building and a piece of paper in our hands. That paper will tell us how we COULD have done something about it, if only we had actually DONE something about it instead of WRITING about doing something about it.

To expand upon your general sense that it may not perhaps eventuate in the manner as hoped-for by Dr. Harding: in Irish, there are two ways to express the conditional tense, “má” and “dá”. Both mean “if”, but “má” is used should the possibility exist in fact. “Dá” expresses terms of a condition on which a possibility rests. It cannot be used to say whether or not the action is carried out. The use of “dá” only states what might be if the possibility existed.

“Má” is used when there is certainty, or a likelihood of the outcome happening, or if the topic is not impossible, e.g. “I have sixty cents and IF you lend me forty cents, I would have one euro.”

“Dá” is used when the event is unlikely, difficult, impossible, incredible, fantastic, or beyond the suspension of disbelief, e.g. “IF the moon was made of green cheese, wouldn’t there be mice living there?”

“All this begs the question of what shall be done in the meantime to fight the fire and limit the damage so that there may be something upon which to rebuild.”

This is a “dá” question.

“All this begs the question of what shall be done in the meantime to fight the fire and limit the damage so that there may be something upon which to rebuild.”

It gets a little tricky when many of those working on the fireproofing plan think the fire is a good thing, and think any attempts to put it out would be unacceptably divisive, and are only going along with the discussion of a possible fireproofing plan reluctantly, and have made clear that they have no interest in actually carrying out the plan if it is ever completed.

“The Anglican Covenant process is still a key ingredient in the rebuilding and renewal of a world-wide Anglican Communion… ” and so on… What a crock. Where do people come up with these far-fetched fantasies? It’s gotta be drugs or a need to be accepted by liberal-ass academics. Alchohol is too mild to induce this kind of hallucination, so there must be ego and cocaine involved. I state this with clown certainty.

For Dr. Harding, the entire ACI, “Windsor” bishops, “moderates”, institutionalists, do-nothings, heads stuck in the sand,

The ersatz covenant is a stab in the dark with a dull butter knife – and poorly aimed to boot! The covenant has been DOA, kaput, less than zero, a non-starter, tugging Superman’s cape, spitting into the wind, pulling the mask off the ol’ Lone Ranger, a wasted effort (cause the other side ain’t gonna give, no way, rock and a hard place, irresistible force/immovable object, no compromise, no negotiation, “mediation” is a joke to them) – since the very beginning up to this very moment. THE COVENANT CANNOT POSSIBLY WORK. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER!!!!!!

Understand? Comprender? Capiche? BEGRIPA? понимать? Verstehen? εννοώ? Razumjeti? Understand-ay? 懂? ?לִהַבִין

Hey Dr. Harding et al, THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!!! FYI, that’s y’all!

Good LORD, these folks just don’t get it at all do they? Where are my blood pressure pills?

The main defect of these proposals is that they are developed without consulting the very people they are supposed to help and are promulgated without a clear signal that those to whom they are supposed to offer relief, see their needs adequately met.

No, once again, Christians cannot remain in ECUSA under any terms whatsoever – even (Senior Priest) if ECUSA stopped all litigation and made promises that were legally binding that they could never start litigation again; even if constitutional protections were established to both preserve property and prevent interference in church governance; even if no funds were ever transferred from Christians to ECUSA; and even if ECUSA made an equitable division of its trust funds to the Christian dioceses, clusters, and networks.

(Of course they’d never ever buy the last point – remember that for a split or coexistance to be marginally fair, Trinity Wall Street would need to write APNA/CCP/FCA/Bishop Duncan a cheque for half a BIllion dollars. It’s not going to happen.

BUT even if all this did happen, presumably by a miracle, orthodox cannot remain in ECUSA. Because ECUSA is not Christian.

Can a Christian remain in the Ku Klux Klan? No!
Can a Christian remain in the Mormon Church? No!
Can a Christian work as a concentration camp guard? No!

Hey, the Liberals would argue that a Christian shouldn’t even take a job as say a civilian interrogator in Iraq – and perhaps they’ve got a point there.

BUT for precisely the same reasons – a Christian cannot remain in ECUSA.

I suppose Senior Priest sees his parish church as an independent congregation existing as an oasis of orthodoxy in a desert of heresy. This begs the question since Anglicanism is supposedly a world-wide church rather than a fellowship of independent parishes. You said it, Clown Celebrant–what a crock.

A friend once told me a story about a priest-celebrant at an Orthodox liturgy who became so excited during the liturgy that when he raised the chalice at the consecration, he almost hit the ceiling with it. A nearby priest chuckled and said, “I never saw a chalice go soooo high before.” I get the same feeling when I read things written by folks in the Gay Church, a/k/a TEc, such as Leander Harding in this piece – “I’ve never seen sooooo many words before!” Is there some very high minimum of words such folks are required by church canons to use in their writings? I was always taught that the keys to good writing are simplicity, clarity and brevity. Obviously, I would not be welcomed in the TEc Writers’ Union. Be that as it may, it seems to me, IMHO, that this piece by Harding can be boiled down as follows: “We have tried lots of stuff in the past to fix our problems. None of the stuff we tried in the past has worked and we still have the same problems. It is highly unlikely that any of the stuff we tried in the past will ever fix our problems. So, let’s all stay together and try the same stuff again.” Much better. And without sooooo many words.

Bears repeating:

“We have tried lots of stuff in the past to fix our problems. None of the stuff we tried in the past has worked and we still have the same problems. It is highly unlikely that any of the stuff we tried in the past will ever fix our problems. So, let’s all stay together and try the same stuff again.”

Hands down, best summary of the ACI-type “inside strategy” I’ve ever read. This type of strategy is based upon a clear logical fallacy.

Thanks to you, Donald R. Janousek!

They are using Lewis Carroll’s guidelines for writing: Ambition, Distraction, Uglification and Derision. Although, in this case, I think Obfuscation is a suitable substitute for Uglification.

Yes, yes, I know he was talking about the four branches of mathematics.

I really don’t see why Christians would want to remain part of the formal Anglican Communion at all at this stage, when that means being connected to a prevaricating old warlock like Williams. I’m happy I’ve found my place in the Continuum.

GB wrote:

I suppose Senior Priest sees his parish church as an independent congregation existing as an oasis of orthodoxy in a desert of heresy. This begs the question since Anglicanism is supposedly a world-wide church rather than a fellowship of independent parishes.

Rem acu tetigisti: Senior Priest, for all his good intentions, is merely the pastor of a protestant community church. There is no “catholic” in Anglicanism anymore.

A Senior Priest writes with poignant and refreshing honesty: “Anglican Communion Partners = Quislings with an Anglican whitewash.

I simply cannot understand how anyone could be so naive as to imagine that there could be an inside strategy in TEC. I remain in it for much more mundane reasons – 1. I don’t want to spend the rest of my career in court, 2. I hate scandal and brouhaha, 3. I am preventing my parish church’s magnificent structure from becoming a preaching station for heresy while educating my people, 4. my congregation is healthy and even growing, which is not something I want to splinter and reverse, 5. I’m carefully observing, and acting, in a prudent and (hopefully) farsighted manner.”

Dear Senior Priest,

I deeply appreciate your posts. Alfonso has written in the “Qualms” thread on MCJ: “There is no place of Christian integrity inside TEC. None.” And I have written frequently about Institutionalist-Idolator-Enablers of soul-destroying heresy and apostasy who deliberately choose to remain in TEc.

Thus, I should like to respectfully offer the following observations in response to your points for your prayerful consideration.

1. I don’t want to spend the rest of my career in court.

This remains to be seen. It may or may not happen. It’s contingent on a number of variables.

2. I hate scandal and brouhaha.

I don’t blame you. Who does? But if it should happen, that path may indeed be the cross that Christ is asking you to carry. John the Baptist was involved with brouhaha. Jesus was involved with brouhaha. Apostle Paul and the other crucified apostles were involved with brouhaha.

“Play the man, Ridley.”

3. I am preventing my parish church’s magnificent structure from becoming a preaching station for heresy while educating my people.

The church is not the steeple, the church is the people. See my response to RobRoy in his justification for Fr. Russell Levensen on this MCJ thread For Evil to Triumph….

As far as “educating” “your” people, several quick observations:

(1) Departing apostate TEc is modeling fidelity to the Cross. A wonderful example for an undershepherd by which he can educate God’s sheep.

(2) You have to think of succession planning. Should something happen to you, it is likely that you will be replaced by a revisionist wolf-in-sheep’s clothing. Then what will the laity do in your parish? You did not model biblical courage for them; it’s highly likely that they won’t either when confronted with heretical and apostate preaching and practice.

(3) As an undershepherd dedicated to serving Christ as Lord and Savior and tasked to protect and defend the sheep entrusted to you, don’t you think you should follow the Light and lead the flock to safety away from the Black Hole of heresy and apostasy in TEc?

4. my congregation is healthy and even growing, which is not something I want to splinter and reverse>

I think Fr. Matt Kennedy had the same issue as you. And so did many others before him. Splintering is a result of undergoing and successfully enduring the Refiner’s Fire.

5. I’m carefully observing, and acting, in a prudent and (hopefully) farsighted manner.

All fine and good. But keep in mind what God said to Moses in Exodus 14:15:

The LORD said to Moses, “Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward.”

Dr. Harding sums up the problem admirably with this statement:

The emphasis on autonomy by the local provinces across the theological spectrum is hard to square with mutual submission in the Body of Christ especially when issues arise that scandalize large portions of the faithful.

That is the problem in a nutshell. He has stated it more clearly than an Anglican Committee could possibly stand, but there it is. What does he suggest the Anglican Covenant do about it? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Pardon the shouting. It is just so frustrating to watch a person of obvious intelligence deliberately turn it off and veer off into wishful thinking!

Dr. Harding is right, the problem is that no one in the Anglican Communion has the courage and the honesty and the actual love of Christ to render a judgment that needs rendering. Can we face this and actually do something positive?

Not as long as people like Dr. Harding, Dr. Seitz, Dr. Radner, Dr. Harmon, Dr. Turner keep spewing forth reams of verval silliness like this which refuses to come to grips with the reality that the Anglican Communion leadership does not want to have a definitive solution to this problem

The issue is not complicated. It was stated right at the top of theis blog comment. Everyone knows that this is where the problem lies. But no one wants to really do anything about it because that would mean actually talking about heresy and declaring that there are people who are promiting it.

This will never happen in the Anglican Communion. So why waste time pretending that it ever will? There is nothing for the ACNA to hope for out of mediation. There can be no reconciliation with heretics. That is just a brutal fact that I wish these gracious ostriches could get through their tiny brains.

There are about five places in this analysis where it builds up to the necessary conclusion so it’s time to get out of this Church and to one that is reasonably healthy and has Christian doctrine and discipline. But instead of reaching the conclusion the post veers off and starts discussing some other aspect of the problem.I didn’t understand Alexandria as suggesting mediation between ACNA and the Communion Partners but mediation between ACNA and TEC/ACoC. In Canada the two wings of Anglican Essentials have no need to mediate anything with each other. I imagine TEC would be very amused to see ACNA and CPs wasting time palavering with each other in the drawing room as the house continues to go up in flames.I can’t help but think, seeing analyses like these, that they are subconsciously motivated, and not buried very far in the subconscious either, by a desire to construct a seeming excuse for doing nothing until the writer either retires or dies, while acknowledging the hopelessness of the situation and the futility of any course of action except fleeing.

There is a parallel thread on SFIF about Professor Harding’s analysis of the Alexandria Communique. Not surprisingly, Sarah Hey reaches the opposite conclusion of Christopher Johnson; she calls it an “excellent analysis” whereas CJ fisks, spoofs, and mocks it.

Be that as it may, when you read that SFIF thread, you will find several people appealing to a subjective and unverifiable “call” that they are “called” to remain in TEc. Or that they have not heard a “call” to depart TEc.

In response to such claims, I offer Dr. William Tighe’s commentary from a previous MCJ thread:

“Wherever, in terms of historical Christianity, does the very notion that one can have a “call” to remain in an heretical and apostate denomination, and that others should “respect” such a “call” come from? I know of no “orthodox Christian” that declared a “calling” to remain among the Arians, the Donatists, any of the Gnostic sects, the Marcionites, the Montanists or any of the organized heretical groups or counter-churches of the early centuries. I think that the reason for this has to do with the one anachronistic word in what I have just written, “denomination.” None of these early groups, with the exception of the Gnostics (who conceived of themselves as philosophical-religious “schools” of thought and practice, and rejected the concept of “Church”) thought of themselves as “denominations” bur rather as “The Church,” alone and exclusively. It took the Reformation, or rather its follow-through, to conceive of the idea of “the invisible Church” — no longer Augustine’s or Calvin’s collectivity of the predestined elect, known only to God, but, rather, the collectivity of all Christian “denominations” — and to reduce any visible and earthly Christian religious organizations, above the congregational level at least, to mere “denominations.” But even orthodox Protestants of any and every stripe would have concluded that a “denomination” that had become heretical and apostate was no longer Christian (as most non-Lutherans believed of the Catholic Church, for example), and that to remain in it to “witness” was as absurd as as a converted whore to remain in her brothel and to continue to ply her trade there as a “witness” to her co-workers.”

The ministry of reconciliation is the church’s ministry and especially the ministry of its bishops.

In Vancouver, the courts directed the ACC diocese and the ACNA churches to go for mediation with regard to ownership of property. I hear (can’t confirm) that Bishop Ingham has nixed that option and directed his legal team to go to litigation. I’m not sure that the liberals are interested in reconciliation.

BB wrote – “Senior Priest, for all his good intentions, is merely the pastor of a protestant community church. There is no “catholic” in Anglicanism anymore.”

I wish I could agree, but the lack of accountability and transparency at the top echelon (clergy and church agencies) of the Catholic, Episcopal and UMC organizations makes me really nauseus.

Power without accountability and humility makes humans and organizations unhealthy and produces the power-mongering, politics, cover-ups, high-living, pomposity, unscriptural agendas, etc.

…produces the power-mongering, politics, cover-ups, high-living, pomposity, unscriptural agendas, etc. we have seen.

I REALLY enjoyed the Luther movie. We’ve been studying his sermons in church…next John Wesley and after that, John Henry Newman. Wonder if our priest/teacher chose those them because all three stood up to the abuses of authority in their day.

My turn.

“1. I don’t want to spend the rest of my career in court.”
Tough. Don’t. Who cares? Flee. Why empower the evildoers? Jesus said, “Pick up your cross and follow me.” He was dragged to court. Would you rather sin than follow His example? Yes, it didn’t turn out well for Him, but then again, it turned out best for us.

“2. I hate scandal and brouhaha.” Tough. Who cares? Why empower the evildoers? Jesus said, “Pick up your cross and follow me.” His example; His way. I often, too often, also hate following the way of the cross; but does my discomfort justify my vetoing any route through the ‘valley of the shadow of death?’ Of course not.

“3. I am preventing my parish church’s magnificent structure from becoming a preaching station for heresy while educating my people. and 4. my congregation is healthy and even growing, which is not something I want to splinter and reverse”
I actually am sympathetic, to a degree. A number of these folks who refuse to see are somewhat motivated by a “pastor’s heart.” They want to stay close to their sheep; they want comfort for their sheep; they want to give the sheep what they are asking for, and they don’t want TEC abusers “to win”. Nevertheless, it’s time to lose the puny God of your stilted imaginations. The real God cares about holiness and does not call people to lie in bed with hardened sinners. He always calls us to associate with repentant sinners, sometimes blind and indifferent sinners, but never with willful leaders of sin–those he calls “wolves” and worse. Flee! How dare you enable those who cause beleivers to stumble and brazenly mock God’s holiness?! Shame and judgment will befall anyone who says, “Stay here in bed with harlots, wolves and vipers! There is peace, peace, in our little parish…”

The real God is able to make wimpy shepherds like Moses into more than adequate leaders. True teaching is teaching that guides the flock away from apostasy. (cf. TUAD).

The TEC ship is not about to sink. It has sunk. This Titanic has been broken and is submerged; albeit with pockets of air. Do you puny-God folks comfort the flock with blankets and music, not challenging them to flee while all air runs out? or will you turn on the light and dare trust the God of miracles, holiness and might, and follow Him up from the abyss? Surely, he will send his angels to rescue you….that is, lest you associate with even one more wolf of apostacy for one more day and enable any believer to stumble.

Extreme comments? Perhaps. God will judge me accordingly. But I really don’t think one can plead, “O Lord, I didn’t CAUSE a little one to stumble; I only facilitated some bad wolves to do so. So no millstone for me, right? right?”

“I’m not sure that the liberals are interested in reconciliation.” Two words: Buh. Duh.

They are interested in two things:
1) winning.
2) winning while looking good.

If they can’t have the latter, they’ll stick to the former.

While I in no way intend to judge or condemn The Senior Priest because only God knows what is in his heart, his reference to his “parish church’s magnificent structure” reminds of what was once said by, I believe, if my 61 year old memory serves me right, by St. Basil the Great during the darkest days of the Arian heresy. The Arians controlled almost all of the churches. St. Basil gave his flock courage by saying that, “They (the Arians) have the churches, but we have the Faith.” An altar in the catacombs is much more of a “magnificent structure” than the greatest cathedral if it is an altar of those who “have the Faith,” while the great cathedral is in the hands of heretics and apostates. Trust in the Lord, Senior Priest, for He will never abandon his flock, even if you have to worship in a grove of trees under God’s vault of heaven.

Yes, but is it that–could it be–that they have already accomplished what they set out to do–reduce our reliance on God, on Christian Principles,on the 10 Commandments as fundamental to our system of law? Could it be that diminishing the influence of Christianity on the whole was really what they wanted to do?

In other news, it looks like the smoking pile of rubble that is the EO is not enought to keep the Lutherans (ELCA) from playing with dynamite and blaster caps: http://www.whotv.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-rel-lutherans-gays,0,5120324.story

I REALLY enjoyed the Luther movie. We’ve been studying his sermons in church…next John Wesley and after that, John Henry Newman. Wonder if our priest/teacher chose those them because all three stood up to the abuses of authority in their day.

Sigh… Only neo-orthodox Anglicans would put Luther and Newman in the same category. I wonder what Cardinal Newman would think about that.

Interestingly, there’s a thread on SFIF titled Anglicans: Dispute bigger than our buildings.

Here are some excerpts from the linked article that pertain to earlier discussion:

A Senior Priest: “I am preventing my parish church’s magnificent structure from becoming a preaching station for heresy while educating my people”.

Article: “Despite the ongoing legal battles, leaders of the two breakaway congregations said their members are not anxious about what the future may hold. They said ultimately it’s not about buildings, but beliefs.”

A Senior Priest: “[M]y congregation is healthy and even growing, which is not something I want to splinter and reverse.”

Article: “St. Anne’s [Reverend Tony] Baron said that, unlike the situation in Fallbrook, when his Oceanside congregation split from the Episcopal church, nearly the entire congregation was in agreement.

There is no minority group meeting elsewhere in the city. If the Anglicans lose access to their West Street church through the courts, so be it, he said.

“Our church has grown in the last three years from 225 to 462 regular members,” he said. “God has really blessed our congregation.

“It’s not about winning or losing. The church is not a building; it’s people.”"

God bless the faithful courage of Reverends Don Kroeger and Tony Baron for leading their flock away from the black hole of heresy and apostasy that is TEc. Neither one of them is Laodicean lukewarm spit.

“All this begs the question of what shall be done in the meantime to fight the fire and limit the damage so that there may be something upon which to rebuild.”
Actually, Dr Harding, this invites the question of what shall be done. You’re not doing will as a logician either.