Whilst this report criticises those who have propagated change without sufficient regard to the common life of the Communion, it has to be recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion. (The Windsor Report, para. 146)
And who are "those who have propagated change"?
Paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report states:
One of the deepest realities that the Communion faces is continuing difference on the presenting issue of ministry by and to persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual relationships.
Could the answer be the Episcopal Church?
I must take issue with the phrase "have propagated change". The Episcopal Church has instituted changes within our own church that certain other churches deem offensive and unacceptable, but we have not pushed changes on other churches in the communion.
prop·a·gate - To cause to extend to a broader area or larger number; spread.
In my dreams, as an experiment, I'd like to see the Episcopal Church step back from official participation in the affairs of the AC for a season and watch to see if those who have absented themselves from communion gatherings return to the fold and if perfect peace descends upon the Anglican Communion once our troublesome presence is gone.
I'm sick to death of being blamed for all the troubles in the Anglican Communion, as well as the suggestions that we must be disciplined for our wayward ways, or, as others phrase it, lets "spank the Yank".
I'll leave it to my betters to take up the rebuttal of Bp Cameron's push for the adoption of the Anglican Covenant it's entirety, but I could not resist saying my piece on the accusation of propagating changes.
I'm not for stepping away. If we are silent, we can't teach. If we do step away, I hope we pull our financing also. We certainly could use that money to help pay tuitions and student loans.
ReplyDeletePiskie, at times it's my fantasies that keep me going.
ReplyDelete"Without regard to the common life of the Communion" isn't so true, neither - at least not from where I am standing.
ReplyDeleteCathy, not from where I sit, either, or we'd have been long gone. It's the relationships that count, and those will endure, whether we're in or out or second tier or whatever other discipline might be imposed on the naughty Episcopal Church.
ReplyDeletepersons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual relationships
ReplyDeleteWhomever wrote/published/voted for this phrase should be ASHAMED. A disgraceful dehumanization of our brothers and sisters in Christ!
"...persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual relationships."
ReplyDeleteAre they doing it in the church aisles now? There's your slippery slope!
JCF and KJ, "they" do it everywhere, on the streets, and yes, even in the church aisles, without regard for children who may be present. "They" have no shame.
ReplyDeleteBishop Gregory obviously has a case of foot-in-mouth disease, along with a case of no-shame. Remember that he compared the actions of the English folk who oppose the covenant to those of the the BNP, the fascist political party in England.
Here I don't think you're being fair, Grandmere. I was quoting from the Windsor Report, and when you are quoting, you're not at liberty to change the quote. And in fact, the point of the quote was to point to Windsor's insistence that conversation about the place of homosexual persons within the Church must continue - a point with which you'd agree, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteWith or without my foot in my mouth
Gregory
Welcome, Bishop Gregory.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that you quote the Windsor Report, however you use the quote to make the case for the Anglican Covenant. Do you agree with the statement of criticism in the WR that "those (presumably the Episcopal Church and possibly the Anglican Church of Canada)...have propagated change"?
We in TEC are not attempting to extend or spread our practices to other churches in the communion, therefore I see the unfairness in the misuse of the word "propagate" in the WR to support the case for the adoption of the covenant.
I agree that the conversation should continue, but how can the conversation continue, if the representatives of certain churches are not present to talk? Will those churches return to the conversation if the Episcopal Church is not present? Then, we will not be part of the conversation, but perhaps that's what the majority would prefer.
How about continuing indaba in preference to a covenant which attempts "make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection" amongst the churches of he communion? - although, the idea of forced loyalty and bonds of affection seems an oxymoron to me.
Grandmère Mimi, Just what kind of a place/blog are you running around here--you let homosexuals wander in and out just like they are Christian/Anglicans who are entitled to aspire to be ¨called¨ to all levels of Churchlife (that is unless the hissy-fit pogrom whispering/lurking around/about and through the corridors of Lambeth Palace now determines who is IN and who is OUT! Imagine, real grown/pridefilled old men hoping to ban many of the faithful at the Body of Christ...as if they KNEW, which they don´t, the hearts and character of LGBTI people at Church or even admitted they have them/thar homosensualists in THEIR OWN EPISCOPAL RANKS (for generations)! Imagine, reality, it just takes some getting used to.
ReplyDeleteWV: incomou -- the official language at Lambeth Palace.
Grandmère Mimi, Just what kind of a place/blog are you running around here--
ReplyDeleteLeonardo, I don't know. What am I thinking?
Perhaps it's to do with justice and equality, and - um - wounded birds?
My wing hurts (from all this flapping about with the recently rewarded to Bishop Cameron)...good think I´ve already flown South!
ReplyDelete