Monday 31 January 2011

Where never is heard . . .

The Primate's meeting in Dublin has ended and there wasn't a 'discouraging word'!

No, not one. There were of course two and these are: "CRITICAL SITUATION!"

Rowan did mention that there were a 'significant number of absentees for a number of reasons."
How true and the fact is that it appears that the number of reasons is, predominantly, 'ONE'.

And this ONE reason became flesh and took on the appearance of the lovely KJS, doyen of the liberal and wicked witch to the orthodox! Her invitation, the continuing naughtiness of the American Episcopalians and Rowan's ability to issue warnings and state positions that are never acted upon are causing a lack of confidence in one and bringing the Communion to what is indeed, a 'CRITICAL SITUATION'.

The Primate's own communiqués regarding everything that the Episcopalians have been doing have been ignored and the Episcopalians have broken every commitment and promise it appeared to have made. It was this that stopped the majority of those who stayed at home from coming! Rowan said that their absence was 'felt' and mentions that every day their name plates were placed on empty chairs and candles were lit for them!

If the absences were 'felt' then surely they should also have been acted upon? If I was in a situation whereby someone (or as in this case, 'many') absented themselves from a meeting (social or business) I would seek to remedy this sadness. Surely this is what Rowan should have done, and needs to do?

Rowans words, "They would not be “closing the doors on those who are not with us”.

Surely the reality is that he 'should not have been opening doors to some who were with him!'

He spoke of a “long task” which would see many diplomatic entreaties and positioning and hoped that the Primate's own standing committee might assist in “re-establishing local and regional relationships” and then, when asked about 'disciplinary action against the Episcopalians' said he didn't know. Apparently he doesn't have a crystal ball regarding the actions against the Episcopalians, but I have a sneaky feeling that he doesn't need one - seems to me, other than more primates bugging our and showing their lack of confidence in the man, Rowan doesn't have a clue.

I think the problem is that he's stuck between his own views and doing that the role of ABC demands. On one hand there are the needs of the many and on the other the views of the one!

This rift, for regardless of how one presents it, it is indeed a rift will only serve to fuel division and present opportunities for those who wish to make mischief (from every side). The issues responsible for the rift will only convince those in denominations outside of Rome and the CofE that the Anglicans are becoming a limp-wristed, liberal and sexuality-confused (and sexual-sin approving) bunch.

Warnings are issued; Positions are stated and all that Dublin has demonstrated is that they were merely words, hollow and impotent words. A verbal reflect of the physical manifestation perhaps?

6 comments:

Undergroundpewster said...

R.W. continues in his modus operandi of trying to hold both sides of an argument. He might try to do this on a personal level, but by applying this method to the Church as a whole, he has only fostered confusion.

Purposely ineffectual leadership must lead to no good end.

Seeker said...

I agree completely.

Church leadership progression options.
Route 1
1. Answer the call / Serve Faithfully

2. Develop deeper understanding of Scripture & Theology

3. Get 'promoted' and wear a big hat and some bling.

4. Apply Theology to Doctorine, then decide if result will be acceptable to society in general. Repeat until everyone happy.

5. Rule by Committee


As opposed to
Route 2
1. Answer the call / Serve Faithfully

2. Develop deeper understanding of Scripture & Theology

3. Get 'promoted' and wear a big hat and some bling. Remain humble.

4. Accept that doctorine that has passed the reformation whilst remaining unchanged was probably quite sound in the first place and should be left alone unless you are REALLY sure it needs to change

[Note - just because some people in society don't like X or find Y challenging is NOT sufficient grounds to change Z.]

Point to consider: Am I really more in touch with biblical teaching than 2000 years of Saints and Theologens who have passed before me?

If you answer includes any of the following phrases:
* The needs of society
* What is acceptable nowadays
* The Church should move with the times

Then the answer is probably NO and you should go and hit yourself repeatedly with a copy of 'The Imitation of Christ' until the feeling passes

5. Lead - Just LEAD.

[Note - this may mean occasionally making a decision that some people will not like. This is called leadership and its why you get a big hat. If you don't want to make the decisions then please return the hat to the box and become a missonary. If you wait long enough you can set up a misson in the UK and try to introduce it to Christianity]

It would seem to me (as an impartial observer) that there was an opportunity to say to all those who sent a note from their mothers instead of attending "Are you off then...? Bye" This appears to have been missed.

Perhaps the blunt option of "Be here or Begone" may have guarenteed more attendance.


The upshot of all the above waffle
From the top down - decide on the churces position then leave it alone. Meet every 10 or so years to see if anything has changed. Consider any and all changes at once so everyone in the faith knows where they stand for the next 10 years. Only meet more often in EXEPTIONAL circumstances where a position of faith is needed for something that does not have one.

If anyone cannot reconcile themselves to follow the church's teaching then wish them well as they leave and pray for them.

That way you avoid the issues in the main post.

Just saying...


Boring Note: Yes some of this was tongue in cheek. Some of it wasn't. Yes I can be uncompromising - I'm an active evangalist in a tough ministry area - but its only because I care about what I'm speaking on. I apologise now for any errors, omissions or innacuracies caused by my own ignorance. I apologise also for my spelling caused by lack of sleep.

Peace

Anonymous said...

It is a disgrace that the Dublin Conference didn't censure the "conservative" Bishops for their defiant border-crossings which are against Lambeth Resolutions. Or do you believe only the Americans are worthy of criticism since it's about sex?

Vic the Vicar said...

No, not at all Fr H!

I have said many times before that some of the action coming out of the orthodox side of the 'discussion' are divisive and not a little self-serving.

I assume that by the same measure you abhor the unchecked acts of defiance and the like that come from KJS' side of the debate?

What we need us two distinct provinces - one C of E and the other Episcopalian. Then there can be discussion, agreement where It might be found and petals a way forward which lets us find unity where we may.

Pax

Revsimmy said...

Please, no more provinces and PEVs to enshrine doctrinal and theological differences. Where others would go and create a new denomination, Anglicans create new bishops and provinces. And this then absolves us from the need to find communion together. And who "inherits" the CofE brand? Enough already!

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

Like you I don't actually want a province and I especially don't want PEVs (I think they are a wrong and flawed, as well as divisive, entity).

What I want is two distinct denominations her and in the US and across the globe should it be necessary.

I would like the traditionalists to be Church of England (or Anglican) and the revisionist/liberal guys to be Episcopalian. I would call them Denominations but because there is the potential for some form of mutuality I understand (from someone who is supposed to know these things) that they would in fact best be referred to as provinces.

Bottom line - we have a schism. Let us recognise it and move forward so that we can stop pulling ourselves apart and start looking (apart) as to where we can bring ourselves together!

Hope this clarifies what I'm thinking.

Thanks for comments all,

V