Tony Seel - 15 January 2010 02:25 PM

Michael, conservatives have admitted more than once that we lost on the inside strategy.  I don’t think that even the CP group sees any hope anytime soon inside pecusa.  snip Those financial instruments and civil contracts that you detest were part of an effective strategy by Christians who didn’t want their money going to an ungodly institution and wanted to protect their clergy.  Again, this was smart and effective strategy.  I do not support.
snip

RICO violations?  Now, that’s funny. 

You do need to read up on Puritans and Puritanism.  Your depiction of the ACN and ACNA as Puritans is also laughable, but I understand that from where you are coming from anything more conservative looks fundamentalist or puritan.  Again, if the Lord’s with your side, why so much anger?

Hey Tony I am glad you find the RICO comment amusing.  it’s is perhaps just wishful thinking, but we will see what happens with Don Armstrong. We are noting the inventory removed by schismatics one they finally left our property via court order, we will see what happens with that too.

The remark in bold about TEC being an ungodly church should be noted by those who claim that such statements are not made here.  Those who removed and redirected funds are simply not competent to discern who is Godly and who is not.  But y’all go ahead and keep slinging that judgment around. 

As for reading up on the puritans. I have been freshly immersed in the 16th century for a set of lectures I did on Richard Hooker. My depiction is based on the insistence of the fundies in and out of TEC that Scripture is the rule of all things simply and that unless it is permitted by Scripture it is sin.  Now to be sure, today’s neo-puritans, like their forefathers and mothers, cherry pick Scripture to their own advantage, but the thrust is the same.  Likewise the move to realign parishes in place is an exact parallel.  If you can’t see it perhaps you should read more. 

But once again we simply highlight the impasse.  I recognize that I am a minority voice here and so unlikely to convince anyone, since y’all are as inured to your position as I am to mine.

Tony Seel - 15 January 2010 07:27 PM

The first paragraph of Bishop David Anderson’s weekly letter demonstrates the gulf that we have between liberal and conservative understandings of what has happened over the last six and a half years:

It has become very clear to people of faith who hold to the traditional understandings of Christian doctrine and discipline that those who are bent on changing the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church will stop at almost nothing. We have repeatedly been surprised by the depth of deception, deceit, and boldness which characterize the planning and execution of recent attacks on the historic faith. In the past as I remember it, there was normally a sense of fair play and honesty, and our apparently erroneous belief that this is still true has cost the orthodox Anglicans.

Compare this to what Michael Russell says and the differences couldn’t be starker.

Mr. Anderson and I have occasionally traded e-mails back and forth and indeed there is a vast gulf between us.  In the end it will come down to power and resources and he and I both realize that.  Eventually his old parish will be stripped from the poachers and returned to TEC. 

I keep saying there is am impasse that cannot be bridged and the schismatics could be clean free of TEC were they to simply return our assets and walk away in whatever direction they wish.  Too bad he has left the Anglican communion and is ineligible to partake in the Covenant. Then we might get some justice….

Michael, I have consistently said that pecusa is no longer a church.  I called it a liberal church to identify what I was referring to in your earlier post. 

Our parish did use the legal means available to us to insure that none of our funds went to the DCNY or pecusa until we left.  We left without our three buildings and some cash, all of which were from the donations of our parishioners.  The DCNY wouldn’t even lend us the money to buy the third building.  I am hoping that the courts will one day decide that it is not equitable for denominations to claim assets that they have not paid for, but we didn’t fight for our buildings. 

I must have pushed the fundy button because true to form you resorted to it.  For Anglicans (including Hooker), Scripture is primary and is interpreted by tradition and reason.  The true fundies that I have known would not feel comfortable with the Anglican theological method.  Your argument about cherry-picking is either weakened by the mind of the Communion about recent events or the leadership of the Communion must be fundies.  In either case, I don’t find your argument compelling as my position is in agreement with the mind of the communion as it has been expressed at Lambeth and through the primates.

I am wondering what you would have me read about realigning in place.  I look at Hillary and Athanasius and see enough parallels to believe that the realignment is right, along with the biblical case for truth.  Contra to the CP folks I see nothing in Scripture that puts the catholic order of a province above biblical truth.  I’m one of the minority voices here as well, Michael, but I do try to argue from Scripture, tradition and reason.

Comments on your second post: if pecusa is sidelined by the Anglican Communion will you be willing to admit that you are part of the schismatic party?  Bishop Anderson is very much a part of the Anglican Communion as I am through the good offices of the Church of Nigeria.  I know that our arrangement doesn’t cut it for some, but I can live with that.  I don’t know what you read about the Covenant, but the question as to whether the ACNA can sign on appears open at this point.

I am going to try to return this thread to Evangelism and Epiphany as tomorrow’s BCP readings are so amazing

Do these discussions have any of the light of Christ in them?
Does the bile, name calling and invective above and elsewhere have any of the light of Christ therein?

I am amazed and saddened that the Griswoldian era of gracious negotiation (at least in some places like Virginia) was halted by the current incumbent PB.  Thank God for people like Bishop Howe who is standing up to her and continuing to negotiate.

Perhaps I should not be surprised as I agree with Tony - TEC is not to me recognizable as a Church, notwithstanding that there are faithful clergy, people and churches within.  The GC actions, the actions of the PB and her allies - these significantly have cast doubt that TEC wants to be a part of the Church Catholic, or can be.

The Church Catholic will probably always be “with schisms rent asunder.” However it behooves us to try to live with grace.  Somehow we are to be “justus simul peccator,” to live as fallen sinners, redeemed by the Cross of Christ.  This can only be a work of the Holy Spirit as we come to the cross, embrace Christ in abject penitence.  We will walk away clothed only with the white robe of righteousness as the gift of God.  The image of St. Francis comes to mind as he walked away naked.  As for me - let them have the buildings - they will only be millstones around the neck.  We do not really need them.  We will humbly seek to worship in Spirit and in Truth.  We will come to the marriage feast and find New Wine.  We will come as the transformed Bride of Christ.  Let them have the worn out temples, vain sacrifices and rituals.

Meanwhile we will take our place in the councils of the Church.  We will “be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word.” Heresy and apostasy must be opposed so that the Bride of Christ, the Church, may be presented spotless to God and the world.  This is to be catholic and holy as well as apostolic.

May God give us grace.

Tony Seel - 15 January 2010 08:30 PM

Michael, I have consistently said that pecusa is no longer a church.  I called it a liberal church to identify what I was referring to in your earlier post. 

Our parish did use the legal means available to us to insure that none of our funds went to the DCNY or pecusa until we left.  We left without our three buildings and some cash, all of which were from the donations of our parishioners.  The DCNY wouldn’t even lend us the money to buy the third building.  I am hoping that the courts will one day decide that it is not equitable for denominations to claim assets that they have not paid for, but we didn’t fight for our buildings. 

I must have pushed the fundy button because true to form you resorted to it.  For Anglicans (including Hooker), Scripture is primary and is interpreted by tradition and reason.  The true fundies that I have known would not feel comfortable with the Anglican theological method.  Your argument about cherry-picking is either weakened by the mind of the Communion about recent events or the leadership of the Communion must be fundies.  In either case, I don’t find your argument compelling as my position is in agreement with the mind of the communion as it has been expressed at Lambeth and through the primates.

I am wondering what you would have me read about realigning in place.  I look at Hillary and Athanasius and see enough parallels to believe that the realignment is right, along with the biblical case for truth.  Contra to the CP folks I see nothing in Scripture that puts the catholic order of a province above biblical truth.  I’m one of the minority voices here as well, Michael, but I do try to argue from Scripture, tradition and reason.

Comments on your second post: if pecusa is sidelined by the Anglican Communion will you be willing to admit that you are part of the schismatic party?  Bishop Anderson is very much a part of the Anglican Communion as I am through the good offices of the Church of Nigeria.  I know that our arrangement doesn’t cut it for some, but I can live with that.  I don’t know what you read about the Covenant, but the question as to whether the ACNA can sign on appears open at this point.

1) Hooker put Scripture primary for all things necessary for salvation not all things simply. But it takes Reason to interpret and comprehend scripture, and scripture’s authority comes as a result of reasonable assent.  He castigated the ultra-Calivinists of his age for expanding the purview of scripture beyond what is was made for, because it brings discredit upon sctipture.

2) Your and Mr. Anderson’s relationship with Nigeria is, of course, in violation of the Windsor report and the other documents preceding the Covenant document now being circulated.  Are you prepared to admit that?

Michael, how are Bishop Anderson and I in violation of the WR?

I have found that when you ask people who claim Hooker as their authority on Scripture it turns out that they have never read Hooker.  I hope this isn’t the case with Michael.  The following is what Hooker said about Scriptural authority in Book II:

“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth.  That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

Notice that Hooker does not limit Scriptural authority to salvation alone.  Of course, no thinking Christian does either, at least orthodox thinking Christians.  In keeping with Epiphany, Scripture is revelation of God’s nature, will, and ways.  Scripture speaks not only to salvation but to theology in general, as well as ethics (personal and social), ecclesiology and other areas of life.  I can understand why liberals want to limit Scripture’s authority, but it should be noted in this forum that to do so is to step outside the Anglican tradition.

Tony Seel - 16 January 2010 05:25 PM

I have found that when you ask people who claim Hooker as their authority on Scripture it turns out that they have never read Hooker.  I hope this isn’t the case with Michael.  The following is what Hooker said about Scriptural authority in Book II:

“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth.  That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever” ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

Notice that Hooker does not limit Scriptural authority to salvation alone.  Of course, no thinking Christian does either, at least orthodox thinking Christians.  In keeping with Epiphany, Scripture is revelation of God’s nature, will, and ways.  Scripture speaks not only to salvation but to theology in general, as well as ethics (personal and social), ecclesiology and other areas of life.  I can understand why liberals want to limit Scripture’s authority, but it should be noted in this forum that to do so is to step outside the Anglican tradition.

Ahhhh well Tony I have read Hooker as closely as anyone.  In fact I have written the cliff notes of the Laws, “Hooker’s Blueprint” which distills each paragraph in the laws to its key ideas. You can find it on Amazon.com.

What you need to read is Book I and then Book II. Cherry picking that quote from book V ignores the principles laid down in the first book and then the second. He establishes general principles in those books which govern later statements. His position is quite radical for the day.

The Windsor Report repudiates boundary crossings and Mr Anderson’s consecration and I presume your “transfer” to Nigeria are prime examples of what was part of the third moratoria.  Such actions are not recognized by the Communion, just as the AmiA and the other splinter groups aren’t.

Nigeria has no business in our province and only exists here in disobedience to the mind of the communion. 

Do read Hooker carefully, don’t rely on the cherry picked fundy lists of quotes. He disliked the Calvinsit tendency to do that, btw.

Thanks for calling us back on track, Ian.  And thanks for your notes here, Michael - I must admit, I’m also frequently disappointed with TEC loyalists who bring up Hooker, and likely to suspect them of cherry picking - as you so rightly point out, this is something which other parties do as well.  It’s good indeed to know that you have studied Hooker so carefully.  I may have mentioned my last TEC priest, which is one of the reasons I am often so skeptical, and I think I mentioned in good faith that this could be a liability of mine as a discussion partner - my tendencies to make some assumptions about TEC loyalists based on past experience.  I’m happy indeed to see here my expectations overthrown.

It probably wasn’t a good idea of mine to bring up the Chapman memo, it looks like now the original quote regarding its use as a document proving lying and dissimulation as a part of ACNA strategy has been removed, so it probably is not worth bringing up.

Michael, I haven’t yet thanked you for naming points that seem to be impasses.  That does help.  I think simply naming and describing the impasses sometimes helps shed light on them in a way that can help us along, albeit only a little bit.  For example, I would have described impasse #1 very differently - and I think it also has important consequences for how I view the current agonistic tendencies in the Church, which would differ considerably from yours.  Perhaps more on that later.

“Ahhhh well Tony I have read Hooker as closely as anyone.  In fact I have written the cliff notes of the Laws, “Hooker’s Blueprint” which distills each paragraph in the laws to its key ideas. You can find it on Amazon.com.”

Thanks, Michael, I have Hooker on my shelf.

“What you need to read is Book I and then Book II. Cherry picking that quote from book V ignores the principles laid down in the first book and then the second. He establishes general principles in those books which govern later statements. His position is quite radical for the day.”

Please cite book, chapter and verse please.  I don’t generally trust liberal interpretation; I hope that you understand.

“The Windsor Report repudiates boundary crossings and Mr Anderson’s consecration and I presume your “transfer” to Nigeria are prime examples of what was part of the third moratoria.  Such actions are not recognized by the Communion, just as the AmiA and the other splinter groups aren’t.

Nigeria has no business in our province and only exists here in disobedience to the mind of the communion.”

A few points on this.  One, I crossed no borders to minister where I do.  Bishop Anderson is an American, so how is he breaking the moratorium?  Next, the Dar es Salaam statement makes clear that there is no moral equivalence between border crossings and the Windsor violations of pecusa.  Since pecusa is hell-bent on breaking the same-sex moratorium why are you so exercised about the lesser offense?  Next, you continue to refer to a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion as Mr. Do you show the same disrespect to Lutheran and Methodist bishops?
 

“Do read Hooker carefully, don’t rely on the cherry picked fundy lists of quotes. He disliked the Calvinsit tendency to do that, btw.”

Again, cite book, chapter and verse so we can all see how you arrive at your conclusions about Hooker.  No appeal to the wide scope of Hooker, please, as this kind of generalizing can be specious.

Tony its chapter and paragraphs and the wider scope. For instance if you read the last few paragraphs of Book 5’s section on the Eucharist you might center in on what seems orthodox Calvinist receptionism, or, in the last lyrical paragraph advance a very objective Real Presence theology. The wonder of Hooker is that he was able to hold both and, and not merely either or.

Yes, it is chapter and numbered paragraphs.  Appealing to the wider scope can be like the liberal’s argument that the Bible is about love so gay sex is okay (a simplification, to be sure, but not so much so if you listen to some liberals).