This was in a comment in the post below:
"This past Sunday (June 13) Bishop Duncan ordained four women as transitional deacons for the Diocese of Pittsburgh (ACNA). Somehow the rumor was started that this ordination was going to occur at or during the ACNA meeting next week, which is obviously incorrect."
We do not dispute this clarification. Unfortunately, it does not make things better, inasmuch as this error is one of the major issues. Also, the direct approach to parishes across Diocesan boundaries, without regard to the Bishop of each diocese, was simply out of order, and contemptuous of episcopal authority within the Continuum.
3 comments:
A grave error, no matter how excellent these women may be. Please read: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/06/order-of-melchizedek.html
I just don't understand how any "Anglo-Catholic" member of TEC could actually think that ACNA is worth putting any hope in. The fact that their bishops have apparently no qualms about ordaining women means that in 10 years they will ordain homosexuals as well. They are really doing nothing but turning back the clock to the Griswold days at best. Is it worth it?
There is a similar phenomenon in the RCC. The neo-conservatives are trying to stake their claim to the title as the only acceptable form of conservatism, and anyone to the right of them are nutjobs. They are really merely 10 years behind the revolutionary curve. That's not real conservatism. It is conservative enough to feel smug, but not conservative enough to be socially unacceptable.
ACNA is trying to put a flag in the ground in the ground to claim title to the "acceptable conservative" label. Smearing the ACC and other continuing Anglican churches will be part of their game plan at some point.
Just look at how Traditionalist RCC groups are treated by the "conservative" ones. We can expect to be on the receiving end of that kind of hatchet job from the ACNA.
Good grief, so many typos in my comment that I'm trashing it and resubmitting.
============================
Perhaps so, but ...
Are we so simon pure that we can run around impugning the motives of others? Sorry, but I'm afraid their criticisms of our actions and attitudes are at least as well-founded as ours of them. It's not in attitudes and behavior that we come out better. Let's keep our discussion to the issues, female ordination being the most visible problem.
I know men with ACNA who are better men than I, by far, and will fiercely contest any who accuse them of moral error in these events -- but, very sadly, I find it necessary to declare that, in important matters, these good men are simply in error on matters of doctrine and practice, and that, regardless of their intent these errors are dangerous to the Church.
If we assume the best of our errant brethren and steadfastly point out their erring belief and practice, we may successfully stand up for what we see as right.
If we allow ourselves to get drawn into personal attack and suspicion, we become precisely what we are condemning.
There is no more serious issue than getting our hearts attuned with God -- it was those who worked miracles in His name, but without His spirit to whom he said, "I never knew you."
Friends, righteous indignation is almost never righteous.
ed
Post a Comment