Third Diocese votes to leave the TEC

[Jereth]

Quiet Observer wrote:

I imagine there are a few of us who have found this forum and have been quietly watching it slowly transform into a viperous and self-congratulatory bastion for a particular faction of this Diocese.

Andrew Stagg wrote:

Because this is an anglican, evangelical, scripture affirming forum people can expect their thoughts may be weighed

A question: is MASG meant to be an evangelical-only zone as these 2 authors are suggesting?

Personally I hope it is a forum where anyone can participate.

Jereth

[Jereth]

Alex Milner wrote:

Just thinking through a couple of the posts on this thread, there a couple of questions/hypotheses I'd like to test out:

Firstly, is TEC (an example of extreme liberalism) the logical extension of similar liberal anglican views in Melbourne? Ie if left unrestrained, would liberal anglicanism create another TEC clone in Melbourne (say over 20-30 years)?

Secondly, are liberal anglicans in Melbourne silent about the abuses and misconduct by TEC because they agree (at a substantive level) with TEC's underlying position and views (even if not its methods)?

Hi Alex,

It might be helpful if you define what a "liberal Anglican" is. Are you talking about a view of homosexuality cf. Gene Robinson, which appears to be the main issue in TEC, or are you talking about something broader than that?

I feel that the label "liberal Anglican", is potentially a pejorative generalisation which can paint people into a box. A bit like when we are called "fundamentalists" or "ultra-conservatives".

I think it's better to define the views we're talking about.

cheers
Jereth

[Alex Milner]

Hi Jereth,

Good point - but a definition of liberal theology is quite difficult. Here's an attempt:

Whereas I consider orthodox anglicanism upholds Scripture as having primacy over church tradition, human thought ("reason") and experience, liberal theology variously elevates church tradition, reason or experience either above or on a par with Scripture. A recent example would be the debate over homosexual practice, but there are plenty of other examples.

In this way, I'd view church institutionalists (who elevate particular church practices) as a type of liberal anglican. It is also why liberal anglicanism can change with prevailing secular values and thought (although sometimes this aspect is overemphasised: much of contemporary liberal anglicanism is fundamentally out of touch with the current culture - a bit like a daggy parent trying to appear cool to teenagers)).

It also explains the tendency (that I observed) of some liberal anglicans to hold both quite traditional views about some matters of church practice (ie "what do you mean that we don't need a Dean!") as well as quite novel ideas which are contrary to Scripture.  I remember one senior liberal anglican telling me at a meeting that "he used to think like me when he was young" and also announcing that he would miss the next meeting to attend a "burning of the oils" ceremony at St Pauls (which he never missed) (and yes, I did let slip a Midnight Oil joke).

When I think of examples of liberal anglicans in Melbourne, the groups "Melbourne Anglicans Together" and "Changing Attitude" are probably fairly typical. I don't believe either group would have much difficulty with or be insulted by the description "liberal".

Kind regards
Alex

[Andrew Stagg]

I had a look at the website of "Melbourne Anglicans Together" - thanks Alex, I didn't know about this group. They have a statement on their site which says

Melbourne Anglicans Together Inc is a group of Anglicans in the Diocese of Melbourne committed,
within the context of the faith of the church to
·         affirming and strengthening the diversity of traditions throughout the Diocese of
          Melbourne, as expressed in Resolution 13 of the 2001 Diocesan Synod;
·         strengthening critical and open-minded thought and theology in the Diocese;
·         deepening understanding of how the Church can be authentic in its contemporary environment;
·         a Church that values fully leadership by people who are lay and ordained, female and male;
·         giving an effective voice to a plurality of views in the decision-making structures of the Diocese.
In pursuit of those things to which it is committed, Melbourne Anglicans Together Inc will—
·         provide opportunities for clergy and laity to learn about, encounter and discuss contemporary
          issues in theology and church life;
·         create opportunities to build our community through worship;
·         encourage leaders within the Church who are open-minded, independent and prepared
          to speak with honesty and candour;
·         consider openly, independently and prayerfully issues requiring decision within the Diocese.

I'm more curious about whats missing. I couldn't find any reference to Jesus on the site, with the exception of some of their articles. Because of that, I'm wondering if he really is that important to this group. Does anyone know?? Since the statement above is quite comprehensive, and because they emphasise they are Anglican I'd have thought that there would be some reference to foundational anglican statements such as the creeds and the 39 articles. I'm curious too how one would approach "issues requiring decision within the Diocese" without mentioning the bible.

[Cat Patrick]

Hi Andrew

Andrew Stagg wrote:

I had a look at the website of "Melbourne Anglicans Together"...
I'm more curious about whats missing. I couldn't find any reference to Jesus on the site, with the exception of some of their articles. Because of that, I'm wondering if he really is that important to this group.

To be fair, the MASG site doesn't say anything about Jesus except in its documents as well. And our 'About us' statements are similarly vague - although I'd assuming that the definition of 'healthy church' on the 'About MASG' page is probably a different picture.

I was struck by the similar desire to stimulate critical thought, to be authentic and connect with the culture around and to provide commentary on issues currently considered by our Diocese. You could probably copy and paste a number of the points about how Melbourne Anglicans Together will achieve its goals to the MASG site and it wouldn't look too out of place.

A key difference might be that MASG is clear in articulating its dependence on the history and official documents (Bible and 39 articles particularly) and this is reflected in the documents which are available.

Interesting to note the similarities though.

Michael Raiter's book, 'Stirrings of the Soul' contains an apt challenge - particularly directed at Sydney Anglicans I think, but just as relevant for us in Melbourne - about how rarely we speak directly of Jesus. I'd try to quote directly from it, but I haven't quite master-minded Tim's system for our library and can't see it. We speak of 'gospel people' and 'gospel-minded' and 'biblical', but not always directly about Jesus (although I've found having a child around makes me simplify my language and speak more often about him!). Anyway, an interesting point for us to consider - sometimes it might reflect something of how relational we consider our faith and work to be.

:)
Cat

P.S. You'll note that the MASG site never uses the word 'evangelical' either - although I understand that that omission is deliberate.

[Alex Milner]

Hi Andrew,

I suspect trying to figure out what an organisation believes and stands from its stated aims and website has its limitations. The MAT site looks like it was set up for the purpose of the last Archbishop election (I noticed it hasn't really changed since), which is why all the articles are talking about the sort of archbishop the Diocese needs (and generally try to 'claim the middle ground'). For that reason, please read it with an additional grain of salt.

Cat raises an interesting point about the overlap in language and stated intentions. I remember Diocesan meetings where everyone would nod in agreement about the need for "mission", but have completely different views about what that meant (and I remember someone justifying an expensive re-made doorway for the Cathedral on the grounds of mission...).

Normally these kinds of differences just bubble under the surface. The shared language is a way of avoiding or deferring disagreement (a kind of feigned consensus). What will be interesting is whether some of these differences re-surface when the expected need for expenditure cuts comes around in June.

Kind regards
Alex

[Andrew Stagg]

Cheers guys,

Yep I'm probably reading too much into an old website. The word meanings / language issue is interesting. I remember having discussion a few years back with a young rc preist that was a friend of a friend. I was struck that the meanings that we understood by some words were very different. We ended up having to explain what we actually meant by each word before we could understand each other.

I read a great article from JI Packer (that I found on your Anglican Identity links page). In it he says "The reality of Anglican comprehensiveness is quite different.  It has become a matter of accepting theological bedfellows who may well have no more in common with you or with each other than the topics they discuss and the vocabulary they use for discussing them." This (if I read it right) seems to hint at the same confusion sometimes - people sharing the same words, but the terms having quite different meanings in different camps.

[Jereth]

Alex wrote:

It is also why liberal anglicanism can change with prevailing secular values and thought (although sometimes this aspect is overemphasised: much of contemporary liberal anglicanism is fundamentally out of touch with the current culture - a bit like a daggy parent trying to appear cool to teenagers)).

Thanks for your helpful definition Alex. This part particularly struck me as true -- I have noticed it more and more with the passage of time. The sorts of things typically pushed by liberal theology, and claimed as "relevant" to modern culture, are consistent with only a very small section of society. The majority of non-Christians who I interact with both personally and professionally would see very little of relevance in liberal theology. Even those small number who might agree in theory with liberal theology would never set foot in a liberal church (of course they wouldn't set foot in a Bible-teaching church either).

cat wrote:

To be fair, the MASG site doesn't say anything about Jesus except in its documents as well. And our 'About us' statements are similarly vague

Hmm, that to me is a concern. If I had any say in MASG (which I don't), I would want one of the explicit Aims to be "To glorify our Lord Jesus Christ" or something like that. If we don't have Jesus what do we have? Is there any good reason to leave Him out?

"strengthening critical and open-minded thought and theology"

It's obvious what this means. "Critical and open-minded thought and theology" equals
- challenging outdated and obscurantist notions such as the authority, sufficiency and inerrancy of Scripture
- denying scientifically impossible ideas such as the virgin birth and miracles
- denying politically incorrect dogma such as "no way to God except through Jesus", and hell for the unrepentant
- welcoming progressive, enlightened truth such as the holiness of committed gay relationships
- encouraging intelligent sounding hypotheses that will appeal to university educated geniuses, such as the evolution of man from apes, the legendary nature of most of Biblical History, Deutero-Isaiah, pseudonymous authorship of the Pastoral Epistles...

Jereth

[Alex Milner]

Hi Jereth,

One of the tricks with some Melbourne Anglican dialects, is not what the words say themselves, but rather what they imply about others (or other positions). It is the seemingly polite way of making outrageous comments about others.

Saying "we are committed to affirming and strengthening diversity" is really saying "we are not those monochrome cookie-cutter evangelicals".

Saying "we are committed to strengthening critical and open-minded thought and theology" is really saying "we are not those close minded evangelicals".

Saying "we are committed to deepening understanding of how the Church can be authentic in its contemporary environment" is really saying "we are not those shallow evangelicals who sacrifice the prayerbook".

Saying "we are committed to leadership by people who are lay and ordained, female and male" means "we are not like those clergy focussed, male only evangelicals".

Saying "we are committed to giving an effective voice to a plurality of views in the decision-making structures of the Diocese" means something like "The (Sydney) evangelicals are coming!"

By looking at the negative, you see the intent and also the nonsense and shallowness of the original claims.  (I am assuming I don't need to rebut any of the 'translation' above.)

Kind regards
Alex

[jane churchland]

Jereth wrote:

It's obvious what this means. "Critical and open-minded thought and theology" equals
- challenging outdated and obscurantist notions such as the authority, sufficiency and inerrancy of Scripture
- denying scientifically impossible ideas such as the virgin birth and miracles
- denying politically incorrect dogma such as "no way to God except through Jesus", and hell for the unrepentant
- welcoming progressive, enlightened truth such as the holiness of committed gay relationships
- encouraging intelligent sounding hypotheses that will appeal to university educated geniuses, such as the evolution of man from apes, the legendary nature of most of Biblical History, Deutero-Isaiah, pseudonymous authorship of the Pastoral Epistles...

Jereth, I think it is really not at all fair to say that 'critical and open minded' obviously equates to promoting a raft of positions that you reject. Surely conservative (or what ever other adjective you choose)  Christians, indeed all Christians, should be prepared to engage others on their own terms, at least in the first instance. This whole MASG thing is purported to be about ANGLICANism in Melbourne. Although it is stated earlier in this thread that MASG is an evangelical, bible based discussion forum, as Cat pointed out the word 'evangelical' is actually not part of it's defined purpose. The Anglican church is not and never has been a church defined by one flavour of theology or churchmanship. (Which is not to say that Anglicanism is an entirely anything goes denomination. )

At a time when the parts of our church are tearing themselves apart, (which surely is a matter of deep concern and distress for all of us?), it bears upon all of us to act and speak carefully. Words are powerful. Words can build up, but just as surely tear down. This is a public forum, not a private conversation. All sorts of people will be reading these comments. When I hear less conservative Christians mocking and/or talking down to and/or caricaturing conservative Christians it does not make me more likely to be persuaded that they have something worthwhile to say. Those in Melbourne sympathetic to the GAFcon movement (finding out about which is probably what draws many people to this site) are looking at a big task of communication, especially as much of that little which has been published about GAFcon is negative or uninformed reporting. I believe there are many people in Anglican churches in Melbourne who are neither paid up conservative evangelicals with all the trimmings nor crusading anti-biblical resurrection denialists. What do you want such people to think of GAFconistas? smug. self congratulatory. quick to judge others. That is certainly the tone of not a few posts which appear in these forums. Others have said this earlier in this thread in different words. And been jumped on. Please, let us all strive to be better than this.

[Alex Milner]

Jane wrote:

Christians, indeed all Christians, should be prepared to engage others on their own terms, at least in the first instance.

Hi Jane,

I agree with this - it's a pretty charitable approach that we should adopt.

But the difficulty comes once you reach the end of the "first instance", and you are faced with some hard choices. I know of some evangelicals who've spent years working within the Diocese, who largely for pragmatic reasons in my view, would not bear any criticism of theological liberals. The result was that excesses went unchallenged and there was not enough debate of ideas.

At some point, Christians have to stand for truth, even if inconvenient or uncomfortable for those in positions of power (even if some 'offense' is taken), and even personally inconvenient. I remember being invited to a breakfast at some special room at Trinity College for a Diocesan committee. It was a lovely breakfast, but the views expressed by attendees were so obnoxious, the false 'privilege' that the breakfast represented was so irritating (that false love of wealth and status that some anglicans fawn over), that I physically couldn't eat! All I could think of was "don't eat the king's rations" (Dan 1:3-8)! Yes, I was as polite as my pre-caffeinated self permits - but I am sure that some were offended.

Jane wrote:

What do you want such people to think of GAFconistas? smug. self congratulatory. quick to judge others.

"GAFconistas" sounds like Che Guevara! Cool (... hmm maybe not)

I think you've indentified one of the limits of forum discussions - what's missing is the context, intonation and tone. It's possible to read most forum posts (anywhere for that matter) as angry rants if you really want to.

Jane wrote:

Those in Melbourne sympathetic to the GAFcon movement (finding out about which is probably what draws many people to this site) are looking at a big task of communication, especially as much of that little which has been published about GAFcon is negative or uninformed reporting.

 
So how should GAFconistas go about promoting what Gafcon means for Melbourne diocese? And perhaps more relevantly, what do you think Gafcon means for Melbourne diocese?

[Tim Patrick]

[Moderator's note]

Hi all,

I want to echo a couple of concerns.

Without evidence, I don't think it is reasonable to say x obviously means y when talking of someone else's position on something. Nor do I think you can say statement x really means statement y.

I appreciate that some of you have far more knowledge about the inner workings of the Melbourne Diocese than others, but I still think that presenting simple equations is not so helpful. If you wanted to, you could present some hard evidence that proves your decoding is correct - that would be interesting. If you're not able to do that, then you might be less definitive and say something like 'it seems to me that... '

I agree that there needs to be a place for issues to be properly and frankly discussed. I also agree that it's important that we show the world that we know how to do that without presumption and with abounding grace.

Thanks, Tim

[Alex M]

Hey Tim,

Forum posts, by their nature, are statements of opinion - hopefully considered opinion.

Where I've stated opinions, I've deliberately tried to keep them generalised and non-specific exactly to avoid naming particular individuals (some of whom I should say I respect, but also disagree with). There is ample written evidence of particular people's views, and enough anecdotal evidence that those views are not unrepresentative of the groups they are associated with. Adding evidence of comments or conversations identifying particular people shouldn't really be necessary.

Kind regards
Alex

[Andrew Bowles]

Here are some good questions that 'semi-interested observer' asked earlier before the thread got derailed. It would be good to discuss them and their implications, if anyone has the information to hand.

"1. Does anyone know what the membership of these 4 dioceses is in proportion to the entire membership of the TEC? (on paper at least)

2. Is there going to be a new North American province of the anglican Church?

3. Is this a contravention of what was agreed at Lambeth? (i.e. no more cross border actions)

4. How does any of this really matter? does anything change?"

[Alex Ross]

It is interesting to see how this thread has really changed direction mid-way.  Quiet Observer's post may indeed have been strongly worded and perhaps unfair, but it's certainly prompted a lot of introspection!  As well as not a few broad assumptions and fairly insensitive remarks.  The 'subtle bullying' that Quiet mentions was quickly evidenced: Andrew Stagg makes a fairly cheap and unnecessary attack on a trivial spelling mistake:

"Dear Observor, Observer has an 'e' in it. It's time you learnt to spell your real name, so that (as Alex says) you can be as accountable as the rest of us."

That promotes a safe environment for healthy discussion - ?? - is it any wonder people (like me) are unwilling to completely own up to our identities.  Does it make our argument less valid? Does it diminish the discussion? Perhaps we shouldn't have anonymous voting in Australia for the same reason?  Or perhaps it is a fair sign that discussion on this forum is not as 'critical yet gracious' as Tim points out, and I'm sure had hoped when he started out.  

I am probably what you would describe as a 'liberal' - although I would never class myself as that.  I find the term quite repugnant in fact, contrary to what Alex Milner asserts:

"I don't believe either group would have much difficulty with or be insulted by the description "liberal"." (though I have not had any involvement with either MAT or Changing Attitudes)

Rather, I'd call myself a fundamentalist.  I'm into the fundamentals.  And I don't think there's anything 'liberal' about that:

I believe in the unique and particular revelation of God - and of God's relationship with all creation - through the Scriptures, and of the primary role of Scripture in grounding our faith and "containing all things necessary for salvation" - the revelation of God's salvific purpose for all people.

I believe in the ultimate and incarnate expression of this revelation - Jesus Christ - the Word, the Son of God, who lived and died and who's death and resurrection tore open the curtain of separation between God and his people... who, once and for all, atoned for the sins of mankind - and who commands us to proclaim this Good News until he comes again.

I believe in the intricate dance of the Trinity - God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit... a Father that so perfectly loves us and calls us to mirror this love and reflect it on each other.  A Son who has entered so fully into our human experience that in his person the human and the divine is woven into one, and in his death and resurrection the reconcilliation of God with his people is triumphant.  A Spirit that proclaims the living God - a God that continues to reveal himself to us (as although the ultimate revelation is Christ himself, who of us can look upon him? (Rev 1:17)) "Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches"

I believe in the bride of Christ - the Church.  The Church not as buildings, or liturgies or rituals... but as people.  And just as people build great buildings to glorify God and to help themselves enter a space where they may encounter God (not to say God is outside these spaces, they are useful for us only) ... so people, and the Church, have built up liturgies and prayers and rituals that are helpful for some (and unhelpful for others, this is inevitable and must be allowed for and kept in check... Article 20)  but the Church isn't just an 'historical institution', and it seems to throw it away would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Might be worth noticing that the 39 Articles, the BCP and - yes even - the Scriptures are historical documents (which Cat Patrick points out) and this doesn't diminish their importance, in fact I think it highlights it - it means they have stood the test of time, and importantly, the test of the people - the Church - so surely there's something in it?

I believe in other things too, which I don't think are 'liberal' but I believe are pretty fundamental... the discussion here about the duplicity of words is rather apt, after all - words are our way of expressing the inexpressible - isn't that the wonderful point of God's somewhat unsatisfactory answer to Moses when he asks - and I paraphrase - who are you? Who shall I say you are?  We love to box things up, to pigeon hole them, to give them labels.  God masterfully swipes this all aside, and I find them wonderful words to repeat to myself to be reminded of God's great holiness and indescribable mystery - regardless of translation, "I am what I am, and I will be what I will be".

All this may be so, comments Alex Milner, but "the difficulty comes once you reach the end of the "first instance", and you are faced with some hard choices."  That reminds me of a great story I once heard.  The end of the "first instance" ... could we perhaps say Old Testament?  And the hard choices? New Testament?  And what was the choice? How does God respond? - with exclusion? with rejection? with redemption for the chosen?  with conditional mercy? with limited grace? No - it is abundance of life, and grace and total reconcilliation... the response is so perfectly 'love'... and "from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace."(John 1:16)  Wow... what a model - are we not too called to make such a response... ?  I wonder if we can (to quote a great Lennon song)

Jareth makes an interesting comment - "of course they wouldn't set foot in a Bible-teaching church either" ... there is the assumption here that anything other than, and please excuse the 'label giving', an 'evangelical' church is 'Bible-teaching'... I find that greatly offensive... in fact I might note that I have been to a few 'evangelical' services myself and noted the lack of direct 'biblical' content... perhaps only a psalm, perhaps a detailed analysis of an Old Testament passage - i wanted to ask, "Where is the gospel?"  I accept that the entire service would have used biblical passages throughout - woven into the liturgy - but this is also true of any BCP or APBA service... I don't for one minute want to suggest that the 'evangelical' churches do not draw on or respect the bible - as I know they do! - but I think it is totally unfair - and perhaps spiteful - to assert that any other tradition is not 'Bible-teaching'.  

Of course there is a question over biblical interpretation - and Jarath again seems to deplore "intelligent sounding hypotheses that will appeal to university educated geniuses".  I'm not going to enter the debate here as I simply don't have the understanding, I'm not theology student ... but sometimes I think humanity - especially in our own culture where the tall poppies are so quickly cut down - should, from time to time, just listen a tiny bit - and perhaps try to understanding just the smallest iota - of what these "university educated geniuses" are saying ... maybe it would be worth it.  

I read something wise somewhere:
"Scripture is a sweet, pure flower, whereof spiders gather poison and bees honey.
Go thither instructed with wholesome doctrine and thou shalt see it confirmed.
Go thither infected with malicious opinions and then thou shalt writhe out matter wherewith to maintain them"

I think it would be foolish to definitively position ourselves as either the spider or the bee... but this is what we must discern.  Perhaps it is healthy to maintain, alongside our confidence, that we may just as well be the spider as we think we are the bee... a lot of prayer, self examination and grace is needed there... let us who think we are bees pray not only for the spiders, but that we are not spiders ourselves... perhaps there is a role for the Spirit in God's revelation after all?

I guess I've had my rant... but there is still so much more I feel I want to say, because - although you might think I'm a stuffy knee-bending, ritualist, out of touch, clinging to dying traditions, etc etc - I'm passionate.  And I'm passionate about only one thing - and that is Jesus, and proclaiming the Good News of his resurrection.  I guess this forum isn't the place to do it really - I'm sure you've already heard of him... but I guess I see in this city, in this Diocese, on this forum (and in my own tradition too!) so much less than what we are called to be.  Perhaps the future of this Diocese lies not in forums like this, but in real face to face engagement with eachother - engagement that is forged by nothing but love, the perfect love that we are called to give to our neighbour, the love with which we ourselves have been loved by the Father... the sacrificial love - what will we have to give up?  Tim - I believe it was you (though it may not have been, this is just my memory...) who wrote in a past TMA that you had had a number of discussions with another member of the Church from a very different tradition, and although you found much to agree on and much to talk about - you said (again my memory, forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth) that you would probably not invite that person to preach at your parish, and they would probably not invite you to theirs.  I remember thinking, what sort of Church is that?  We carry on like the Sadducees and the Pharisees.    

Now perhaps a disclaimer.  I had originally intended to send this with some degree of anonymity.  But I'm going to put my name - because I really believe what I'm trying to say shouldn't just be dismissed, as I have seen on this forum, as just "oh they're anonymous so we don't have to take them seriously".  Please respect though that I feel rather exposed.  I have also written very personally, and I do not speak with authority... I'll be ready to admit that I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum is much older than me and more experienced in these matters, so please don't tear it to shreds but accept it as a whole...

"May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight:
O Lord, my strength and my redeemer." (Ps. 19:14)

[Alex M]

Hi Alex,

Welcome to the forum. I appreciate that you've taken the time to comment and respond - so I'll take some time to re-read and think through what you've said tomorrow and respond later.

Kind regards
Alex

[Andrew Stagg]

Andrew Bowles wrote:

Here are some good questions that 'semi-interested observer' asked earlier before the thread got derailed. It would be good to discuss them and their implications, if anyone has the information to hand.

"1. Does anyone know what the membership of these 4 dioceses is in proportion to the entire membership of the TEC? (on paper at least)

2. Is there going to be a new North American province of the anglican Church?

3. Is this a contravention of what was agreed at Lambeth? (i.e. no more cross border actions)

4. How does any of this really matter? does anything change?"

Hi Andrew,
these are good questions that our visitor asked - I'll have a go at them to the best of my knowledge, but I'm really hoping that someone else is more up to date.

1) I'm not sure of the size of these diocese's - or their significance in relation to TEC, does anyone know?? At least three of the four are anglo-catholic and the significance of this is the anglo catholics are totally out - If I understand what I've read correctly there are no longer any anglo catholic dioceses in TEC. The bigger picture is pretty devastating too - i'd like to confirm the numbers, but I've read that something approaching individual 500 churches had left (many without their buildings)  even before Pitsburg and  Fort Worth walked. TEC is reputed to be loosing about 1000 individual members a week.
2) A number of people have been urging that Rowan Williams recognize the inevitable and formally institute a new province. To date he has completely ignored these requests. If you remember when Bishop Duncan got show-tried by TEC, Williams showed, well a remarkable lack of leadership, by disappearing over to Lourdes. My memory is getting hazy now, but I seem to recall him and presenting a rather scandalous speach about how impressed he was by the whole blessed virgin thing. It was about this time that JI Packer made his second call for Williams to stand down.
3) "Cross border incursions" is a term one side have been using quiet a lot. The other side has been using the term "episcopal oversight". Basically what's been happening is that the churches and dioceses that have decided that they now have no choice but leaving, have requested outside help so that they can remain accountable within the anglican structure. Cross boarder incursions is better understood as christians around the world stepping in and supplying a lifeboat to churches that desperately need it. Understood in that light I personally have found it very extremely hard to understand why some anglicans have this found this so very controversial - especially when the brutal actions (brutal seems as apt a word as any) of TEC against these churches have incited little comment (and even less passion) from these same people.
On the flip side of this equation there are a raft of promises that the TEC made prior to lambeth, at the previous Lambeth and at the various emergency conferences in between - all of which have pretty much been completely ignored. At one conference (possibly Dar Selam) Katherine Jefforts Schori (the TEC primate) agreed to stop her litigation against orthodox parishes that were leaving. This promise lasted about the length of time it took her to fly home.
4) It matters because anglican churches who wish to remain faithful to the bible still have permission to survive. One of the reasons that Fort Worth diocese decided to pull up stumps now, was that they felt they could see some very bleak things happening in the future. TEC had already passed unpopular legislation compelling churches to accept female priests - even though if they didn't want them for conscience reasons. What Fort Worth feared (amoungst other things), was that TEC, within in a year of two would legislate to compel churches to provide homosexual weddings. It hasn't happened yet, but many people feel that given how things have unfolded this step is inevitable.

hopefully others can more add to this information, and tidy up the gaps.
cheers
ANDREW

[Jereth]

Tim and Jane,

Thanks for what you've written. I confess that in my interpretation of "Critical and open-minded thought and theology" I was engaging in some shrill polemics.

But I hope you can excuse my deeply held concerns and fears. Not much longer that 12 months ago we had articles published in the TMA challenging the idea that Jesus' death was a substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf. When I took this to our homegroup soon afterwards everyone was mortified.

Anyone who's been around the traps knows that other fundamental doctrines such as the ones I listed (miracles, hell, inerrancy) are challenged on a regular basis by liberal theology.

As for the historicity and authorship of the Bible -- well, I have to confess bewilderment, from my experience of Bible college reading, that even some evangelicals seemingly don't have conviction anymore about these things. My wife recalls a friend of ours, who went to Bible college in the late 90s, and said "When you go to Bible college they teach you that the Bible wasn't written by who it says it's written by!" (disclaimer: my hat goes off to my Ridley teachers in 2007 who all took the historicity of the bible seriously and rejected pseudonymity)

I know that there are many like myself who look at all this in stuporous disbelief and wonder to ourselves "what the heck is going on with the Church?" (Some have voted with their feet and left this denomination.) Surely it's panic button time when our denominational newspaper sees fit to have an open minded, critical discussion about whether Jesus took the punishment for our sins or not??? In my opinion -- yes, my personal, subjective, flawed, biased opinion -- the church today, as in centuries past, should have no time for anyone who is going to challenge atonement, or virgin birth, or inerrancy, or hell, or miracles, or the historicity of the Bible. Let alone continue to tolerate and entertain these ideas for years on end, and ordain people who are sympathetic to these ideas. "A little leaven spreads through the whole batch of dough".

Going back to how this thread started: now personally I have to admit that I find it hard to care much about TEC and what is happening on the other side of the planet, as some others clearly do. But how did TEC get the sorry way it is? Or what about the Uniting Church here in our own country? I'm sure that it didn't transform that way overnight -- it was probably several decades of "open minded and critical theology" starting with a distrust of what the Bible claims for itself, moving on to a denial of fundamental truths, and then progressing from there.

Guys -- I know I don't need to persuade you of any of this, I suspect you share many of my concerns. Just wanted to clarify where I'm coming from, because I did shoot from the hip back there as you have pointed out.

God bless
Jereth

[Cat Patrick]

Alex Milner wrote:

Saying "we are committed to affirming and strengthening diversity" is really saying "we are not those monochrome cookie-cutter evangelicals".

Saying "we are committed to strengthening critical and open-minded thought and theology" is really saying "we are not those close minded evangelicals".

Saying "we are committed to deepening understanding of how the Church can be authentic in its contemporary environment" is really saying "we are not those shallow evangelicals who sacrifice the prayerbook".

Saying "we are committed to leadership by people who are lay and ordained, female and male" means "we are not like those clergy focussed, male only evangelicals".

Saying "we are committed to giving an effective voice to a plurality of views in the decision-making structures of the Diocese" means something like "The (Sydney) evangelicals are coming!"

Hi Alex

I'm new to thinking about the inner workings of the Diocese and synod. I have a strong desire to take people at their word and to assume the most gracious and charitable position I can about people's motives and actions. From all I know of you personally and the respect that I and others have for you, I trust that you don't speak lightly or ignorantly. I know that you have a deep love for Jesus and to see his kingdom grow in ways that honour him. It is difficult to not hear anger and judgment in these words, though, and that makes it hard to want to be on side with you!

I don't think it would be wise or gracious at all to pull in names or specific conversations. But if you want us to learn from your experience of being deeply involved in Melbourne Diocese, it may be helpful to use words which show love and demonstrate your involvement and some hints about the experiences which prompt your words and perspective.

I think the breadth of contributors on this thread well show that there are a number of people who don't and won't automatically agree with you or trust that you speak accurately. I think this particular post is more likely to lose people than help people to understand more about these groups.

Thanks for your participation, though, and for even pointing these groups out to us.

Cat

[Luke Isham]

Quiet Observor wrote:

Good on you Ken!  I imagine there are a few of us who have found this forum and have been quietly watching it slowly transform into a viperous and self-congratulatory bastion for a particular faction of this Diocese.  All posts which don't conform are quickly shot down - and it's not surprising that the subtle bullying has kept many away from the discussions and made many uncomfortable in giving more information about themselves.  That kind of conversation would require a safe and open environment where debate was healthy and respectful - this is clearly not such a place.  

Hi Quiet Observor,

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the forum.  As a long time forum-contributor, here Ship-of-fools and various other places I've seen a lot of on-line debate.  People feel less inhibited to express their own opinions and be critical of other people's.  The best option would be for people to be more honest and forthright in real-life and more gentle on-line.  However we have to do the best we can within the circumstances.

As someone who has argued for conservative theology on this forum I am offended that you've called the discussions I've been a part of "viperous and self-congratulatory."  I agree it needs to be safe but I would have thought the use of real names, Tim's moderation and the guidelines at the entrance of the forum would have provided that?  However it's only a forum and I been offended by far worse on other forums so I'm already over it, I just wanted to bring it to your attention.

Stick around, throw ideas into the fire, if they are strong they'll last and people will be changed by them.