The Archbishop of Canterbury has drawn up a plan to split the Anglican Communion, and to expel the Episcopal Church. Full Canterbury statement here. Ruth Gledhill explains it all on her blog. And TMatt at Get Religion has, as usual, lots of links.
My view? This is good. Painful, but necessary. ECUSA's liberals were going to push and push and push, and we're never going to do anything other than exactly what they wanted to do, but instead were going to cover it with soothing, conciliatory language. And now they have pushed too far.
Canterbury says: It's schism
Tuesday June 27, 2006
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
That would bring some clarity to the debate, indeed. If the ECUSA would simply say, "Paul was wrong" about homosexuality (maybe even add "and Jesus was silent on this issue"), then the Anglican Communion could choose.
Do we go with Paul? Spong?
Hard choice, isn't it?>
Naw - easy as pie. I'd go with Spong, as he clearly recognizes that grace is freely given to *every* sinner.
Paul seemed to think there are some sinners that grace can't be bothered with.
Who is more in line with Christ?>
"Paul seemed to think there are some sinners that grace can't be bothered with."
More accurately, he posited that those who were living into the grace they had received would turn away from sin. (paraphrase- because we have grace, should we go on sinning? God forbid! Romans 6:15).
Kind of along the same lines of Christ, who more than once told those he interacted with to "go and sin no more.">
It seems very simple to me.
ECUSA is an autonomous body. Many branches of the communion oficially believe or practice things that other branches do not. Female ordination comes easily to mind. The Majority of our decision making body voted to Confirm Robinson, (which by the way is only voting to say the election was held correctly). The Windsor report was issued, which was One Province (England) attempting to impost their will and the will of other provinces on OUR province. General Convention correctly rejected it. It is Windosr which is opposed tho the tradition, laws, and structure of the church, not any action of ECUSA. This is true no matter what you believe on homosexuality or female ordination.
An attempt by conservatives is underway to impose a new structure on the church. I wonder how they will feel when the time comes that the other primates want them to practice something they don't believe.>
More accurately, he posited that those who were living into the grace they had received would turn away from sin. (paraphrase- because we have grace, should we go on sinning? God forbid! Romans 6:15).
Kind of along the same lines of Christ, who more than once told those he interacted with to "go and sin no more."
Right - because we know that once someone accepts Christ's Grace, they never ever sin again, right?>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.