For your convenience, I said "as far as Gnosticm goes, it is a fact that having priestesses and out-of-body religious experiences are associated. ACNA makes quite a point of not opposing women's ordination and promoting charismaticism. One can draw one's own conclusions." Now please tell me, what part of my statement do you think is inaccurate? That out-of-body religious experience is central to gnosticism? http://www.gnostic.info/outofbody.html That charismaticism and gnosticism are closely related? http://www.believershome.com/html/pentecostal-_charismatic-_third_wave_movements.html That ACNA and AMIA are very much friendly towards the charismatic movement? If you don't know this, then you know nothing of these churches. That the women's ordination movement draws strength from gnosticism? http://www.oswaldsobrino.com/2003/08/gnostic-influence-on-issue-of-womens.html That gnosticism does not lead directly to sexual identity confusion such as is common in ALL Anglican circles? Even the main stream media knows that Anglicans universally are confused in matters of sexuality. That ACNA is friendly to women's ordination? Again, if you don't know this, then you know nothing of ACNA. That gnosticism is un-Biblical? Surely you know that modern "scholarship" has opened the door towards accepting the evidence of gnostic and other extra-Biblical texts as valid authorities for the teaching and practice of the first Christians, and that this led to the discussion about the role of women in the church. Note also that I was very careful not to say that ACNA is a church of priestesses and gnostics, but rather that it is a church of pluralism, where anything goes (including these heresies) "just so long as it is preached with enthusiasm and sincerity." If you don't believe this pluralism exists, just look and smorgasbord of religious enthusiasms that they are planting. http://anglican1000.org/?/main/plants
Hate to burst your bubble but Anglicanism has always had more than one opinion in it. The sort of Reformed uniformity you want has simply never existed.
I'm surprised to hear you now saying that I'm in the Anglican bubble. The last time you were insisting that there was no place for me in the Anglican bubble, and the time before that you pleading for me to take my place in the Anglican bubble at any cost. Make up your mind. I will grant you one point... that uniformity (I shall call it clarity) has never existed in Anglicanism. But that doesn't mean clarity (Reformed) did not exist in the minds and hearts of some anglicans (small "a").
I never said you weren't welcome, you just need to acknowledge that you don't particularly want to practice real Anglicanism. If you change your mind, then you have to acknowledge that Anglicanism does allow for a diversity of opinion.
Does anyone else share this anti-charismatic view? Considering charismatic Anglicans to be gnostics or pseudo-gnostic seems far fetched to me. I always considered Holy Trinity Brompton as being one of the more important churches in the Communion. Have we truly given up the idea that the Anglican Communion includes (and should include) evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics, charismatics and liberals? I do not include those US heretics who deny the Trinity an/or the Resurrection. IMHO, to consider charismatics to be Gnostics is to have a severely inaccurate view of both groups.
If y'all want to kick out the charismatics and the liberals, I think that this would require a complete revamping of what it means to be Anglican.
Actually, I am thoroughly familiar with both the ACNA and the AMiA. You did not have to go into that long discourse to try and prove what you said. What I deny as "fact", as you assert, is that having women priests ( or other women ministers) and out-of-body religious experiences are associated. That is definitely not factual and is ludicrous on its face. Your attempt to associate women's ordination with gnosticism is silly and insulting.
As a statement of fact, I agree completely that Anglicanism allows for a diversity of opinion. As a matter of opinion, I think that to be wrongheaded and contrary to the good intent of those that wrote the Articles, the Prayer Book, the Homilies, etc.. It's interesting that you are asking for charges to be filed against the Episcopal PB on the grounds that she is intolerant of Lawrence, but not on grounds that she is tolerant of just about every perversion known to God. I know that you claim to be a conservative, but in this you are just like the liberals who are tolerant of everything but intolerance.
CatholicAnglican. I prefer to draw a distinction between Anglican with a big "A" and anglican with a small "a". I reject everything with respect to official Anglicanism and accept everything in the Book of Common Prayer that most Anglicans do not, including especially the Articles in their original sense circa 1553. Note please that there is a big difference between the anglicanism of 1553 and the Anglicanism of 1559.
Have you read Tract 90 of the Tracts for The Times? You should http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract90/
Tract 90 is complete rubbish. http://thehackneyhub.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-destructive-influence-of-tract-90.html
You know that I am opposed to the teaching of the Presiding Bishop. It's a question of picking your battles. I could file a complaint with her teaching and nothing would happen. However, if I file a complaint for a breach of canon law, it's possible the matter might be looked at by the Disciplinary Board.
Do you accept the authority of the House of Bishops to depose a diocesan bishop? If so, under what circumstances? Perhaps we should go back to Ignatius and understand that where the bishop is the Church is also. Even so, are there no ways, other than Council, to remove a bishop? Yes, others should have been deposed and were not. It is not "fair" to depose Bishop Lawrence and not Bishop Spong,
The House of Bishops can depose a bishop, I believe that's the only canonical way for it to occur. Deposition is different from renunciation of orders though. The former simply states that the Bishop is not a DFMS bishop. The latter concerns renouncing ordain ministry, which Mark Lawrence has not done, because it must be submitted in writing when all other disciplinary charges have been resolved, which has also not happened.
Do I understand correctly that you are choosing this battle because you think it is winnable? I don't think it is winnable, but personally,I should rather lose a battle on a point of moral law than win a battle on a point of canon law.