Welby responds to the primates of Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda regarding Lambeth conference

What purpose would be served in attending? None. So why go? (Welby won't even recognize Abp. Beach's Anglican orders; he'd be invited as "observer" only. It's a power play on Welby's part to establish primacy. It didn't work.)

As to our point of view: it has been amply put forth in the Jerusalem Statement of 2008 and (for the ACNA) the Fundamental Declarations of the Province. Canterbury knows the issues as well as GAFCON does. The issue is over whether Man or God has ultimate authority over the church. We believe God has given his Word in the Bible on this issue, clearly and in plain language, in multiple passages and in both Old and New Testaments. We believe the prohibition of homosexual behavior is absolute, that it is a salvific issue, and that it cannot be embraced or affirmed or even tolerated without outraging Anglican doctrine and basic tenets of the Christian faith.

The Lambeth Conference simply has nothing to offer GAFCON/ACNA at this point. What moral guidance can they possibly provide?

 

Huh? Archbishop Welby isn’t the one attempting to establish parallel jurisdictions in existing Anglican dioceses. How could his insistence on playing by the rules amount to a “power play”? In no other scenario would it be considered such. That is also no mechanism by which he could either assert or enforce any kind of primacy. He has no actual power outside of England. To say that Lambeth should be avoided to deny him a "power play" is disingenuous.

And by breaking with canonical Anglicanism to ensure that your point of view is never threatened, you have cut yourself from the possibility that you might be led by God to a different understanding. Without a divine spokesman to confirm absolutely who’s right, don’t be too sure which side picked God and which picked Man as the ultimate authority for the Church. Schism is the assertion of Man’s priority over the order established by God, literally so if one believes that there are “catholic” orders that Anglicanism shares with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

That pretty much confirms everything I’ve been saying.

 

The Church has no business giving its blessing to a union created for the sake of making sinful behavior more convenient and giving those sins the appearance of legitimacy. We can easily distinguish same-sex unions from wars, for the injustices incidental to war are in most cases distinguishable from the overarching, reasonable interests for conducting war (exceptions exist); the overarching reason for same-sex union is, quite frankly, the sexual sins which the couple intend to engage in under the auspices of a "blessed" union.

The latter is no more moral than asking a priest to bless a marital union between a human and a golden retriever. ("But I love my dog so much, and she loves me!") Same sex unions are disgusting, and an abomination before God. A "blessing" of a marriage union implies that God approves of it and that the church hopes the union prospers, but God disapproves of homosexual activity and the church has no legitimate right to represent God in hoping that the union produces lots of intimate "fun." Let's be clear: if two men (or two women) wish to live together in a platonic relationship, there is nothing wrong with that and nothing stands in their way, and they have zero need to be married in order to share other aspects of their lives! Contracts can be written, property can be shared, lives can be lived in the same house. The real issue here is that same-sex couples want the church to reassure them that, yes, God indeed winks at your coital relationship and declares it holy because you two feel "love" and have "good intentions" for each other, along with your lust.

 

Who really broke with whom? Wasn't it Welby and the CofE that said to the other churches, 'we don't recognize you as part of the Anglican Communion'? Show me where GAFCON churches as a group or the ACNA ever said to the Anglican Communion, 'we withdraw from fellowship with you'; no, I think the shoe was on the other foot.

 

ACC (or ACNA as it was then known) did attempt to participate in Lambeth 1978. Three, if memory serves, of the bishops who had been consecrated in Denver flew to England for the event. They were not admitted nor seated.

 

The African primates of Uganda, Rwanda, and Nigeria fire back at Abp. Welby's previous salvo.

Here's the conundrum: the one issue separating Anglicans right now is the one issue Abp. Welby absolutely will not address (in any substantive way). To be fair to Abp. Welby, he can't respond in any substantive way without causing a furor in one place or another. He's essentially doomed.

 

Well he can respond and uphold the Biblical doctrine of same sex activity and marriage being against the Bible. He would take some courage but he should do it.

 

It might be helpful to read the letter from Archbishop, and the letter from the Bishops of Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda, in their entirety. Much of the commentary here and elsewhere has been 'too much rhetoric, not enough fact'.

 

"Canterbury", or to be clear, the Church of England, has not in any way changed its teaching on marriage or the place of sexual relations.

And yet, there are openly practicing homosexual bishops in the church (as evidenced by the fact that they have same-sex spouses).

It boggles the mind.

Would (or should) the church ordain a man to priesthood if he were openly flaunting an adulterous relationship? Would he be able to become a bishop, too? What sort of example does that set for the laity? This scenario is analogous to the one at hand. Open, unrepentant sexual sin is open, unrepentant sexual sin.

 

The two statements aren't mutually exclusive. Even if they were, that isn't the real problem with what he said.

 

And what, pray tell, is the real problem with what he said? Please enlighten us.

 

He is engaging these three bishops on terms that they have chosen.