?

Log in

David's Journal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
David Ould

[ website | David Ould ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

syndicating my blog [Jun. 8th, 2007|04:21 pm]
David Ould
thanks to this_is_warmth I have syndication of my website, davidould.net.

Here it is

davidouldrss

feel free to add it to your friends feed. I'd love it if you felt like coming over and commenting.
Link15 comments|Leave a comment

signing off [Jun. 5th, 2007|11:25 pm]
David Ould
you may all have noticed that I've not posted in a long long time.

Truth is, I spend no time here anymore. Inbetween my studies, getting the personal site up and running and much more activity on Stand Firm, LJ has dropped off my radar.

I'd love to stay in contact with those of you who used to read me regularly. Perhaps someone with a paid account would set up a syndicated account for my RSS feed.

Do come over to davidould.net and say hello.
Link5 comments|Leave a comment

Stand Firm video, 28 Feb. 2007 [Mar. 1st, 2007|11:03 am]
David Ould

Stand Firm video, 28 Feb. 2007
"Stand Firm video, 28 Feb. 2007" on Google Video
Matt Greg and I do the rounds.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Jefferts-Schori: How not to listen to anyone at all [Feb. 21st, 2007|11:57 am]
David Ould
[Tags|, , ]

...which is, frankly, quite appalling for someone who keeps going on about "listening".

From here, Schori's "Word to the Church". Here's the bits that really grabbed my attention.

The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the mainstream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.

The reference to meat-eaters is key here. Schori has just brought up 1Cor. 8, where Paul is concerned about those who eat food that has been offered up to idols in the pagan temples. What is clear from 1Cor. 8 is that this is a one-way thing. To put it another way, there are those who are meat-eaters and there are those that are not. How should those who don't eat the pagan offerings treat those who do? It's not a completely balanced issue, both parties are not the same. But Schori wants to argue that they are. The mainstream majority position is marginalised by the use of the term "strict" (i.e. blinkered). She uses the term "mainstream" but wants to suggest that it's a "narrow" view. Note that no such qualifier is used for the liberal position; it is simply "a desire for justice".

Also, we're all just making a mountain out of a molehill. The conflict is only "apparent". If we call all just understand Schori's position then we'd see how divisive our "strict" stand is and the "apparent" conflict would disappear.

This attempt to level out the two positions, indeed to subtely undermine the mainstream position, is almost dishonest since it doesn't even remotely represent either the current situation in the Communion or the scriptural witness. We're all aware what the mainstream position actually is; it was laid out in specific detail in Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10.

From misrepresenting the current position, she then moves to misrepresent the Communiqué.
Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season. The word of hope is that in God all things are possible, and that fasting is not a permanent condition of a Christian people, nor a normative one. God’s dream is of all people gathered at a feast, and we enter Lent looking toward that Easter feast and the new life that will, in God’s good time, be proclaimed.

Ask yourself this question: are TEC being asked in the Communiqué to put a ban on things "for a season" or permanently? It is, surely, the latter! The exact requirements were "unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the communion - see Windsor para 134". This is obviously not the "season" that Schori is talking of because does anyone really think the mind of the Communion is going to change on this issue in even the medium-term? Schori, rather, is trying to put TEC into a holding-pattern.

Now, I assume that she's not stupid. This is a clever ploy. She is working hard to understate the strength of the requirements placed upon TEC. She needs to placate people like Integrity who are abundantly clear on how stiff the demands of the Communiqué are.
The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had this reaction:

“Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an “anti-Gospel” that will (and should) repel many.”

For Integrity, this isn't just a matter of eating meat - it's about how you understand the Gospel. It's a refreshing clarity on what is going on. The tragedy of how Schori is handling all this is that by trying to tread a middle ground she is demonstrating that she's not really listening to any of the key voices. Perhaps one of the issues that we need to watch out for is how long these people will think they need to keep listening to her?

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<img [...] process"">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

...which is, frankly, quite appalling for someone who keeps going on about "listening".

From <a href="http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/02/the_presiding_bishops_word_to.html#more" target="_blank">here</a>, Schori's "Word to the Church". Here's the bits that really grabbed my attention.

<blockquote>The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the mainstream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.</blockquote>
The reference to meat-eaters is key here. Schori has just brought up 1Cor. 8, where Paul is concerned about those who eat food that has been offered up to idols in the pagan temples. What is clear from 1Cor. 8 is that this is a one-way thing. To put it another way, there are those who are meat-eaters and there are those that are not. How should those who don't eat the pagan offerings treat those who do? It's not a completely balanced issue, both parties are not the same. But Schori wants to argue that they are. The mainstream majority position is marginalised by the use of the term "strict" (i.e. blinkered). She uses the term "mainstream" but wants to suggest that it's a "narrow" view. Note that no such qualifier is used for the liberal position; it is simply "a desire for justice".

Also, we're all just making a mountain out of a molehill. The conflict is only "apparent". If we call all just understand Schori's position then we'd see how divisive our "strict" stand is and the "apparent" conflict would disappear.

This attempt to level out the two positions, indeed to subtely undermine the mainstream position, is almost dishonest since it doesn't even remotely represent either the current situation in the Communion or the scriptural witness. We're all aware what the mainstream position actually is; it was laid out in specific detail in Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10.

From misrepresenting the current position, she then moves to misrepresent the Communiqu&eacute;.
<blockquote>Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season. The word of hope is that in God all things are possible, and that fasting is not a permanent condition of a Christian people, nor a normative one. God&rsquo;s dream is of all people gathered at a feast, and we enter Lent looking toward that Easter feast and the new life that will, in God&rsquo;s good time, be proclaimed.</blockquote>
Ask yourself this question: are TEC being asked in the Communiqu&eacute; to put a ban on things "for a season" or permanently? It is, surely, the latter! The exact requirements were "unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the communion - see Windsor para 134". This is obviously <b>not</b> the "season" that Schori is talking of because does anyone really think the mind of the Communion is going to change on this issue in even the medium-term? Schori, rather, is trying to put TEC into a holding-pattern.

Now, I assume that she's not stupid. This is a clever ploy. She is working hard to understate the strength of the requirements placed upon TEC. She needs to placate people like <a href="http://www.integrityusa.org/" target="_blank">Integrity</a> who are<a href="http://www.integrityusa.org/press/2007-02-19.htm" target="_blank"> abundantly clear on how stiff the demands of the Communiqu&eacute; are</a>.
<blockquote>The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had this reaction:

&#8220;Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an &#8220;anti-Gospel&#8221; that will (and should) repel many.&#8221;</blockquote>
For Integrity, this isn't just a matter of eating meat - it's about how you understand the Gospel. It's a refreshing clarity on what is going on. The tragedy of how Schori is handling all this is that by trying to tread a middle ground she is demonstrating that she's not really listening to <i>any</i> of the key voices. Perhaps one of the issues that we need to watch out for is how long these people will think they need to keep listening to her?

<img src="http://www.extensor.co.uk/articles/listening/fingers_in_ears.jpg" title="the "listening process"" border="1"/><p><font size=-1><a href="http://whitehorseinn.classicalanglican.net/?p=242">View this post at the WhiteHorseInn</a></font></p>
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

The Communiqué [Feb. 20th, 2007|09:57 am]
David Ould
[Tags|, , ]

Well, it's with us. The clone has a good summary.

Here are the direct disciplinary requirements:

  1. The House of Bishops of TEC needs to make a statement that all it’s members will unequivocally NOT authorise or allow any same-sex blessings in theit dioceses or TEC as a whole
  2. The House of Bishops of TEC needs to make a statement that all it’s members will unequivocally NOT consent to the consecration of any person as a Bishop who is living in a same-sex union
  3. Both these unequivocal statements need to be delivered by September 30th 2007 - Failure to do so will have “consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion”

It is, frankly, inconceivable that TEC will sign up to these. They have charted a clear path in the opposite direction. Plus, it would make the position of Gene Robinson untenable - he falls under both of the proscriptions.

This is good news. Schori will, no doubt, have claimed that TEC hasn't been able to respond. It's on the table now, unequivocably - put up or pack your bags.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

Link1 comment|Leave a comment

An example of "Tradition" in the pre-Nicene church? "I'll take just one!" [Feb. 19th, 2007|12:13 pm]
David Ould
[Tags|, ]

A wonderful clip from a debate between James White and Gerry Matatics on Long Island in 1996. Here White presses Matatics to demonstrate how those things that are supposed to be part of the 'Tradition' were believed by the early church. Well worth watching through the end. Pay careful attention to the arguments and assumptions on both sides.



View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

LinkLeave a comment

Daily Update, February 18, 2007 [Feb. 19th, 2007|08:56 am]
David Ould

Daily Update, February 18, 2007
"Daily Update, February 18, 2007" on Google Video
Topic: The Sub-Group Report and the Future of the Communion
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

I believe in the Holy Catholic Church [Feb. 18th, 2007|03:28 pm]
David Ould
[Tags|, , ]

posted today on Stand Firm


Read more...Collapse )
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Stand Firm Daily Update, February 16 2007 [Feb. 16th, 2007|11:19 pm]
David Ould

Stand Firm Daily Update, February 16 2007
"Stand Firm Daily Update, February 16 2007" on Google Video
Roundtable discussion: Are we looking at the end of Canterbury-led Anglicanism?
LinkLeave a comment

the liberals still don't get it? [Feb. 16th, 2007|12:08 pm]
David Ould
[Tags|, , ]

what is amazing about the liberals in the Anglican Communion is that, despite our abundantly clear talk, they still don't understand our position. It must be that they don't understand because no-one, surely, could be so dishonest as to deliberately misrepresent what their opponent is saying?

Surely?

Thing is, that becomes a bit hard to believe when the person talking nonsense is the Primate of Canada, Andrew Hutchison

Here's his blog piece from today.
I am going to a meeting with a gospel of hope and a preferential option for the poor and we are debating who is in and whom we are going to keep out. I have been at this long enough to know that it never boils down to one simple question. Meetings like this are filled with all manner of ego, authority and power but as we gather and are preparing to begin, that endless stream of humanity that I saw on my way haunts my memory. I wish we were dealing with what difference a gospel of hope could make in their lives, rather than worrying about strategies for the Primates and the politics that are an inevitable part of such gatherings. Please remember to pray for my brothers and sister who share in these meetings in the next few days. There is a huge amount at stake and the world needs to hear the good news again - that the gospel does not say God so loved the Church - rather it says God so loved the world!

This is a great example of both abuse of and total avoidance of what the bible says. Consider his first statement about "a gospel of hope". Notice how Hutchison uses those words in a completely different way to the Bible. For Hutchison, "hope" is about "a preferential option for the poor" (particularly those in Tanzania who he spends a whole paragraph describing in his post). In the Bible, hope and poverty are considered completely differently:
Colossians 1:3 We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4 since we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and the love that you have for all the saints. 5 Your faith and love have arisen from the hope laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard about in the message of truth, the gospel.

Simply put, the "gospel of hope" in the Bible is nothing to do with alleviation of poverty. It is about a certainty of an eternal future. Why is that eternal future so important? Well, Paul goes on to explain:
Colossians 1:21 And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your minds as expressed through your evil deeds, 22 but now he has reconciled you by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him 23 if indeed you remain in the faith, established and firm, without shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant.

The Christian hope is that whereas we used to be stangers and enemies of Christ (as the context makes clear) we are now reconciled to God by His death on the Cross. We are now considered to be holy, without blemish and blameless. What must we do? Simply "remain in the faith" - that is, just keep trusting Jesus who has done everything for us to make us right before God.

As Paul puts its, we should continue, "without shifting from the hope of the gospel you heard".

But, Hutchison seems to have another gospel - one that's not about presenting us as holy, without blemish and blameless before God but about the here and now.

And that's why we worry so much about these things. Because unrepentant homosexual practice, the Bible is clear, is a bar to entry into that saving hope (just as other blatant unrepentant sin is) (1Cor. 6:9; Jude 1:7 etc). Hutchison, and so many like him, ignore the real gospel and, to compound their error, then encourage people in activity that scripture tells us is a bar to entry into that gospel hope.

And, to make it worse, he then butchers the words of Jesus Himself (not that other scripture is less authoritative):
There is a huge amount at stake and the world needs to hear the good news again - that the gospel does not say God so loved the Church - rather it says God so loved the world!

There is "a huge amount at stake" - as John 3:16 (which Hutchison has so abused) makes abundantly clear.
John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone would pursue the United Nations Millenium Development Goals.

whoops, no, hang on a minute - I think that's wrong.

*flicks through bible*

oh yeah...
John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

That's the gospel, Hutchison.

As someone once said:
John 3:10 Jesus answered, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don't understand these things? 11 I tell you the solemn truth, we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

Link45 comments|Leave a comment

all the latest Anglican News [Feb. 16th, 2007|10:55 am]
David Ould
[Tags|, , ]

so, (as Sarah Hey wisely points out), the procedural politics have begun.


The big question before the Primates currently meeting in Tanzania is what to do with the Episcopal Church (TEC), and specifically whether they have met the requirements laid out in the Windsor Report and subsequent Dromantine Communiqué.


You would have thought there is an easy answer. As Kendall Harmon writes, "The Episcopal Church has Failed Respond Adequately to the calls of Windsor".


In order to help the Primates with that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, put together a small sub-committee to present a report on what TEC has done so far. That report can be read here and is, frankly, the biggest load of baloney yet produced by an Anglican body. Greg Griffith is absolutely correct when he writes:


This is not a case of different interpretations, or an attempt to make room for negotiations. It is a falsehood perpetrated on the communion.


The report's assertion that the response of TEC is generally adequate is ridiculous, as Matt Kennedy points out in this must-read article:



View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

LinkLeave a comment

our goddaughter, Eleanor, goes home [Feb. 16th, 2007|12:09 am]
David Ould
[Tags|]

fantastic news.


We're home! Whew! We thank our gracious Father for watching over Eleanor and bring about this healing so quickly. There's a little problem remaining, but not too serious because it was picked up early. When she was in Leonie's tummy, Eleanor was in the "frank breech" position. This means her head was up, her bottom was down, and her ankles were up around her ears! It's common for babies who present this way to have "dislocatable hips" - related to but more serious than "clicky hips". One of Eleanor's hips is dislocatable, requiring some important but non-invasive treatment over the coming months. We went through exactly the same issue with Adelaide four and a half years ago, so we know what we're in for - Eleanor will need to be in a little brace to keep her legs apart for a few months (she'll be perfectly comfortable but she'll end up over-stretching some wondersuits). She'll also need to have a round of ultrasounds in the coming months to check on the progress of her hip formation. The doctor who will be treating her is the same doctor who saw Adelaide when we lived in Sydney in 2002. The doctor is based in Randwick, but he sees patients in Wollongong, for which we're very grateful! Nevertheless, one of the benefits of staying in Randwick today is that we've been able to take advantage of the "hospital super-campus". Just before lunch some orthopaedic surgeons from Sydney Children's Hospital popped over to examine her, then we wheeled her little cot around to the orthotics department in Prince of Wales Hospital to get the brace, and back to the Royal Women's Hospital for an ultrasound downstairs, then the paediatrician came to check on Eleanor and get her discharged finally!


View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

LinkLeave a comment

Stand Firm, Daily Update, 15 Feb. 2007 [Feb. 15th, 2007|11:46 pm]
David Ould

Stand Firm, Daily Update, 15 Feb. 2007
"Stand Firm, Daily Update, 15 Feb. 2007" on Google Video
Roundtable discussion with Matt Kennedy, Sarah Hey, Greg Griffith, and myself.

We discuss the major issues being decided as we speak in Tanzania.
LinkLeave a comment

Stand Firm video, 14 Feb 2006 [Feb. 14th, 2007|11:53 pm]
David Ould

Stand Firm video, 14 Feb 2006
"Stand Firm video, 14 Feb 2006" on Google Video
Guests today: David Ould and Ruth Gledhill.
LinkLeave a comment

how many Luthers? the true via media [Feb. 14th, 2007|10:18 am]
David Ould
[Tags|, , ]

Ruth Gledhill has an excellent article in the Times.


Peter Akinola, of Nigeria, the leader of the orthodox and a likely primus inter pares for a new Global South Church, is not going to compromise. Nor is the pro-gay new US Primate, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, who could end up leading a new Episcopal Catholic Church. Dr Akinola would see himself as in Lutherâ™s tradition: âœHere I stand. I can do no other.â Dr Schori would see herself in exactly the same way. And so would the American bishop whose consecration in 2003 triggered the inevitable crisis, the openly gay Gene Robinson. No communion is big enough for these three Luthers, all nailing opposing theses to their church doors.


Well, who is the real Luther? The answer is quite clear when you see the full context of what Luther said at the Diet of Worms, 1521, when asked to explain his opposition to Rome.


Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.



This then is the true via media - in between the false authority of Roman popery on the one hand and rationalism on the other. Scripture and reason, but primarly scripture. Only one of the three "Luthers" stands in that place and it's not hard to see who.


View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

LinkLeave a comment

Stand Firm Update, 13 Feb. 2007 [Feb. 14th, 2007|09:56 am]
David Ould

Stand Firm Update, 13 Feb. 2007
"Stand Firm Update, 13 Feb. 2007" on Google Video
Sarah Hey and Ruth Gledhill join Matt Kennedy for a look at current events.

no David today - they had to make space for Ruth Gledhill

LinkLeave a comment

great news this morning [Feb. 13th, 2007|10:13 am]
David Ould
[Tags|]

News this morning about Eleanor Windsor
Even better news! Yesterday evening, the ventilator was removed, because Ellie is able to breathe all by herself. Most likely, she's going to move down to level 2 intermediate care today and will be able to go back to Wollongong hospital not long after that, perhaps on Wednesday or Thursday.

We were both able to spend some good time with her this evening.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

Link1 comment|Leave a comment

Tanzania video, day 2 [Feb. 13th, 2007|12:22 am]
David Ould

Tanzania video, day 2
"Tanzania video, day 2" on Google Video
second video. I'm near the start but don't dwell on that - watch all of it.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

A matter of trust - [Feb. 12th, 2007|12:06 pm]
David Ould
[Tags|]

Jim Naughton, over at the Diocese of Washington "news" blog, must be a Billy Joel fan. At least that was my first response after reading his latest piece on Tanzania
Word comes from Tanzania that Bishop Martyn Minns of CANA, Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream and Father David Anderson of the American Anglican Council are already in Dar es Salaam. I wonder if they are aware that their presence in Tanzania, like their presence in Northern Ireland, convey to the rest of the world that they don't trust Peter Akinola, Bernard Malango, Gregory Venables et. al. to manage on thier own?

Billy Joel was ringing in my ears. It's always been a matter of trust, you see.
Some love is just a lie of the heart,
The cold remains of what began with a passionate start.
And they may not want it to end,
But it will, it's just a question of when.

Breakups begin with a loss of trust. But the really telling moment is when that trust is transferred to someone else. So, when an adulterous spouse abandons someone and the stranded partner finally turns to someone else who will be faithful where the previous partner wasn't; well, it's a clear sign that there is trust where there wasn't previously.

So it's not at all the case here that Minns, Sugden and Anderson don't trust the Global South Primates. Quite the contrary - it's abundantly clear now that Akinola, Malango, Venables et al. don't trust Schori and her people and would rather set up show with someone they do trust and who they know isn' t running after another love (Jeremiah 3:6). Billy loves his girl and wants her to trust him, but the Global South don't trust TEC any more.

Naughton then goes on to quote Lionel Deimel's "bracing observation",
It is cold comfort that neither the traditions of the Anglican Communion nor the constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) nor the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church will allow the creation of the sort of independent ecclesiastical entity sought by Bishop Duncan in the latest plea for APO. (Composition of the ACC, which, arguably, either reflects or defines the membership of the Anglican Communion itself, can only be changed by a vote of two-thirds of the primates. No one believes that the votes are available to make such a change at next weekâ™s meeting.) The Anglican Communion has ceased to act as a fellowship, however, and increasingly acts through intimidation, if not outright coercion. It is therefore foolhardy for The Episcopal Church to rely on what the Communion âœcannotâ do to guarantee its integrity and independence.

I wonder if Deimel is confused? He says "the traditions of the Anglican Communion nor the constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) nor the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church will allow the creation of the sort of independent ecclesiastical entity sought by Bishop Duncan in the latest plea for APO" and then he outlines exactly how such structures can recognise such an alternate Province. And the votes may even be there. But more than that, it's not about votes. Ultimately ++Canterbury simply sends out (or doesn' t send out) invites.

Better than that, he thinks that the canons of TEC have something to do with it. That's a laughable argument. Imagine all 3 branches of the the United States Federal government agreeing to kick out one of the States. What if that State (and for fun pick your own - having spent a year at Univerity of Illinois I'm going for Michigan - YMMV) said "but our constitution and laws won't let you do that!" It wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference. But that's the situation we have here. 3 of the 4 Instruments of Unity (the 4th being the Lambeth Conference who have not met since the current crisis began) have made it abundantly clear that TEC is in the wrong and yet, apparently, the canons of TEC render such a unanimous declaration of disapproval irrelevant. I don' t think so. Frankly, TEC really don' t want to wait until Lambeth 2008 because the response their could make what has occurred so far look positively understated.

Is this coercion, as Deimel claims? No, on the contrary - it's Catholicity. The word "catholic" comes from the greek "kata" and "holos", literally "according to the whole". The whole, in terms of the Anglican Communion, have been phenomenally in the current crisis. Catholicity has been established and TEC's actions and statements consistently fall outside those defined boundaries. That is why the Windsor Report and the Primates use the language of "walking apart". Perhaps they should just have said "walking away".

Now, if you want to know what coercion looks like, then take lessons from Bonnie...
We have been tolerant of Bishop Iker....

in other words,
That's a nice diocese you've got there, Iker. Be a shame if anything happened to it...

or perhaps the almost daily filing of lawsuits in Virginia?

Of course, all of this is in order to defend the cherished "independence". Just think about that for a minute. The New Testament is chocka full of reminders of the co-dependency of Christians. We submit to one another (Eph. 5:21) and we imitate God (Eph. 5:1) in Christ, giving Himself up for us (Eph. 5:2). It is no wonder that when a group want to give up the imitation and worship of God and, rather, imitate and worship other things (Rom. 1:21-32) that they would strive for independence. When you're independent you don't have to walk with anyone else, there's no need for them.

Billy is clearly in denial
Some love is just a lie of the heart.
The cold remains of what began with a passionate start.
But that can't happen to us.....
Because it's always been a matter of trust.

He mistakenly thinks that things are going to work out, if only his girl would just trust him again. He's hopelessly wrong. He's not the only one.

View this post at the WhiteHorseInn

LinkLeave a comment

First StandFirm video [Feb. 12th, 2007|11:30 am]
David Ould

First StandFirm video
"First StandFirm video" on Google Video
here's the first of the videos. I chime in at about 5 mins but don't fast-forward. Watch the whole thing for an excellent summary of the crisis we face.
Link1 comment|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]