Friday, May 09, 2008

Archbishop Venables: He came, He saw, He conquered

News Analysis By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
5/6/2008

The Most Rev. Gregory Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone, is, at this moment of ecclesiastical history, probably the most revered orthodox Archbishop in the Anglican Communion... and the most reviled.

No Anglican Archbishop in modern history has dived into the turbulent North American ecclesiastical waters of Anglicanism and managed to "offend" not one, but two heads of the most liberal provinces of the Anglican Communion with one single aim - to rescue whole dioceses from the clutches of a decaying, poisonous and self-destructive liberalism.

When he appeared on Canadian soil recently to inaugurate what might, in time, become a rival Anglican Communion, he was greeted with derision and scorn by the ultra-liberal leader of the Anglican Church of Canada, Fred Hiltz who told him in no uncertain terms that he was not welcome in his country and to get lost.

"Stop interfering in the life of this province," Hiltz roared at Venables. Undeterred, Venables noted, in his address to some 400 members of the Anglican Network in Canada, that the Anglican Communion now has two gospels, and that Hiltz has hold of the wrong one.

Venables continued, "It is important that I come because the integrity of the gospel is at stake, and these particular Anglicans are no longer under your authority. This occasion here in Vancouver is momentous. I see a glorious future for Anglicanism in these wonderful men and women."

Whatever "bonds of affection" might have existed between the two men evaporated faster than a used Canadian tea bag. Catholic collegiality and provincial autonomy disappeared into Vancouver's fabled English Bay even while the "faith once for all delivered to the saints" was being upheld in a Baptist Church. Simultaneously, it was being deep-sixed by the poisonous liberal Anglican Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster, one Michael Ingham.

Venables seized the moment and was not about to let it go for a mess of heretical ecclesiastical pottage which has only served to benefit liberal and revisionist bishops bent on destroying the last vestiges of orthodoxy in their dioceses.

All the nice talk about alternative ecclesiastical oversight, only partially hid a gloved tyrannical fist. The Anglican Church of Canada has become, in the words of the famous Eagles hit, "Hotel California", a place where "You can check out any time, but you can never leave."

From Vancouver, Venables flew to the Diocese of San Joaquin where he was joyfully received with open arms by the bishop of that diocese, John-David Schofield, but not before the interloper bishop Jerry Lamb, who has been force fed to the diocese by Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, told Venables to stay out of the diocese. "I strongly protest your visit to this diocese without my invitation or permission," he wrote to Venables. "Your visit would violate the traditions of the ancient church as understood in the communion." Never mind that the "ancient church" would have severely protested the theology of Bishop Lamb and Mrs. Jefferts Schori. It would have held heresy trials to rid the church of their likes.

In blunt language, Episcopal interloper Lamb told the Argentine Archbishop to stay out the diocese and refrain from preaching and celebrating the Eucharist in St. James Cathedral. "I strongly urge that you cancel your meeting in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin... I also strongly urge you to refrain from interjecting yourself into the internal affairs of the Episcopal Church, the only Anglican Church in the United States."

Venables told VirtueOnline that he had no intention of canceling his trip and would "preach and celebrate the Eucharist" in what is now a diocese under his ecclesiastical authority. Again, the issue of cross-provincial actions was raised and ignored. From Venables' point of view, a defense of the faith is far more important than geographic boundaries. He no doubt sees it as a sort of reverse understanding of the parable of the lost sheep. The evangelical archbishop sallies forth to rescue saved sheep in order to protect them from false shepherds.

From San Joaquin, Venables flew to the Diocese of Ft. Worth, where he was met with open arms by Bishop Jack Leo Iker, but not before Mrs. Jefferts Schori chimed in calling Venables' visit an "invasion". She wrote to Venables saying that his visit to a special convocation of the diocese was "with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province."

Venables' message to the diocese was the same message he preached in Vancouver and San Joaquin, "doctrinal impurity leads to moral impurity," hence Bishop Gene Robinson. "But, I want you to know that the vast majority - 95% - of the people in the Anglican Communion believe that this book (holding up his Bible) is the word of God. If you choose to stand on this, you will be standing with the overwhelming majority. That doesn't make it all easy, but it will offer some comfort," he said to roaring approval by the overwhelmingly, predominantly Anglo-Catholic diocese.They couldn't have been happier.

Then Venables took off the gloves off and lit into The Episcopal Church. "In the Communion, 90% of the bishops gathered 10 years ago at Lambeth said what I just said. (Resolution I.10, where the vote was 527 for; 69 against.) The 10% who did not agree said, 'I don't agree with you and I don't care what you say.' The 10% cannot explain why they believe as they do. They will not or cannot tell us why they believe as they do. Believe me, I have asked. Many times. "

At every Primate's meeting, we produced a letter. Starting in Brazil, in the spring of 2003, when Gene Robinson was nominated in New Hampshire, we said, 'Don't do it.' In London after his election, we said, 'Don't do it.' In Dromantine in February of 2004, we said, 'Don't do it."'

"Your presiding bishop walked away from the meeting without telling us he did not agree and did it anyway. We said, 'Why didn't you talk to us about it Did you understand what we were saying to you'?

He responded, 'Yes, I did.'

We asked, 'Did you tell the people in the US what we said'

"He responded, 'No.'

"In Nottingham in 2006, we told your entire delegation that what they were doing was not right, especially with regard to gay marriage. It still continued. They have said that they don't care what we think and will do whatever they want anyway.

"Listening means talking to each other, not sending a small group out to lecture, like the Listening Process. Talking together and listening to each other. Jesus talked with his disciples and the tax collectors. He did this over food, just as we will talk over lunch in a few minutes. You can't listen to people who will not talk and cannot explain why they have adopted the path that they have. We must keep talking to each other today and speak with love and gentleness. Not all of us are in the same place on these issues and the challenge is to leave as friends, not enemies.

"In Tanzania one year ago, we requested alternative covering for the orthodox in the US and Canada. They said no. That's why we are where we are. The Orthodox tried to open the dialogue and they continually stonewalled us.

"In the Anglican Communion, we have no authority over us to resolve these issues. The Primates tried and were told they did not have the authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he is not a referee. In 1998, The Lambeth Conference spoke and we were ignored because the Communion system is run from the ideal of democratic inclusiveness. All ideas are equal and valid. This ideal is good for some things, but not in determining the Word of God."

When Venables finished, the diocese stood as one and applauded long and hard. There can be little doubt that The Episcopal Church contains and preaches two very different understandings of the Christian Faith, some might say two very different religions are at work; one orthodox, the other heterodox; one Trinitarian, the other fast approaching Unitarianism.

It is an intolerable situation, one that has seen one diocese leave TEC and has three more (Ft. Worth, Quincy and Pittsburgh) ready to leave after the Lambeth Conference in August. Any way the Episcopal Church continues to cut and spin its lies, using the 1% argument of Mrs. Jefferts Schori, the loss of four dioceses representing tens of thousands of dues paying Episcopalians is a loss from which the Episcopal Church will never, ever recover even if it wins all the property disputes. It will have to spends millions in legal fees to accomplish this.

The Episcopal Church has no compelling gospel and no message of saving faith. Rehashing secular UN Millennium Development Goals does not make parishes or dioceses grow. People want to hear more than the Metro section of the Sunday Times or the whine of pansexual behavior in church on a Sunday morning. They come to church to receive spiritual bread. Regrettably and sadly, all they get are stones.
END

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Defending the faith is more important than geographical boundaries... or something to that effect. That seems to be the one line of defense that Venables hoists one time after another when challenged on his repeated violations of provincial and diocesan boundaries.

He should have completed the sentence "defending the faith... there where I am paid the best".

I mean, why not defending the faith in his own, tiny, missionary-agencies subsidized province?

My guess is that Venables would also content that 'defending the faith is more important than', say, following the constitution and canons of his own friggin province. Where one can read, for example, that the exercise of the office primate of the southern cone is limited to two terms (Venables being on his third one). Or that in order to accept any diocese into the province, that needs to be consented to by the Anglican Consultative Council.

So, let us assume Venables could not care less for the well being and protocols of his own province. Why going to North America, instead of, for example, anywhere in the world where half the population of the planet lives in poverty? Or anywhere in the world where religious conflict is literally killing people, flesh and bones, and not just the poetic image of 'a soul'? Why not going to China, to stand up with the Christians there who are not bowing at the communist regime? Why not going to Burma, for that matter? Or the North Pole? Or Iraq, where the christian population is being decimated?

Of course Venables would NEVER go to any of those places. Because, you know, he could, all of a sudden, find himself in the position of actually having to stand up for 'his beliefs' and, rather than being dined and flown and serenaded, risking prosecution and death instead. And that won't do for Jorgito el Pirata.

Defending the faith?

Give me a bleeping break.

Leonel

Tony Seel said...

Leonel, what I don't understand is why liberals like yourself are so duplicitous about majority votes. When it comes to GC, all we hear about from you all is majority vote. When it comes to majority votes in San Jouquin or Fort Worth or Pittsburgh you all switch fields.

Venables was invited to every diocese he visited. He came as requested to support the Anglicans in those places. It is about defending the faith, and if you can show some financial arrangements please do so. Otherwise your ad hominem attacks sound more like sour grapes than anything substantive.

Anonymous said...

Majority vote? I am not talking about 'majority votes'.

I am talking about the fact that Venables gives himself to ecclesiastical piracy while claiming he's doing what he's doing for the sake of the faith.

Last time I checked, his passion, witness and courageous stand for the Gospel could be of so better use in Iraq right now, just to give you an example.

Instead, he's going where the money is.

As for financial statements.. who are you, some kind of tax man wannabe? Ask the guy who's flying North (Venables).

As for the diocesan votes, no TEC diocese can excise itself (or make any decision in the line of 'excising itself') from TEC. That is an act reserved to the General Convention. But of course, those who handle Jorgito el Pirata could never make the GC do their will. So they play the 'I steal this church' game and and hire the cheapest primate around to make it look fair play.

Again, I ask you: why should Venables choose to 'defend the faith' only in the USA and Canada? Do you know how many poor people, people without faith, people without hope, live in the area covered by the southern cone?

Are you telling me that it is more important to play the international anglican pirate, for the sake of pretty wealthy and conservative folks, than serving the people in your own province?

Again, give me a bleeping break.

Leonel

Tony Seel said...

Leonel, Schori and your bunch love to talk about how smart you all are, but your comprehension skills are lacking. It is not piracy when you are invited.

As for finances, you are the one suggesting financial impropriety. Back it up or shut up.

Three dioceses are in the process of removing themselves from pecusa, so you are factually wrong. pecusa can send in shock troops to prop up the tiny minority in these dioceses, like your own, who want to continue in the Episcopal Fraud, but the dioceses are removing themselves.

If you are so concerned about a gospel witness in Iraq,Burma, or the other places you mention, why don't you go?

Anonymous said...

If you are so concerned about a gospel witness in Iraq,Burma, or the other places you mention, why don't you go?

BECAUSE I AM NOT THE ONE WHORING OFF MY FAITH TO THE HIGHEST PAYING NEO CON IN THE USA, WHILE CLAIMING TO BE DOING IT FOR THE SAKE OF THAT SAME FAITH?

Three dioceses are in the process of removing themselves from pecusa, so you are factually wrong. pecusa can send in shock troops to prop up the tiny minority in these dioceses, like your own, who want to continue in the Episcopal Fraud, but the dioceses are removing themselves.

THREE DIOCESES. OUT OF HOW MANY?
AND YOU MEAN SCHOFIELD IS NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMUNION AS THE BISHOP OF SAN JOAQUIN? GOOD JOB, SELF-REMOVERS!

As for finances, you are the one suggesting financial impropriety. Back it up or shut up.

BISHOP VENABLES IS MISSIONING IN WEALTHY LANDS, WHILE POORER AREAS OF THE WORLD NEED BISHOPS OF HIS 'FIRE' AND 'FAITH', AND SO MUCH MORE, AT THAT. DUDE, HE'S AFTER THE MONEY. O AND YOU SHUT UP.

It is not piracy when you are invited.

YOU MEAN, YOU CAN ACTUALLUY GO INTO A DIOCESE WITHOUT BREACHING THAT DIOCESE'S PROVINCE'S BOUNDARIES? AND HE'S NOT WELCOME IN THE PROVINCE! AND THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNION, I.E. PARTICIPATION FROM THE ANGLICAN CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL, HAPPENS THROUGH THE PROVINCE, NOT THE DIOCESE!

LOOK WHO'S TALKING ABOUT COMPREHENSION SKILLS.

YOU SHOULDN'T REALLY RUN A BLOG, DUDE.

Tony Seel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tony Seel said...

Reposted with corrections:

Leonel, have you gone off your meds? Your all caps and spelling lapses concern me, especially since you are part of the smart party. I will address your concerns below:

I wrote:
If you are so concerned about a gospel witness in Iraq, Burma, or the other places you mention, why don't you go?

BECAUSE I AM NOT THE ONE WHORING OFF MY FAITH TO THE HIGHEST PAYING NEO CON IN THE USA, WHILE CLAIMING TO BE DOING IT FOR THE SAKE OF THAT SAME FAITH?

Response: Again, work on your reading comprehension skills - he was invited, there was no auction involved. Your use of whoring - does everything come down to sex with you folks?

I wrote:
Three dioceses are in the process of removing themselves from pecusa, so you are factually wrong. pecusa can send in shock troops to prop up the tiny minority in these dioceses, like your own, who want to continue in the Episcopal Fraud, but the dioceses are removing themselves.

THREE DIOCESES. OUT OF HOW MANY?
AND YOU MEAN SCHOFIELD IS NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMUNION AS THE BISHOP OF SAN JOAQUIN? GOOD JOB, SELF-REMOVERS!

Response: oh, I see, if three diocese leave pecusa (something that has never happened before, btw) this is nothing significant.

I don't understand your comment about Schofield. Are you saying that he is not recognized as the BoSJ by the Communion?

I wrote:
As for finances, you are the one suggesting financial impropriety. Back it up or shut up.

BISHOP VENABLES IS MISSIONING IN WEALTHY LANDS, WHILE POORER AREAS OF THE WORLD NEED BISHOPS OF HIS 'FIRE' AND 'FAITH', AND SO MUCH MORE, AT THAT. DUDE, HE'S AFTER THE MONEY. O AND YOU SHUT UP.

Response: apparently Bp. Venables goes where he is invited, but you may wish to contact him so that he can take direction from you as to where he should be going. You still haven't offered one shred of evidence for your assertion about money.

I wrote:
It is not piracy when you are invited.

YOU MEAN, YOU CAN ACTUALLUY GO INTO A DIOCESE WITHOUT BREACHING THAT DIOCESE'S PROVINCE'S BOUNDARIES? AND HE'S NOT WELCOME IN THE PROVINCE! AND THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNION, I.E. PARTICIPATION FROM THE ANGLICAN CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL, HAPPENS THROUGH THE PROVINCE, NOT THE DIOCESE!

Response: Have you not read the Dar es Salaam communique? It recognized border crossings for pastoral purposes. I don't understand your comment about the ACC.

LOOK WHO'S TALKING ABOUT COMPREHENSION SKILLS.

Yes, apparently mine aren't as good as yours since I have found at least two of your statements above to be totally incomprehensible.