Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Bishop Reid (Diocese of Jamaica) speaks about Truro, etc.
Sometimes it is better to say NOTHING than to say SOMETHING unwise.
That is what came to my mind when I read the Jamaica Observer report of the statement by the Anglican Bishop of Jamaica, Bishop Alfred Reid – a man I know personally and have a lot of respect for.
The first question that came to my mind was “why would it be necessary to say “the Diocese of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands wishes to state that it is not a party to…”? Why would the Diocese of Jamaica be a party to the action of two churches in Virginia? There is no companion Diocese relationship, nor is there an overwhelming presence of Jamaicans involved. This must be pure hyperbole.
The real ‘kicker’ though, is the statement saying the Diocese of Jamaica does not support the action taken by these two churches and then goes on to excoriate Archbishop Akinola for “seeking to create schism”. With all respect, this is probably the most outrageous statement I have ever heard Bishop Reid make.
I ‘don’t recall whether he made a same or similar statement when the AMiA was formed under the authority of the Archbishops of South East Asia and Rwanda.
Bishop Reid says “Archbishop Akinola knows full well that the leadership of the worldwide Anglican Communion has been at pains to seek to deal in a holistic and timely manner with the issues raised ever since Robinson's ordination."
Bishop Reid “knows full well” (or certainly ought to know) that the real issue is not homosexual behavior – the issue is the authority of Scripture. It can be debated whether homosexuality is condemned in Scripture (I happen to think it is) but the issue is the opponents of this kind of behavior are not just opposed to it per se, but also because their reading of Scripture (not to mention the reading of the vast majority of the church for 2,000 years) makes it sin.
Bishop Reid “knows full well” that the leadership of the worldwide Anglican Communion has been at pains to…” to keep the ‘conversation’ going. That is what Anglicans do; it is a purple-colored talkshop. The only problem with that is ‘while the grass is growing, the horse is starving’.
Bishop Reid also “knows full well” that there is no middle ground. He has already stated, “the Church in the Province of the West Indies took a clear position…that homosexual behavior is contrary to Scripture and therefore is inappropriate as a lifestyle to those who aspire to leadership in the Church." What would Bishop Reid’s response be if he were caught in the situation that the orthodox find themselves in?
I commend Bishop Reid for reiterating the Jamaican Church’s position on the homosexuality issue but to accuse Archbishop Akinola of “seeking to create a schism” is ridiculous.
The fact is, by the church’s historical standards, the Episcopal Church of the U.S. (now TEC) is apostate, or at best, schismatic. Would Bishop Reid disagree? How can it be schismatic to leave a schismatic group and seek to align with the existing 2,000-year-old church teaching? In Anglican ecclesiology, a church needs a bishop – is Bishop Reid willing to have these churches leave Anglicanism? Has Bishop Reid thought through the impact of one of TEC’s orthodox bishops taking these congregations under their care?
Additionally, it would be interesting to hear his comments on TEC’s new Presiding Bishop. His “commissary” for Southeastern US seems to think she is an exemplary leader – he has the following quotation on his church signpost: “Women are Leaders, Like Bishop Schori”.
Really?
That is what came to my mind when I read the Jamaica Observer report of the statement by the Anglican Bishop of Jamaica, Bishop Alfred Reid – a man I know personally and have a lot of respect for.
The first question that came to my mind was “why would it be necessary to say “the Diocese of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands wishes to state that it is not a party to…”? Why would the Diocese of Jamaica be a party to the action of two churches in Virginia? There is no companion Diocese relationship, nor is there an overwhelming presence of Jamaicans involved. This must be pure hyperbole.
The real ‘kicker’ though, is the statement saying the Diocese of Jamaica does not support the action taken by these two churches and then goes on to excoriate Archbishop Akinola for “seeking to create schism”. With all respect, this is probably the most outrageous statement I have ever heard Bishop Reid make.
I ‘don’t recall whether he made a same or similar statement when the AMiA was formed under the authority of the Archbishops of South East Asia and Rwanda.
Bishop Reid says “Archbishop Akinola knows full well that the leadership of the worldwide Anglican Communion has been at pains to seek to deal in a holistic and timely manner with the issues raised ever since Robinson's ordination."
Bishop Reid “knows full well” (or certainly ought to know) that the real issue is not homosexual behavior – the issue is the authority of Scripture. It can be debated whether homosexuality is condemned in Scripture (I happen to think it is) but the issue is the opponents of this kind of behavior are not just opposed to it per se, but also because their reading of Scripture (not to mention the reading of the vast majority of the church for 2,000 years) makes it sin.
Bishop Reid “knows full well” that the leadership of the worldwide Anglican Communion has been at pains to…” to keep the ‘conversation’ going. That is what Anglicans do; it is a purple-colored talkshop. The only problem with that is ‘while the grass is growing, the horse is starving’.
Bishop Reid also “knows full well” that there is no middle ground. He has already stated, “the Church in the Province of the West Indies took a clear position…that homosexual behavior is contrary to Scripture and therefore is inappropriate as a lifestyle to those who aspire to leadership in the Church." What would Bishop Reid’s response be if he were caught in the situation that the orthodox find themselves in?
I commend Bishop Reid for reiterating the Jamaican Church’s position on the homosexuality issue but to accuse Archbishop Akinola of “seeking to create a schism” is ridiculous.
The fact is, by the church’s historical standards, the Episcopal Church of the U.S. (now TEC) is apostate, or at best, schismatic. Would Bishop Reid disagree? How can it be schismatic to leave a schismatic group and seek to align with the existing 2,000-year-old church teaching? In Anglican ecclesiology, a church needs a bishop – is Bishop Reid willing to have these churches leave Anglicanism? Has Bishop Reid thought through the impact of one of TEC’s orthodox bishops taking these congregations under their care?
Additionally, it would be interesting to hear his comments on TEC’s new Presiding Bishop. His “commissary” for Southeastern US seems to think she is an exemplary leader – he has the following quotation on his church signpost: “Women are Leaders, Like Bishop Schori”.
Really?
# posted by subjective object @ Wednesday, December 20, 2006 
