AMiA Winter Conference Day 2 – a Report from the Floor

A correspondent from the Winter Conference passes this report with some highlights along:

There are about 700 people in attendance.  The ratio is 2 Baby Boomers (or older) to every person under 40.

 The stage decorum is a mixture of teenage beauty pageant meets Southern Living with American Idol Highlights.

 The tone could be described as a political convention.  Standing ovations, rallying cries.

Doc Loomis’ presentation included:

    • “There ain’t nobody spinnin’ nothin’!”
    • Gist of his mini-speech: the Holy Spirit is still working.  Mistakes were made on both sides; let’s move on.  Acts 15 gives us a model.  People were really upset about circumcision, but in the midst of the controversy the Holy Spirit was moving and growing the church.

John Rodgers, in his introduction of Bishop Murphy:

    • “Division appears when its time to make a move.”
    • “Chuck Murphy has ALWAYS sought to include faithful Anglicans committed to mission.”  He is concerned with inclusion, and unity in Christ.
    • AMiA is in a process with ACNA that will hopefully be complete by June of 2012.

That’s the end of the report.

The comments from Loomis and Murphy are so ludicrous that I don’t know if I need to elaborate on them.

Traffic on Twitter says that Bishop Murphy attributed the lower number of attendants this year to being west of the Mississippi this year. That’s one theory I guess.

Bishop Murphy also said that there is a Paul and Barnabas moment going on. I hope to have more on this later.

 

11 thoughts on “AMiA Winter Conference Day 2 – a Report from the Floor”

  1. Joel – you are too smart of a person to continue this negative rhetoric.

    Is the comment from Loomis so ludacris – he Holy Spirit is still working. Mistakes were made on both sides; let’s move on. Acts 15 gives us a model. People were really upset about circumcision, but in the midst of the controversy the Holy Spirit was moving and growing the church.

    I guess the Holy Spirit is NOT still working. I guess the only mistakes were on the US side not Rwanda – they are perfect.

      1. Joel – I apologize if I misquoted you. I was basing it on this:

        “The comments from Loomis and Murphy are so ludicrous that I don’t know if I need to elaborate on them.”

        1. Right, but I never said anything about the Holy Spirit or Rwanda. I can elaborate on their comments later if you’d like. For Loomis to claim ‘no spin’ given the statements we saw from Brust last year is absurd. That’s one thing I’m driving at.

          1. You might want to clarify because you list what Loomis said and then said it’s ludicrous. One can only make the logical jump that your quote is referring to the only comments you list.

    1. Quigg,
      Note that that a correspondent wrote that, not me. I think that humor directed towards bad aesthetics is just fine however, and would advise you to lighten up.
      Further, if you had the same concern about your Chairman fleeing church discipline, or your retired Archbishop insulting the Province he used to oversee, or your canon lawyer inserting Roman theology into the canon law of the Province, then I would be more inclined to listen to admonitions from you.
      And I don’t think my blog has credibility with you folks anyways, right?

      1. Joel, I do not know you and make the assumption you are a brother that loves Jesus. I have no problem with people asking hard questions, especially if done so respectfully and directly to the person being discussed. I can tell you that a problem with blogs is they can degenerate into a rather anonymous or at least removed way to launch verbal bombs, character assassinations and avoid the scriptural command in Matthew 18. You have no idea what I have asked Bishop Murphy, Archbishop Kolini and Archbishop Rwaje in person. I can tell you, I have respectfully asked direct and hard questions of all three men. I love all three and I trust all three. For you to say you will not receive my admonition to ask the Lord to show you your heart (from His perspective) is certainly your right. However it may not be wise or beneficial. You pastor is a godly man. Ask him to read your comments and see if they are loving, edifying and show the fruit if the Spirit. I will be happy to meet you in person to discuss anything but am checking off the blogs. Peace, Quigg+

        1. Again, I am not going to take advice about church discipline from a group that flees it. The message Bishop Murphy sent in his flight was “church discipline is great until it applies to me.” The AMiA has forfeited any moral high ground on that front.
          If you want to talk about sin, be specific. Vague generalities about ‘character assassinations’ won’t cut it. Sin is not general, it is specific. When I have discussed Murphy’s character, it has been in light of his untruths about the AMiA / ACNA relationship in 2010 – all public facts.
          How does your approach handle Paul calling the Galatians “foolish” and wishing that they would castrate themselves?

        2. Fr. Lawrence,

          I am not releasing here any “verbal bombs”, but rather questions Pawleys Island folks are currently prone not to answer directly and clearly.

          My pseudonym protects my identity so that I will suffer nothing directly from the former leadership of what had been AMiA. I am an AMiA priest who will remain canonically resident in PEAR.

          Here are but a few hard questions to take to all the separating bishops, including Bp. Murphy:

          1) Despite admonitions from Archbishop Duncan and others, exactly why is the Murphy group determined to NOT reconcile with PEAR?

          2) Exactly how does the Holy Spirit lead a group to separate due to spurious, non-theological reasons?

          3) Precisely, what is the reasoning behind trying to take 150+ churches in a direction – unilaterally determined by a small group – of which they had previously no knowledge or indication of occurring?

          4) In succinct language, how did the distinctives of Anglicanism become optional in a church that is now “Anglican” in name only? Are parishioners who will follow you all into the great denominational no-man’s land aware of what you all are proposing?

          5) Do you honestly believe that an actual Anglican jurisdiction will take such a group as this – which by direct demonstration wishes to avoid any context of discipline altogether – under its wing?

          6) What, in detail, are the actual reasons for this group going it alone?

          7) Exactly why were canon laws violated?

          8) Why were canon laws of a particularly Roman bent foisted upon PEAR?

          9) How is the unity of Christ’s church fostered and moved forward by actions such as these by separating bishops?

          10) Do you really expect priests and deacons who are actually aware of what has taken place over the past 6 months to follow the Murphy group into non-denominationalism?

          We look forward to answers…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.