A house divided against itself
Jun 24th, 2007 by Peter
Mark 3 v25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
What follows is simply my opinion - as the disclaimer says I am not an official representative of Essentials. The official statement is likely to come later today.
After the vote on A187, I gathered the opinion of a few folk as to what this means. I can probably summarise them in one word: confusion. This is a house that is completely divided against itself.
The clarity we all seek both was and was not delivered. In terms of the motions, we muddied the waters further - walking apart, but only slowly. However I do think we were given clarity as to the intractable divisions within our house. We are two religions occupying one Church, both with radically different understandings of the faith.
What does it mean in practice? I do not know. Some say that the rejection of A187 means that dioceses cannot go ahead with blessing of same sex unions (at least not under the auspices of the ACC). Others say that the acceptance of A186 gives de-facto authority for dioceses to go ahead with blessing of same sex unions, and that the failure to affirm A187 does not equate to a denial of the ability to bless SSU.
Both sides are likely to spin this in different ways, and both sides are likely to end up further apart. Clouds of confusion will continue to roll. And, individual dioceses will likely do different things - some are likely to proceed with same sex blessings, while others will affirm themselves as Windsor dioceses seeking to remain in the Anglican Communion.
In my opinion, for the health and sanity of all there should be an amicable parting of the ways, allowing us to live the faith as we understand it. That does not preclude an ongoing relationship, but that the relationship will change.
Failure to do this will result in us tearing each other apart, which would be a lose-lose situation for everybody.
I think this split will happen whether we will or not, the only thing we have control over is how amicable it will be.
Peter,
I couldn’t agree with you more. It is time, in fact it is past time that we divide into two Anglican Churches in this country in which the majority of each Parish can decide which one they want to belong to and then that the Parish and all that entails that Parish is transferred lock, stock and barrel to the other Anglican Church. This should also include Clergy pension benefits and contributions along with a whole host of other things. This will give us all a freedom to belong to the Anglican Church, which we believe is truly living out the faith as contained in Scripture without any recriminations against those who decide to belong to the other Anglican Church because they are interpreting Scripture totally differently to those of us who are a part of Essentials. This would be the loving Christian way to do things and it would be equitable to all and show great magnamity on both sides of the issue.
God Bless you for your work and ministry to us all at General Synod.
Brian+
Dear Peter:
You have done an amazing job of keping us informed. Thank you so much it is timely that the clouds of secrecy are blown away.
Your comments under the heading “A House Divided” are absolutely correct. I have said for many years schism is inevitable; sadly, the sooner the better, before further harm is done that can never be reversed.
God bless you: faithful Christian reporter!
Rev. Malachy Egan
National Pastor
Abba Ministries of Canada
what nonsense…how can people live in a church when up is down and beliefs are and are not what you say they are?
Thank you so much, Peter, for your more than excellent work keeping us within the Synod.
We agree with your sad conclusion of a house divided against itself and the idea of an amicable parting of the ways.
We sure would like to keep in touch with you and those who share your conclusion.
Peter,
Thank you for blogging the results of the SSB questions.
To say that I am deeply saddened is an understatement. Many had prayed for clarity and orthodoxy as the outcome of these questions, and we are left with neither.
Blessings,
Paul
Montreal
Peter, Brian & Malachy: All three of you are “right on” in my uneducated opinion. Ric…..Many of us have been living in this upside down Church for longer than we wanted to, simply waiting on The Lord for His Will to be done. I believe that enough damage has been done with A186 to cause us to continue walking apart from the World Wide Communion and that after today, we will not be a part of that Communion. I believe that through ANiC and Essentials, we will start to see overseas primatial leadership coming in and things will move ahead but in good time. I will remain in my parish for a short time yet, simply to see what direction my Rector and others are heading in.
I expect to see things happen in the Diocese of Eastern Nfld. and Labrador which will open up the floodgates to schism…..I think it to be inevitable that we here will be in a similar way as The Diocese of New Westminster.
I trust in the leadership of the Holy Spirit and I believe that the seperation of wheat and chafe is beginning to happen. So, RIC, hang in there and see.
Peter,
I agree with your last statement The ACC is in a state of Confusion
Thank you again for all the fine reporting it was very much appreciated
Now you can rest your hands and I know how painful that is a times
Take Care
Blessings
Peter, I agree with you fully and like the others, I am grateful for your efforts in keeping us up to date.
Here’s my opinion:
For us, a house divided may not be the worst thing (sad as it is to think about).
I agree with the many who have posted before me in this blog (other days), reminding us that whatever is not of God will not last. In other words, it will die. I’m a believer that the Anglican Church is of God but I feel there are many things going on within it that aren’t of God. I think these things are weighing us down and suffocating what is the true Anglican Church.
Regardless of what motions are passed at this General Synod, it’s not going to change how people feel about these issues. We can’t agree, and simply can’t expect that kind of unity at this point, no matter how badly we want it. Most of us, I think, are saddened at the thought of a schism within our church but if you think about it, the split within the ACC has already happened. As it stands, we are currently in full communion with the See of Canterbury but I believe we are in fractured communion with ourselves.
Whatever happens will happen. And whatever does happen must be God’s will. I don’t think we’re as in control as we like to think, and no matter how ’stacked’ the deck was, they simply couldn’t ever “slip one by Him”. Decisions might have been made today that will drastically alter what we currently know as the ACC, and maybe there will be a ‘formal’ split. If that’s the case, God must have a mighty good reason for it. (Some of us) are fighting so hard to keep the unity in our church and if the ACC does split it could be easy to view our efforts as having failed. That said, maybe God has a different plan in mind for unity?
Splitting from the forces that are weighing down the ACC could let the true Anglican Church in Canada shine through as a church of God, which is exactly what it should be. And when the weeds are pulled from the wheat the whole church will be of God and it will thrive. What isn’t of God will wither and die and the Lord’s sheep will return to His flock once again.
“Glory to God, whose power working in us can do infinately more than we can ask or imagine. ”
He does work in us and will continue to work in us…but not on our own terms. Let’s not lose sight of that.
So “chin up” brothers and sisters. God loves us all, well all love Him and true love never fails.
Peter,
Thank you for your faithful blogging for us. I can’t tell you how important I felt this was - you kept us right on top of these issues.
I am fortunate to be in a parish which voted 100 % last Nov to walk apart from Niagara if the vote came down in approval for SSB. None of this is pleasant, but if we have our eyes on Jesus, our course is set! We now need to continue in his direction for us - feed the hungry, help the poor and homeless. The politics of man are just that, politics. The spirit of God is alive and well!!
Rest your hands, good and faithful one!
Deanne,
My Thoughts exactly No 8
Thank you
1. There will be no amicable split. The liberals have the property, intend to keep it, and will win any legal battles over it (so I predict). Conservative parishes who choose to take a stand of opposition (whether now, or after their own diocese votes for SSBs, or at some later stage) need to start becoming familiar with the market for vacant buildings or hotel meeting rooms.
Some individual orthodox believers will leave their liberal/establishment parishes and disperse among a dozen denominations — thereby weakening the strength of orthodoxy within the ACC.
2. It is true that confusion reigns; however it was reigning before this Synod. The ACC has been a church that has affirmed the sanctity of committed same-sex relationships while never altering its doctrine that homosexual relationships are sinful. It has not authorized SSBs, but there are no consequences when they are performed. The ACC has been a church that is completely unable to reach agreement over what voting procedures are necessary to enact a change in doctrine, as this weekend showed.
The only possible result to be expected, going into this Synod, that would alleviate the confusion would have been a flat endorsement of the local option — i.e., there was no practical possibility that the confusion would be alleviated by an affirmation of the traditional moral teaching. So the situation has gotten no worse than it was before the Synod, except for the holding that changing SSB doctrine requires only a majority vote. I myself cannot see any principled reason why someone who stayed in the ACC and fought would find it necessary to leave now — but I know how wearying the battle is, and that people reach a breaking point.
You spoke of connfusion, no kidding, I’m confused. There have been so many ammendments, motions etc. I not exactly sure what has passed and what hasn’t. Could somebody please give a summary report on all the major things which have come to a vote and what the result of that vote is. Just the final wording and whether it passed or failed would be helpful. Thanks.
Brian, you speak about each congregation voting and simple majority rules about which way the parish should go. It would be nice if things were that simple but they’re not, things are going to get even more complicated. The legalities alone won’t alow something that simple.
Resolution A186 carried in both Houses: That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal) of The Anglican Church of Canada.
Resolution A187 failed in House of bishops: That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions.
About the ownership issues, I agree. I wouldn’t be surprised to see clergy & entire congregations of committed Network parishes (and other faithful orthodox parishes trapped within liberal dioceses) locked out of their churches.
Where I’m from, it hasn’t been amicable leading up to this so you’re right Toral, I doubt it will be now. I can’t even talk “conservative” without doing so behind closed doors (literally). You’d think it would be the other way around???
Cathy- I’m just as confused as you are.
Jude- Thanks again. I apologise, I’m kinda new to this political jargin (I’m 24). I understand A186 (SSU not Credal) passed and A187 (local option) failed, but does A186 give the national church an official position on SSU/SSB? ie. Has the ACC’s official position on the practice of SSU/SSB been decided? Are blessings/unions “ok” within our church now?
Parishes in Niagara received a letter from the Diocese in December clarifying who owned the buildings.
Personally I’m not so worried about the buildings, I’m not that attached to one. The building in which we were married and both our sons were christened was disestablished a few years ago. That was really sad, but we survived it.
The two point parish in which we now worship and serve includes two cemeteries - how do you deal with that? I think some (older folks, mostly) will stick with the property, no matter what because thier spouses/parents or whoever are buried there.
This is just the beginning of pain and confusion.
Dear Peter,
Thank you so much for your efforts to keep us informed. We have been blessed by your insights into the excruciating experience of a church tearing itself apart. Your image of a house divided rings true to me. The pressure-cooker environment and the political manouvering are themselves evidence of the brokenness of our church. The path ahead can only be a sacrificial one for those who are trying to remain faithful to our Lord and Saviour. But we must not despair. Even with the tiny shards of glimpses that we are afforded about what is happening to world-wide Christianity in the 21st Century, it is obvious that God’s plans for His Church are infinitely greater than the travails of a compromised schizophrenic denomination struggling to fit into a compacent post-modern society. In our calling to be faithful to Him and loving to those around us we will find deep blessing along with the pain of sacrifice.
Mark
Deanne,
My understanding (limited, uneducated) of the wording and intention of the motion A186 that BSSU “not in conflict with doctrine” is to declare that there is nothing in the Anglican theology or tradition that conflicts with blessing of same-sex unions. I DON’T AGREE WITH IT but I believe that’s what the Synod has resolved. It seems to me that means that it’s OK to bless the relationships of people in same-sex partnerships.
The second motion A187 to affirm the authority of diocese to permit the practice of blessing ceremonies does not seem to be necessary, since the blessing does not conflict with our doctrine (according to the resolution). I think individual diocese will be able to make the decision to allow congregations to conduct the blessings, or that there is less likely to be and disciplinary measure if anyone does.
But that’s just what it looks like to me.
Thanks for the help Jude. Nobody knows everything, you’re not as uneducated as you think you are.
It is probably time for clergy to start sending their marriage licenses back to their Bishops for disposal. Mine will be going shortly. Regardless of the future structure of the Anglican church(es) I want no more part with a corrupted secular institution.
I think Jude’s interpretation is correct. A187 was a to some extent a redundant motion - if something is not in conflict with core doctrine I can not think of any bar to any Diocese proceeding (and I don’t even think it would take a Diocese Synod vote with A186 passed).
What is more troublesome is that now we have a ‘quasi-doctrinal’ statement passed by General Synod. That conclusion, that SSB are not in conflict with core doctrine, is now part of the church’s official teaching. How long before the Sunday School materials will start including lessons on that topic?
Fr Matt
Our Bishop and Bishop-elect seemed to interpret the results differently. I don’t think anyone’s clear on this…
“We share in the profound sense of loss that many in our churches will experience in the wake of this decision, especially gay and lesbian Anglicans along with many of their family and friends.”
Their response in it’s entirety can be found here:
http://www.niagara.anglican.ca/gensynod2007/index.cfm
I don’t think you and I are getting the same message from their joint statement.
The next paragraph reads “Please be assured of our prayers and of our commitment to press forward in faith towards an ever more welcoming and inclusive church.”
What do you suppose they mean by “commitment to press forward”?
I get that they are committed to “press forward” towards an ever more welcoming and inclusive church… ???
“towards” …as in “not there yet” but they are praying for it and committed to get it there…..
Michael (the Bishop-elect) is the Rector of my parish, I’ll just ask him to clarify.
It is hard to know what to make of this.
I guess that I was hoping either for a miracle - a clear rejection of SSB, or at least for a sign that this part of the battle was over, that the deed was done. That the clergy and laity voted in favour, but the bishops did not is ironic, considering how often it is said that the hierarchy is leading the church astray. Of course, Ingham had refused to approve SSB before there was a stronger vote in support from his synod…
As it is now, it may be difficult for the laity to turn things around, since those supporting same sex blessings can simply claim that they’re almost there and that it’s only a matter of time. That this is not seen as a matter of “core” doctrine only gives extra support to that.
When marriage is viewed as sacramental in some sense, even as a minor sacrament, it makes it (or should make it) difficult to view sexuality as inconsequential to creedal doctrine. Conversely, making a sharp distinction between the “creedal” doctrine of the church and the “practice” doctrine is unhealthy, because it sets up the idea that dogma is an intellectual thing that doesn’t require any particular form of behaviour.
If the clergy and laity are in favour, it seems hard to believe that the next General Synod would not have the required votes from the bishops as well, especially with a new primate who is said (from the little I’ve heard) to be supportive of this. At the same time, since the blessings motion did not pass this time, delaying what may be inevitable, it might prevent action from being taken to build any sort of alternative ecclesial structure for Anglicans in Canada. There isn’t the clear decision that might force the creation of some comprehensive and long term solution. In the meantime, what may result is further fracturing, a few parishes leaving here and there, either for an oversees primate, possibly traditional churches outside the communion (ACCC or REC perhaps)…. individuals becomming RC, parishes if the pastoral provision becomes more of an option in Canada…. may Christ have pity on his divided body.
As an earlier comment might have suggested, I am not in the ACC myself at this point, but with one of the groups outside the communion that I mentioned - actually, I’ve been involved with both those churches, as with the Anglican Church of Canada, and have made great friends in each, and learned more about what it means to be an Anglican. No matter what happens, I believe that the Anglican way will carry on in Canada, and that God has a plan to use this tremendous spiritual heritage for his kingdom. Although I’m not directly involved in this particular battle, you are all in my prayers, and I wish you the very best in this difficult time - God’s leading, clear heads and stout hearts.
Courage. It isn’t over until we hear the last trumpet… Come, Lord Jesus.
Niagara will approve SSBs at its synod in October (as it did the last time the matter was brought up).. The question is whether Bishop Spence will assent to it, as he did not last time (saying he was awaiting the results of this synod.) Giving that assent might be part of a “commitment to press forward”. (Or maybe not! Uncertainty reigns.)
You know, the longer I’ve thought on this whole process, and it’s been a long day of thinking, you really must (grudgingly) admire the skill of the pro-SSB folks at how their use of language hid so well the fact of what was being approved. It became truly apparent when one of the speakers to A187 moved an amendment that would have changed the verb from “affirm” to “grant” or “convey” or some such. It was an “ah-ha” moment for me when the Chancellor made clear that constitutionally the ACC really couldn’t grant or convey any such authority to the Dioceses, and the word “affirm” had been carefully chosen by CoGS while word-smithing the resolution. For you see, while a lot of attention was focused on A187 because of language that made it appear that GS would perhaps approve something new (affirmative language, so to speak, affirming local option authority), it was actually A186 that was the really operative bit of business that officially changed ACC doctrine, or, at least, how we interpret our doctrine, (although I won’t pretend to be able to accomplish the mental gymnastics required to understand blessing of SSU’s as consistant with any doctrine that is remotely Christian), and it was done using very innocuous language - nothing new really happening here, just a spot of clarification, nothing in this SSU thingy that offends our core doctrine. It was brilliant, really, and in the end, the more liberal, re-appraising, progressive - whatever adjective you’d like to attach to those our, I’m sure, sincere but misguided brothers and sisters on the other side of this debate - faction of our beloved ACC has won the day.
By the way, I’m sure the irony that all of this took place on the Feast of St. John Baptist (”Repent!) and Gay Pride Day (”I’ll do as I please”) is not lost on any of us.
Blessings,
David.
PS - thank you, Peter! An heroic effort that is greatly appreciated.
Webmaster: please restore deleted post 19 from ‘Sinner’. Realize that he/she was less than tactful towards our bloghost but that fire & brimstone stuff is a vital part of the mix (it’s St.Jean-Baptiste Day afterall, man. Suck it up!)
Deanne: Michael (the Bishop-elect) is the Rector of my parish, I’ll just ask him to clarify.
Ask him whether he would advise Bishop Spence to assent to a resolution authorizing SSBs in Niagara if passed at this October’s synod. This would be crucial — if Michael would assent himself or advise assent, Ralph might well bite the bullet for him and do it this year. If Michael would not so asent or advise, he might not.
Once something is accepted as being ‘consistent’ or ‘not in conflict’ by General Synod versus church doctrine, I’m not sure what would preclude a Diocese from acting. Once the body with authority to render a decision on doctrine has done so (being General Synod), the subordinate bodies can follow within their own jurisdiction. I see no bar to a Diocese pressing ahead.
Which raises the question if General Synod actually have the authority themselves to make such a decision. Is it not a defacto statement of doctrine to say that something is consistent with existing doctrine? If General Synod exceeded their own canonical authority, A186 could be declared ‘ultra vires’ (beyond their authority) by the courts. Is that the next step?
Yep, and I couldn’t imagine him not giving his assent after this:
Bishop Spence asks General Synod to Pass Blessing of Same Sex Unions
At 4:08pm EST on Sunday June 24, Bishop Spence told the General Synod that the diocese of Niagara is considered one of the most liberal dioceses in Canada. He said that in 2004 he presided over the diocesan synod that passed a motion to bless same sex unions by almost 70%. At that time he withheld his consent in order to meet the needs of the conservative section of the diocese. (He also mentioned that he was the first bishop to ever withold consent in a Niagara Synod) He indicated that he has continued to try to meet the needs of those in the diocese who are not liberal. He said that it was time to meet the needs of those who wished this motion passed. He asked the General Synod to pass the motion to allow the blessing of same sex unions.
“I’m sure the irony that all of this took place on the Feast of St. John Baptist (”Repent!) and Gay Pride Day (”I’ll do as I please”) is not lost on any of us.”
As we were frantically scanning the radio on the way home from church this morning listening for any info in case the vote had been called while we worshipped we were bombarded with special traffic reports due to road closures and up-to-the-minute details of the Dike Parade (their term, not mine) and the Pride Parade wrapping up Pride Week in Toronto. I gave quiet thanks that my sons did not ask me to explain what “Dike” means.
Toral, I know where Michael stands. As for asking a question like that…I don’t know if he’d answer it.
#27 Sinner is a known troll. I just got a bit fed up with it.
I still anxiously await the decision to B001 “Notwithstanding any decisions taken by this its 2007 Synod, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada affirms that the present practice of the Synod and Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster in authorizing the blessings of covenanted same-sex unions in eight (8) Parishes of that Diocese shall continue in the Diocese of New Westminster pending further resolution by General Synod.”
I think we have established that it isn’t within the authority of the synod to grant or deny permission to do something that is not in conflict with teaching. If this motion were to be defeated, however that would be most fascinating indeed.
Thanks for another day of fellowship through this blog space. What a marvellous tool to bring us all into one place to share.
It’s a work night, so I’m heading off to bed. I’ll check in as I can from work tomorrow.
F. Matt - agreed - the whole process was an end-run around officially changing the doctrine of the church by merely declaring that something is consistent with, or not in conflict with such doctrine; nothing more than an opinion, really! Yet the effect is to change the doctrine of church through the interpretation thereof. As for a court challenge, well, I’m not sure any civil court would touch the matter, and even if it did, I wouldn’t be optimistic as to the outcome - due process followed, and all that. We could argue ’till the cows come home about the real effect of the resolutions passed, but I gotta think any court would say we followed our internal processes.
Besides all that, given that, I think, most of writing here would agree that the Church exists to challenge society, not to conform to society or confirm society in it’s sins; and given that, I think, most of us here would agree that this whole SSB issue is an abdication of that self-same call to challenge society in favour of conforming with it, please bear in mind that the civil, secular courts (Supreme Court of Canada) of our society that we are rushing to headlong to conform with are way ahead of the ACC in terms of SSU rights. Would you care to test the question of the GS’s authority to pass what it has in that forum?
Deanne: Oh I agree Michael wouldn’t answer it. His immediate visceral reaction to the question might be interesting to see, though.
Peter, I want to commend you on the exceptional work over the last week. Having attended too many Synods to remember at all levels of the church, I am amazed how you managed to stay focused and on top of it. Thank you for your insightful and prophetic analysis of what transpired today. Dr. Goddard’s address earlier this week is resounding in my spirit, particularly his exposition of that remarkably apt verse in II Chronicles 20- “We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you.” (V. 12) May the Lord grant us courage in the days ahead, trust beyond our ability to fully understand.
David (26) - ’sincere but misguided brothers and sisters on the other side of this debate - faction of our beloved ACC has won the day.’
Maybe not. Maybe it’s like Christ at Calvary: the evil seems to have won the day…but actually got it’s butt kicked. Something tells me that’s what really happened today, this was necessary and it’s gonna turn out ‘for good.’ Rom 8.28. If there’s storm clouds on the horizon and your neighbour is building her house on the sand you’d better warn her…then get outta there and run for the Rock (don’t look back). GOD will grant His faithful Canadian Anglicans safe harbour with one or another vessel of the Communion. And with His help we’ll ‘do even greater works’ than in the past.
A FRAGILE ANGLICAN has been somewhat shattered . . . yes, this “fragile” new Anglican wonders what an earth ever possessed him 3 years ago to join the ACC! It is neither here nor there that A187 was defeated and that A186 may open the door . . . in final analysis it is all rhetoric that proves that there is no real understanding of either side by either side. Thus, I think we fail to live up to Christ’s command.
I agree that the ACC is now a fragmented Church and it may take a very long time to heal it . . . if that can ever be done. What saddens me most, as a new Anglican, is to see that so many people are “against” justice and inclusivity. There is so much talk about “walking away”, losing buildings, losing pension rights, finding ‘old’ churches and hotel meeting rooms . . . talk of “orthodoxy” , “tradition”, “liberals”, etc.
I had dinner tonight, here in Winnipeg, with a group of new friends. Two of them are in their early 20s. One is an Anglican, one is an aethist. I ask them, respectively, “Why are you an Anglican?”, and “Why aren’t you a Christian?”. The Anglican’s response was “Because I love the Anglican Church!”; the aeithist’s response was “Why would I want to be part of a group of hypocrites?” There wasn’t time to delve into the reasons why they felt that way, but it was clear to me that both were sincere. That’s also, I believe, and indication of the “Confusion” that is reigning not only in the Anglican Church but in our society in general. Our young people see no relevance of the Church in their lives. Yet, the young aethist had ‘dabbled’ in Christianity and was even baptized in the cold waters of the Bow River by a Christian friend. He thought it was “cool” . . . yeah, the water, too! That, I think says a great deal about the environment that the Church is putting forward to our young people. The Church is perceived as an unhealthy space for many young people. My young friend mentioned that much of the ‘doctrine’ and many of the ‘teachings’ of the Church do not resound of worthy consideration in his mind. He was fascinating by the idea of become a Christian until he saw, and continues to see, the evidence that there is truly a Church that lives in the way of Christ. I’m debating with myself if he might not be right.
In the meantime, I’m struggling after this afternoon’s clear message that the House of Bishops, in particular, could not deliver leadership. My hope is that dialogue will continue and that I will be part of that dialogue. I pray that in the future, there will be reconcilation and we can all truly live the way of Christ. It may be at the cost of a divided Church . . . so be it. But, at what terrible price. It breaks my heart.
This fragile Anglican is trying very hard not to walk away. Walking away would be to accept continued marginalization even if I found an alternative to the ACC.
Frank
Thanks all for your thoughts and am glad you are finding this blog useful!
Peter, thank you for this blog and all your work over the last few days. I have truly enjoyed reading your posts and all the comments and have linked to it several times.
Although I am now a “part-time” Anglican, this church is very dear to my heart. I attend a very good Baptist church here in Edson AB, but also live for the weekends we visit Edmonton and can attend St Paul’s Anglican, what I call, with a smile, the “perfect church.”
Blessings to you all and to all faithful Anglicans. Take heart. Take courage. God is in control.
Take Care
I followed all this very clsoely. As a non-Anglican I even sent packets of information this morning to a few of the Dio’s. I find this a very interesting debate and from outside the communion, but as someone who follows it all very closely, see this as yet another nail into a church that was created by politics. As Christ said “he who lives by the word dies by the sword”, maybe it can also read “The church that was created by politics, dies by politics?”
Thank you for all of your information and up to the date responces. I quite enjoyed it and truly do support your point of view.
James here, Please be accurate when referring to A186. If so we would say that GS thinks that SSB is not in conflict with core - creedal - doctrine. I’m not playing games with words though CoGS may be. The significance of us sticking to accuracy is that we don’t allow a lie to spread. GS has not affirmed SSB to be consistent with sacramental doc., with sexual ethics doc., with God’s blessing. They in effect have only said ” the creeds don’t talk about biblical sexual ethics “. So we need to press the House of Bishops etc. as to the real limitations of A186 and ask them or some authourized body to clarify what cannot be concluded from A186, ie. because A186 is so limited in scope, it does not say that SSB is authorized , agreed to or consistent with God’s revealed plan for any of His people. Don’t cave in unwittingly to letting A186 mean or affirm anything useable to base action upon. It is a poorly worded motion that authorizes nothing. Can this be pressed on the floor of GS? Please respond to this.
One further question. Is it possible that Bishop Victoria Matthews voted in favour of A186 because technically it is true that the creeds don’t conflict with SSB because they don’t technically intersect in substance but voted against A187 because in practice SSB does conflict with other revelations of God not contained in the creeds?
James (44) I think you have read it correctly. Had the resolution read something like “ssb does not conflict with Scripture” I suspect you would have seen a different result.
I think Joe is right. And just because something doesn’t conflict with the creeds doesn’t automatically mean we are authorised to go ahead and do it. If it did, then we could legitimately argue that A186 had authorised lay presidency at the Eucharist in Canada!
i would agree with the comments of james above. it is important not to grant the revisionists more than they in fact accomplished. 186 does not say that this is kosher with anglican doctrine. it says that it does not conflict with core doctrine. it then glosses this by saying that it isn’t in direct conflict with the creed- no duh!
remember the context of the term “core doctrine.’ it was used in the righter trial as a way of saying that something wasn’t a direct, verbal contradiction of dogma, as in e.g. “God is not triune.” that doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong, only that you have to think a moment. so robbery is also not in direct conflict with the assertions of the creed, but it sure is wrong. so what 186 does say pretty cold comfort, i.e. we aren’t dealing with heresy as self-evident as arius. to say this constitutes grounds for proceeding is nonsense.
the other context is the St Michael Report. it however makes it clear that this is doctrinal and that it does touch on lots of things that are creedal!
we are not talking merely about spin. this may have been intended for the machiavellian reasons mentioned earlier in the thread- i don’t know. it is certainly an assertion which has not in any way done its homework. but in what it actually says it affirms less than some will claim, and the right interpretation of it should therefore we maintained by conservatives.
and while i’m at it…i think folks are too defeatist. the revisionist agenda is driven, more the most part, by the prior generation. all the life in protestant christianity innorth america is with the evangelicals. the age of seminarians is dropping, and the new generation are open to the tradition. revisionism is theologically bankrupt. now is the time to organize, to refute, to change the facts on the ground. resist all claims of historical inevitability this side of the eschaton!
For my dear collegues, Joe and Tim, I’ll suspend judgement on that matter and we will see what will come. I agree with you if we assess the intent of that resolution from a theologian’s standpoint. The only problem with that approach is that Synod does not operate as a body focused on theology (and A134’s amendment from last Synod demonstrated that), it is a legislative body.
If that resolution is so inconsequential then why was it even drafted by COGS? Do we believe that the global communion will see that motion as similarly inconsequential? The resolution needs to be read from a legislative standpoint, and interpreted through that lens.
As Diocese Synods come and go in the months ahead I suspect we’ll see the real impact of Synod’s actions. I will wait with hope in Christ that I’m wrong.
Just a question… I understand that we all have to be good sports and everything, but why isn’t anyone really fighting these (Liberals?) folks? If they don’t follow scripture, and ignore the words of Christ, can we even call them Christians? I would argue that the ACC is being taken over by Buddhists. It is patently obvious that the entire governing structure of the ACC has been manipulated by a group bent on Secularism. Worst still (IMHO) is the seeming lack of any back bone in fighting those that seek to bless sin. I notice that the attacks by Liberals continue in a press that is only too happy to comply with their agenda of entitlement more or less unchallenged. No-one is “grabbing” the headlines for the majority of this church. Rather, spouting platitudes about fellowship and understanding. For crying out loud. Fight back!
Please excuse my emotion.
Praise our Lord Jesus Christ!
I’ll disclaim by saying that I’m not at Synod - I just attend an Anglican church.
(Further apologies for the long post)
I think that James is right - however there is a marked difference between “not a matter of what is often referred to as core doctrine in the sense of being creedal” (SMR) and “not in conflict with” the same (A186).
#47 daniel - You use a word which troubles me: ‘directly’… It doesn’t appear in A186, and if A186 read “not directly in conflict with”, I would be greatly comforted. But I sense a whole thorny debate over the issue of “in conflict with” vs. “directly in conflict with” which needs to be addressed. Logically, and as you say, ‘duh’, there is no direct contradiction.
However, I would say that SSB is most definitely in conflict with core doctrine, albeit indirectly. We examine the *implications* of the creeds through Scripture (What does it mean to say Jesus is God?), and it is these implications which fly in conflict with SSB. In the case of SSB, Scripture has some very interesting things to say, which I believe put SSB in conflict with creedal implications. To proclaim God Sovereign (creedal) but to deny his Word (doctrine, non-creedal) is a practical denial of his sovereignty (anti-creedal).
Whether or not you agree with a reading of Scripture which renders SSB anti-creedal (indirectly and by implication), A186 leaves the door open to bypass this entire (crucial) debate.
A186 might be read so as to render all doctrinal debate moot by implying a lack of both direct *and indirect* conflict. Although my heart wants me to read A186 as a simple and redundant affirmation of the SMR, my head won’t let me.
What is clear to me is that there are such doctrinal divisions in the church, extending even to creedal interpretation, that any theological resolution will require exhaustive, broad and honest discussion. SSB isn’t necessarily creedal, but creedal divisions exist.
If the Anglican Church of Canada splits over SSB, after overwhelmingly determining (through the SMR) it to not be an issue of core doctrine, and having affirmed that it should not be a communion splitting issue, the logical conclusion is that the split has not occurred over SSB.
And if the split isn’t happening over SSB, I’m forced to wonder what it is we *should* be discussing. And why we’re not.
#51 scott - Careful we don’t miss the forest for the creedal trees.
The context of A186 is a Synod that also agreed to study revisions of the Marriage Canon to “allow marriage of all legally qualified persons” (A189) and study “whether the blessing of same-sex unions is a faithful, Spirit-led development of Christian doctrine” (C003). Meanwhile the House of Bishops is moving to develop “pastoral strategies” like Eucharist for gay couples and “celebration in a church for their life in Christ.” (A224)
(corresponding move toward worship texts revision - A226 - will make it quicker for their abominable changes in liturgy after 2010).
In the context of A186, “discussions” will begin about eliminating the four provinces, transfer of their powers to GS, reducing the number of diocese and/or changing borders (A188). In essence a bid to centralize power in GS and consolidate their agenda.
We had an elected Primate who supports the New Westminster rebellion and beaming Jefferts-Schori (TEC queen of America) in attendance, looking forward to “continued and growing partnership” with the ACC.
A186 is not the exception but the rule. The ACC has officially entered the dark side of the moon (where the Son don’t shine) and declared their intention to stay there. I for one won’t be joining them.
I am neither a Canadian or an Anglican, but somehow I happened upon this article today. And all I can say is “bravo.” It’s about time for some plain honest evaluation of our divided religious landscape.