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.
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.