Comments on: A house divided against itself

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:41:29 +0000

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.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:50:27 +0000

#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.

By: Scott Peacock

Scott Peacock — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:59:21 +0000

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.

By: DaveM

DaveM — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:56:41 +0000

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!

By: Fr Matt

Fr Matt — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:01:54 +0000

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.

By: daniel

daniel — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:23:06 +0000

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!

By: daniel

daniel — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:49:32 +0000

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.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:53:11 +0000

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!

By: felix hominum

felix hominum — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:52:51 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:41:06 +0000

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?