I am aware that at this time events in the Anglican world are causing people to be less than charitable towards one another (whichever ‘side’ you happen to be on). I have no objection to people disagreeing, robustly debating etc on this blog. It’s all par for the course, especially in the blog world.
What I would like to avoid is spelled out in 2 Timothy 2:
14Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
I would ask please that you show charity and respect towards those with whom you disagree. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable! If there are personal issues here, please take them off-blog. Neither Scott or I want to turn into net-nannys, or worse T19 elves 
. However, if we need to delete comments or close threads, we will.
The blog world being what it is, there will be trolls on here (no, I am not singling anybody out, this is a general observation), there will be uncharitable comments, there will be things said rashly and unkindly.
What I ask is that you take a moment before you post, and (like the disclaimer on Stand Firm), please remember Matthew 5:43-45:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”
Thank you kindly.
Thank you Peter.
I hear you Peter, thank you.
As a follower of, though not previously a poster in, this blog I appreciate the “warning” provided. I have followed many of the threads and have found them informative and helpful. The occasional rancour has been distracting and sad, belittling the cause as well as the blogger.
Thankyou to the many who have posted thoughtful and mind-expanding comments which have enabled me to see other viewpoints and come to a better understanding of the issues, difficulties and possible solutions.
While I appreciate the rules of this blog, I still feel that questions asked with all sincerity about the future of the Network go unanswered, ridiculed or ignored.
So, I ask with all sincerity: Will the Network not allow its clergy to remarry divorced persons since the biblical definition of divorce forbids remarriage?
I humbly await a reply.
Thank you Peter for the reminder
God Bless
Mark, if you really want a reply, why are you asking on public boards? Why don’t you write a letter to Bishop Don Harvey and ask him yourself?
What does Bishop Harvey’s opinion on the issue have to do with anything? The entire premise behind the creation of the ANiC is that the biblical position on an issue takes precedent over a bishop’s opinion. Are you seriously trying to suggest that the same conservative Anglicans who feel their right to adhere to biblical principals regarding homosexuality is so important that they have no option but to rebel against their bishop will abide by whatever decision Bishop Harvey makes in regard to the question of divorce and remarriage? Why should it matter what position the bishop takes? Either the biblical position takes precedent over a bishop’s decision or it doesn’t.
Thanks
Paul
Mark, I think it likely that you will get opinion rather than a full answer here. If I come across a definitive statement, I will let you know.
Paul, I would rather hope the two would not be in conflict, eh?
Again, a clear biblical teaching causes hesitation and silence or “referral.” Why should anyone believe that the Network is a biblically faithful church when it ignores fundamental teachings from Christ?
Since I have asked this simple question, I’ve been told to “find a church that suits you”, “go to Rome”, and “ask Bishop Harvey yourself” (whom I assume reads this blog). Does not the membership of the Network able to give a clear answer to a clear question? Your position on gay marriage is very clear…yet you fudge, divorce (and shamefully refuse to call this schism a schism, but D-I-V-O-R-C-E!), and women’s ordination.
When you decide that one church doesn’t suit your needs anymore, you simply create one that suits yourself, not the teachings of God. I wonder down the road, when will the Network will face their own D-I-V-O-R-C-E?
Mark – I don’t know what the Network will be doing but I can give you my understanding regarding divorce from a biblical perspective – which I have come to after listening, reading etc. etc. There are three reasons for divorce, adultery, abuse and abandonment. Divorce is a sin – no doubt – it goes against God’s plan for His people, but I don’t believe that it is an unforgivable sin, and remarriage points back into the plan that God has for his children and can redeem his plan. God hates divorce and should only be done in the most extreme cases. However, people being people any excuse will do. The acceptance of divorce in the church was in response to the innocent (is anyone every innocent?) who have been abandoned by a spouse. Peter Ould had an incredible piece on this subject. The problem with homosexuality is that it can never reflect God’s plan for his people – man/woman, the Church as bride, it is always at odds with his plan for creation. I have researched the biblical passages but can’t quote them right now so if you come back with endless scripture it may take me time to respond. Believe me I have great compassion for people with sexual preferences other than that ordained by God, and wish with all my heart that I could say Yes to SSBs but I cannot, because in the end sex without borders is harmful and destructive, not only to individuals, children but society as a whole. Just look around you – as Dr. Phil would say “So how it is working for you?” Indeed, what a mess. The only answer for us all is transformation of our desires, and believe me, I know all about that! His grace is sufficient for all our needs.
Thank you Pauline for your generous and caring reply.
You are most welcome Mark.
Well… We are an episcopal church, and Bishop Harvey is the moderator of the network. I didn’t mean to suggest that his opinion trumps everything, only that if one wants to know where the Network is heading on a particular issue, he would be in a position to know.
Bishop Harvey was very clear about his position on the Ordination of Women. I ask him to give his position on the remarriage of divorced persons. Perhaps someone here can prompt him for a reply.
Hello again, Mark.
The ANiC contact information is:
Anglican Network in Canada · Box 189 · Milton · ON · Canada · L9T 4N9 · Tel.: 1-866-351-ANIC (2642) · E-Mail: info@anglicannetwork.ca
I’m sure if you addressed an envelope to Bishop Don Harvey, c/o that address, it would find its way to him. I think you would get a much more satisfactory answer to your question that way.
I know that this has nothing to do with this blog, however, don’t know where else to post it. Most interesting what happens when the state gets overly involved with the Church. I wonder, is this where the ACC is heading along with TEC…. How long will it take before Government takes control of the mainline churches?
A court in Finland has convicted a pastor of the state Lutheran church of “criminal discrimination” for refusing to concelebrate the Eucharist with a female minister.The Rev. Ari Norro (pictured) was fined 20-days pay by the Hyvinkää District Court on Nov 30, which held that religious convictions cannot trump sexual discrimination laws.
A member of the traditionalist Finnish Lutheran Gospel Association, Mr. Norri had been invited to preside at a worship service in Hyvinkää. However, at the start of the service a female minister on the staff of the congregation arrived, saying she had been scheduled to assist. Mr. Norro replied that he would have to withdraw as he did not believe in the validity of women’s orders; however, the female minister withdrew instead.
The exchange was witnessed by a parish warden, a policeman, who reported the incident to state prosecutors. The state charged Mr. Norro with “discrimination while in office” and indicted two other parish leaders with facilitating the discrimination.
Is Drumroll opposed to the Ordination of women?
Do we really want to open up that can of worms again? I think rather that the point is that the pastor was charged for a civil offence because of his religious beliefs.
Mark,
I wonder whether you have misunderstood one of the most significant ideas involved in any “episcopal” church.
Yes, the bishops must be subject to Scripture – at least in the sense that, for Anglicans, we must not teach anything as being generally necessary to salvation unless it may be prooved from scripture – but, and this is a big but – it is the responsibility of the bishops to teach and to interpret scripture.
I believe that the biblical teaching on a number if issues is clear. However, the Bible specifically gives the authority to teach to the offices of the church – the overseers and elders. I may call a bishop to repent if one has erred, but it is still necessary for a bishop to take scripture, and interpret and “unpack” it for us – in full unity with the historic Tradition of the Church (and ideally in full communion with all other bishops!).
In any case, to ask for a blanket answer on the subject of remarriage after divorce on a forum like this is, to put it bluntly, out of place. This is simply because, yes, on one hand we do have a clear biblical standard, but it is the ministry of the clergy to take that standard and apply it to individual situations. Even in churches that do not “marry divorced people”, there are many situations where clergy believe that a previous “marriage” was not in fact a biblical, Christian, marriage. There are also legitimate disagreements about the meaning of some biblical exceptions to divorce (the meaning of “marital unfaithfulness” in the Gospel, or Paul’s statement about a believer not being bound when left by an unbeliever).
To ask a bishop simply to give a blanket answer that he will uphold biblical teaching (by which you – even if you don’t intend it this way – necessarily mean your own interpretation of biblical teaching, instead of the bishop’s, whose role it is to give said interpretation), is to risk misjudging the whole situation – albeit with the best of intentions, I am sure.
With respect,
Michael
Again, you are very clear about how Scripture does not support gay marriage, yet you fudge extremely clear biblically teaching on divorce and remarriage. As a group that claims to remain true to biblically-faithful, historically-authentic Anglicanism, I ask: What parts of Scripture does the Network choose to remain faithful to and what era in history does the Network believe is authentic?
Mark
You assert that the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage is clear. I and others have pointed out that it isn’t. If you wish an official Network response, I would suggest that you ask official Network leaders.
I for one, will cease to post on this thread, as it is going around in circles.
Dromroll is again curiously silent
Mark, As has been pointed out to you, this blog is not a place where you will receive an authoritative answer to questions about “the Network position” on this or that issue of interest to you. Neither of the blogmeisters (Peter and me) speak for ANiC, nor do any of the commenters. We are all individuals expressing our own particular opinions, which others may agree with or not.
If you sincerely desire to receive such an answer, contact ANiC at:
Please let us know what response you receive.
“Ralph”, Why are you baiting another commenter?
Ralph: That is alright, you aren’t “baiting” me inasmuch that is what you intended. Here is my answer to you and to any others who think the way you have LED me to believe.
The article was about the Courts getting involved in the affairs of a Church~Denomination…..Scripture points us to the teaching that if there is an upset or disagreement within a Church, then it should be taken to the Pastor/Rector (whatever), if that fails then to a group of two or three elders with the Rector BEFORE it ever goes any further.
Apparently that is not the case in Finaland where it goes right to the Courts because of a complaint by the Assistant Rector. it made no difference to me whether that person is male or female.
my statement was about the Courts of a Country getting involved in Church Business. Is this what is going to happen shortly in Canada (it already is, with the properties lawsuits)….what next?
Please note that poster Ralph is commenting from the same IP address as Kevin from an earlier thread (i.e. the same computer). Therefore it is not entirely impossible they are one and the same person.
Kevin, if this is you, it comes across as deceptive and simply, as Scott says, as an attempt to bait Drumroll. Please don’t. I don’t want to start deleting comments, but as I have said in the post, I will if I have to.
Peter, I think perhaps it may be time to start…..
Yes, I have just done so, as this is becoming a little irritating (which I assume is the intent). Ralph claims not to be Kevin, OK fair enough. Nevertheless this baiting is not helpful at all, and is only showing St Marks in a bad light.