Concerned Anglicans Respond to Toronto Bishops
Mar 25th, 2009 by Kate
From the Essentials website:
“The following letter was sent to the College of Bishops of the Diocese of Toronto and signed by 14 clergy. Out intention is to express the deep distress we feel at both the content and the process of the proposal to implement what appears to us to be the local option.
The Rev. Murray Henderson
Chair, Anglican Essentials Toronto13 March 2009
The Rt. Rev’d Colin Johnson and the College of Bishops
Diocese of TorontoRegarding: The Blessing of Same-Sex Unions: Draft Discussion Document for Consultation (January 29, 2009)
It is with grave concern that we write to ask you, the College of Bishops of the Diocese of Toronto, not to proceed with the proposed “Pastoral Response” regarding same-sex blessings. Our first concern is with the response itself: “to offer prayers and blessing to same-sex couples in stable long-term relationships.” It is difficult to distinguish this proposal from the “local option” for same-sex blessings. The objection to the local option has always been – from both liberal and conservative perspectives — that what is at issue here is marriage. The St. Michael’s Report (par. 39) concluded that “any proposed blessing of a same-sex relationship would be analogous to a marriage to such a degree as to require the church to understand it coherently in relation to the doctrine of marriage.”
Therefore any priestly blessing – however designated — on a “long-term committed” sexual relationship belongs within the purview of General Synod and the Canons on marriage.
Further, as the St. Michael Report has made clear, the matter of same-sex blessings, while itself non-core or non-credal, is integral to matters of doctrine, matters of belief that have profound significance for who we are as human beings in relation to God. It touches on the doctrine of the Creator God, and the way in which our human nature is given by God that we may be, by the simple fact of our existence as male and female together, creatures in the image of God. It touches on the doctrine of sin, and the way in which even sexual desire is distorted by the turning away from God, yielding no longer only joy, but shame and pain. It touches finally on the doctrine of redemption and the NT’s vision of Christian marriage as an image (and more than an image: an outward and visible sign) of the restored relationship, the longed-for peace, between God and humanity. In the union, physical and emotional and spiritual, of man and woman in marriage, in the difference there brought into its intended harmony, there is an intimation and a pledge of the communion with God and with each other lost in the garden and restored on the cross (cf. Eph. 5.31-32). Marriage is by the providence of God caught up in the saving purposes of God, even in the hoped-for communion with God that is the goal of creation and for which even now all creation groans as it waits in hope. If creation matters, if we are not simply Gnostic, then the physical difference between man and woman matters too: it is in this real difference that marriage may be a sign, by the grace of God, of God’s redemption.And so, it is not a matter to be treated lightly. It is not a matter to be entered into by subterfuge, as if we were really doing something else. The proposed pastoral response, insofar as it involves the blessing of a sexual relationship, takes us into the realm of marriage and the doctrines and canons of the church. Therefore we continue to ask not only that the bishops of this diocese will respect the polity of the church, its synods and global councils, but that the church will be faithful to its gospel, its own ancient narrative of creation and redemption, of sin and salvation, in which even the marriage of man and woman has its place.
Our second concern has to do with the rationale for the proposed pastoral action.
There are three problems with it. First, it misrepresents the current situation. The letter suggests that we are still engaged as a church in “conversation” toward “consensus.” We are, however, already in schism. Some bishops and some clergy and congregations have resigned from their dioceses in the ACC in order to serve under the bishops of other provinces; others continue to join them. A new province is in the making. We have had the conversation about human sexuality and marriage: we have utterly failed to reach consensus. The ACC now comprises people who hold two opposed and irreconcilable views on marriage and on the morality of same-sex relationships. To proceed now with a local option for same-sex blessings is not to respond in a pastoral way to an unclear situation. The situation is perfectly clear: we are divided. The issue is now this: can we live together in a way that is honest and faithful in the midst of such disagreement?
Second, the rationale suggests that the church needs to adjust its marriage canon in light of the decisions of the civil courts about the nature of marriage. This is to make the vision of the church dependent on a secular vision. The Christian understanding of marriage, however, is based on a scriptural narrative about the world. It is not our task to make Christian marriage fit into secular society’s narrative of individual rights and freedoms and the blessedness of desire. Our calling is to be shaped and formed by the world as it exists in the Bible and in the witness of the church. In this scriptural understanding of the world we form, as Christians, a different society: the church catholic. No change can be “required” of the marriage canon by the civil society. It can be required only by the Word of God and the consensus fidelium, the mind of the universal church.
Likewise, to say that contraception entails a redefinition of marriage is to get it backwards. It is the task of the church to come to an understanding of contraception that is consistent with and furthers the Christian vision of marriage: its rich meaning as a sign of God’s intended restoration of the world, and the mystery of its power to create new life (an image not only of the creative, but of the redeeming purposes of God begun in the birth of Isaac). Marriage matters, in the divine economy, and sex is central to it, not merely as a means of self-fulfillment but as an instrument of God’s grace.
Third, and crucially, the language of the rationale does not encourage the kind of trust that is necessary if we are to co-exist in a divided church. Is it fair to call the decision of some dioceses in favour of same-sex blessings “diversity”? Their decision is in contravention of GS 2007, the St. Michael Report, the Windsor Report, Lambeth 1998 and 2008 and the expressed wishes of our own Primate. From the viewpoint of traditionalists around the world, the independent actions of these dioceses are not “diverse” but “inflammatory.” Or, again, is it fair to propose as a model for same-sex blessings, the blessing of monastic friendships? Just where would the vow of celibacy enter into a same-sex blessing? If it is a sexual relationship the diocese intends to bless, what can it possibly mean to propose a celibate relationship as a model? Or, again, the question about the exact nature of blessing. The question is not whether a blessing is “thanksgiving for signs of God’s presence already discerned” or “adding something to a relationship:” it is both. The question is whether the sign of God’s presence can be discerned in a same-sex relationship, and whether it is theologically and morally appropriate to ask God to bless as a marriage a relationship that contradicts (as traditionalists argue) the God-given nature of marriage.
For all these reasons we would ask you to reconsider the proposal and its rationale. We would ask you to find a way forward that takes account honestly of the divided state of our diocese (and the ACC) and the gospel call, which we feel keenly, both to faithful witness and to unity. We are at an impasse. We hold, as a church, not a “diversity” of opinion, but two opposed and irreconcilable visions. A truly pastoral response would be, we suggest, to recognize the impasse and to ask how we might live together in the midst of profound disagreement.
Yours in Christ,
The Rev. Catherine Sider Hamilton
The Rev. Brian McVitty
The Rev. Canon Kim Beard
The Rev. Peter Mills
The Rev. Dr. Murray Henderson
The Rev. Canon Bruce McCallum
The Rev. Peter Blundell
The Rev. Jim Seagram
The Rev. Dr. Dean Mercer
The Rev. Andre Leroux
The Rev. Canon Matthias Der
The Rev. Simon Li
Dr. Roseanne Kydd
The Rev. Dr. Ron Kydd
I am sorry to sound so jaundiced, but I can’t for the life of me understand what the writers of letters like this really expect to accomplish. While I applaud their courage for putting themselves out at the front of the firing line, I have to ask myself “Why?”
Do these fine Christian folk really believe that the Diocese of Toronto is going to change it’s mind? Do they really expect the HOB in Toronto to read their letter and say “Whoa, what have we been doing?” “We didn’t realize that we were so far off course.” “We need to reverse direction and get back to basic Christianity.”
And how will these fine Christian folk respond when their current letter is ignored? Perhaps another letter?
Respond? Oh, I don’t know; maybe like Jeremiah and other prophets? God will have His witnesses. Don’t recall that He ever told them to give up. And so it probably has very little to do with what these writers hope to accomplish, and everything to do with being faithful to what God has called them to do.
Thanks be to God the silence is broken. There are many who are in spirit with the signatories. We now pray for a sunami of orthodox voices to rise up against the subtle
deception of establishing the thin edge of the wedge of
false teaching and action. The Indaba planned is not likely to give a chance for debate. There are no votes planned on the issue.
Maranatha
I am thankful for the Christian witness of these faithful people. May God encourage them and protect them for the days ahead.
ML
“Don’t recall that He ever told them to give up.”
I am not suggesting that they give up; in fact quite the opposite. The biblical witness of the Appostles cost them their lives. The biblical witness of the current ANIC clergy cost them their carreers and put them and their families in financial peril. The biblical witness of the congregations that departed the ACoC cost them friends and family members and a church that they loved. These people didn’t write a letter for the sake of the Gospel, they took ACTION for the sake of the Gospel. They followed the biblical admonition found in Matt. 10:14 - “And whoever will not receive you or hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.” That’s WITNESSING. I wonder if the writers of this letter will do likewise when their letter is ignored or whether they will just learn “to live in the tension”.
ML (#2), although the signatories may be fine people I advise caution in drawing parallels between them and the prophets of the Old Testament who were inspired by God. I think a more sound approach would be to look to passages in the New Testament concerning false teachers or at passages in the Old Testament regarding false prophets. I too am jaundiced, but think time will show that Winter Traveller has a realistic perspective.
For those who oppose the same-sex blessings should continue to speak the truth and stay in the Diocese to fight for the truth of the Gospel. I pray for more people (clergy and lay) will write to the College of Bishops.
5: “I am not suggesting that they give up; in fact quite the opposite. The biblical witness of the Appostles cost them their lives. The biblical witness of the current ANIC clergy cost them their carreers and put them and their families in financial peril. The biblical witness of the congregations that departed the ACoC cost them friends and family members and a church that they loved. These people didn’t write a letter for the sake of the Gospel, they took ACTION for the sake of the Gospel.” The same could be said for those within the ACoC; the costs are somewhat different, but they are equally high. This is not about who suffers most for the sake of witnessing to the gospel; rather it is about the fruitfulness of the witness that is communicated by one’s actions. Ecclesial division, though always undertaken because one party believes itself to be following Scripture more closely, has resulted simply in more ecclesial divisions, church’s shaped by their own ideologies of what is truth, and to general societal indifference to both God and to the Church.
#6 Furthermore, and most fundamentally, the biblical witness is in fact a witness of dying to self for the sake of sinners; not finding a safe haven of like minded individuals (this latter way of proceeding seems to be derived from a propositional reading of Scripture). Where are the sinners? Yes, they are in the ACoC, they are in TEC, and you can most certainly count on the fact that they are in ANiC and ACNA … this is an inescapable reality of our still sinful condition. We all stand under God’s judgment; separating oneself from a sinful Church does not lead to purity, rightness or redemption from this judgment. The OT offers a the figural witness fulfilled in Christ of dying to self for sinners, for the apostate, for the heretic, for the one completely and utterly unable to make himself right before God (just one example Jeremiah 43 … want more, I’ve got a few books, essays, sermons, lectures, of some very learned individuals from the Church fathers through to present that I can point you to). And it is Christ whose very form we are to take on in our ministries. That is the biblical witness we are called to.
God bless these priests for inspiring us in the next generation of the Anglican Church.
What action, Katie? To be perfectly honest, I don’t think that signing a letter qualifies as action, although it is a good start.
Are you suggesting that schism is worse than preaching a false gospel?
Kate,
Actually, yes signing a letter is action. It is the action of individuals within a diocese stating clearly that the whole diocese does not abide by what the bishop has said; much like the action of the prophets of the OT who, while remaining in sinful, apostate Israel, made this claim to the Israelites, much like the action of Christ when he remained in communion with the sinners and apostates.
What is the difference between schism and preaching a false gospel? They both point to a false gospel. Schism of the body of Christ by definition points to a false gospel: Christ cannot be divided.
Beyond this, do you believe that the gospel can either be preached or heard in the midst of division? As I stated above, the result of division has been indifference to both God and the Church. We’re already divided; we cannot simply go backward and erase those divisions (100 years of failed ecumenical discussion is ample proof of that). However, we can seek to proclaim the truth, as did the prophets and as did Christ, even from within a crumbling, dying, and decaying Church … in fact, this is exactly what we have been called to do. Our preaching, our proclamation, our discipleship is always talked about in Scripture in terms of being done in the midst of those who are sinners, who fail to see, who turn away; we’re not told to walk away from them but to be prepared to say why we believe what we believe and to do so from within the midst of them.
Of course we are to proclaim the Gospel in the midst of sinners - but the church is supposed to be the base from which we do it. It is supposed to be a place of spiritual nourishment from which to draw, not a crumbling, decaying and dieing place. How can we draw spiritual nourishment from a church that we can’t trust to speak the truth?
So, should we all return to the Roman Catholic church, then? Separation doesn’t point to a false gospel. False teaching does.
Katie [#10],
The schism and division was undertaken by the ACoC and TEC when they decided to ignore the worldwide Anglican communion and go their own way. Those who have left the ACoC remain in communion with most Anglicans, continue to preach the Gospel and are not in any way divisive or schismatic.
The ACoC is both a preacher of a false gospel and is schismatic: ANiC is neither.
Whether remaining within the ACoC and writing letters is an effective way of bringing the ACoC back to orthodoxy remains to be seen. It hasn’t so far and I doubt that it will.
Katie (#8), although I can agree with much of what you say, the root of our disagreement concerns what constitutes a true church. I don’t dispute that the ACoC contains true believers, however, as an institution, I do not believe that it still bears the marks of a true church (Scripture is faithfully preached, there is sound doctrine, the gospel is proclaimed, biblical discipline is exercised, etc.).
You say that schism points to a false gospel. I can’t make sense of this statement and am wondering if you could explain what you mean? How do you define the gospel?
Can the gospel be preached or heard in the midst of division? Absolutely! The Holy Spirit can use the faithful preaching of the Word to draw people to himself under circumstances that look impossible to human eyes. If there are those who choose to stand and proclaim the gospel within the ACoC, I pray that God will use them in a powerful way. I also pray for their protection as I believe the institution will seek to silence and exclude them.
Why should we return to the RCC? They are as complicit in the sin of division as any other Church. There is no one, true original Church. There are incredibly long discussions of this on some of the US blogs (see for example ‘Covenant’). I’m not sure why people continue to make this argument … how would the Eastern Orthodox feel about this one? As I said, separation by it’s very nature points to a false gospel. It is itself, a false teaching. It also points not at Christ, but rather at the entity that separates. Churches that separate so often end up spending the great majority of their time justifying their own existence that that is all anyone sees … we are not the Church across the street, we are defined by this and this and this as opposed to that and that and that.
Every Church has taught something false; there is not one pure, true Church. There is not a Church from which there can be a ‘pure’ nourishing truth can be derived and there never has been (not in Israel, not in Christ’s time, not in New Testament times, not in the early Church, not in Reformed Churches). That is one of the simplest reasons why it is pointless to leave; we all fail in our teaching and in our proclamation of truth … we can be reformed by God only if we stop splintering and remain together over time, placing ourselves in humble submission to the Spirit’s quickening.
Confession and repentance … that is how we sinners come to the point of being able to submit to God’s shaping us into the image of His Son. Believe it or not, in a crumbling and broken world, in sin … that is actually the point at which we are able to realize how broken we are and turn not to our own selves, but to God. Read Augustine’s Confessions, or any of the medieval works on submission, the assent of and finally submission of the intellect in someone like Nicholas of Cusa’s or Aquinas’s works. For all of its thrashing about, the Anglican Communion, if its members would so choose to embrace the conciliar order being proposed by the Covenant, is actually truly in a good position of having been humbled and broken enough to hear God’s Word. We’ll fall further still, but out of the flames if we stay in and stand firm, will come a much smaller, yet passionate, evangelical (yet catholic) people who have been shaped and formed in Christ’s image, passionate and hungry to share their experience of God’s redemptive grace. And so our hope comes not from the ‘rightness’ of our Church, but from God’s breaking through the crumbling structures of our Church using those who stand within, to proclaim his Word. I trust in God working through my Church, not in my Church getting God ‘right.’
I was being sarcastic.
Katie [#14],
You seem to have thrown so much into that last answer, it’s hard - for me, at least - to pin down the main point.
Simply put: the ACoC and TEC chose to leave much of the worldwide Anglican communion when they went their own way. Members of ANiC chose to stay with the broader Anglican communion by leaving the organisation called the ACoC and aligning with the majority of Anglicans.
I think the ACoC views this as an affront to their institutional authority; it has little to do with schism and a lot to do with the exercise of power.
Katie (#14), again I agree with much of what you say, although, apart from circumstances in the ACoC, I suspect you know more about church splits from what you have read than what you have experienced. In many cases, it isn’t nearly so dramatic or negative as you have portrayed. Do you believe there is ever a circumstance in which a Christian or (group of Christians) is justified biblically in separating himself from the church he has been affiliated with? Do you think that any group that slaps the label “Christian Church” on themselves is automatically granted membership in the body of Christ and should never be ejected? How do you interpret the letter to the Church in Laodicea?
David 12
“The schism and division was undertaken by the ACoC and TEC when they decided to ignore the worldwide Anglican communion and go their own way.” I agree. What I don’t agree with is perpetuating this action.
“Those who have left the ACoC remain in communion with most Anglicans, continue to preach the Gospel and are not in any way divisive or schismatic.” No they don’t. This was clearly stated in the recent Primate’s Communique.
“The ACoC is both a preacher of a false gospel and is schismatic: ANiC is neither.” Point 1: yes, some within the ACoC do preach a false gospel, the parish I attend however, doesn’t, nor do many of the others where I have heard preaching go on. Blanket statements about Churches are dangerous claims to make. Case in point a particular systematic theology professor I know, very conservative and learned, attended a particular network church in the United States and reported some odd theological tendencies. Yet I also know of several network churches where the preaching is wonderful. Point 2: whether it is truly schismatic or not is debatable by theological definition. However, it has willfully chosen to depart from a Church that is still considered by the rest of the Communion to be a part of the Communion. As stated once again, both in the Windsor Continuation report and in the Primates’ Communique, the status of such an entity is at best, irregular.
Whether remaining within the ACoC and writing letters is an effective way of bringing the ACoC back to orthodoxy remains to be seen. It hasn’t so far and I doubt that it will.” The idea, as has been addressed for the last three years in the US Church, is not necessarily to attempt to bring anyone back to orthodoxy at present; it is to make a stand of ‘orthodox belief’ within the Church so that God may use these ‘individual witnesses’ in His time, to reform his Church according to his purpose. It is tough to reform a people that keeps dividing and trying to define its own terms of righteousness. Quite frankly, it is highly unlikely that the Church will be reformed in our lifetimes … but I’m looking to people like Cusanus, Hooker, Thornton (dead for many years) as those who are helping me to examine how to take a faithful conservative stand from within, to help determine what a faithful and fruitful structure might look like as we move into the future … the structure being proposed for the Communion right now is derived from 15th century conciliarist thought … yes, indeed, that may be how long reform takes.
I don’t think we should measure our ’success’ in our own time. We need to measure our success by the shape our witness takes … is it Christiform (see Nicholas of Cusa ‘On Church and Reform’). I will share the words a very wise man once shared with me (more or less) “Our success is only an endless work of discerning and living out Scripture that can never be abandoned; in its very inachievable labor is our fulfillment.”
If more pastors lived by these words, I think North American evangelicalism would look much different that it does today.
17 Warren
“again I agree with much of what you say, although, apart from circumstances in the ACoC, I suspect you know more about church splits from what you have read than what you have experienced. In many cases, it isn’t nearly so dramatic or negative as you have portrayed.”
True, I did not live in the time of some of the great schisms of the Christian Church … I am living at a point in time from which I can view the implications of our historical divisions; both at their present time and according to their subsequent fruit. Indeed, how they have impacted our present ecclesiologies, our ecumenical endeavors and the general indifference which my generation (30 and under) ascribes to God and the Church. The actual divisions I have seen have been the remnants of the United Church, and Churches that broke off from the Anglican Church when they ordained women. The most obvious result in these two cases was that you had a strong and passionate movement, but that energy went into the realities of having to build a new entity with few resources and dwindling support as people left for other Churches (RC, EO, Evangelical) and as there was no next generation who had the same passion, energy and drive borne out of the ‘moment’ of fracture. There are a few of these Anglican Churches around now … but would you like to know the ‘evangelizing’ line I was greeted with when I spoke with a priest from one of these Churches? Hi, why don’t you come to ‘x’ church; we’re the ‘true’ Church because we don’t ordain women so we’ve preserved the apostolic succession of faith … hmm.
Do you believe there is ever a circumstance in which a Christian or (group of Christians) is justified biblically in separating himself from the church he has been affiliated with?
Sure, where the greater or larger majority does so in order to maintain the peace and order of the Church. That could have happened with the Covenant (do you honestly think the ACoC and TEC will sign onto it?). Unfortunately, due to the splits and divisions of groups autonomously asserting their own declaration of who is and is not in the Anglican Communion (without consent of the Communion), the moving ahead in a fruitful manner that preserves the peace and order of the Church to some degree has been made increasingly difficult. Hence my comment concerning the necessity of not perpetuating division made above.
“Do you think that any group that slaps the label “Christian Church” on themselves is automatically granted membership in the body of Christ and should never be ejected?”
Who are you to eject them? It is not our call to determine whether someone is a Christian or not; that is God’s call. We are called merely to stand firm in our witness even in the midst of terrible conditions (whatever they may be); that is what it means to be a disciple. I am not here defending many of those within the ACoC; their arrogance, their distortion of the gospel, and their poverty of witness sicken me. This is why I pray that conservatives will not continue to follow (not in content, but in action) their same route of autonomous assertions.
How do you interpret the letter to the Church in Laodicea
As a call to repentance. So call the ACoC to repentance … don’t expect they will answer that call right away … remember that is not the measure of success. The only way to call them is to stand and witness from within - you otherwise just set yourself out as a false judge (since only God has that claim on our lives).
Katie (#20), your posts have been interesting and I’ve enjoyed reading them, even thought we are far apart on some issues (including what the Bible has to say about judgement, discernment and the proper response to false teaching). I won’t bore with you a long litany of details, but I should mention that I don’t consider myself to be an Anglican (nor, do I imagine, do other posters here) and was not Baptised in the Church. I grew up in a Pentecostal church and during my adult life (which has involved many career-related moves), have covered pretty much the full spectrum of Evangelical churches. Although my wife and I have generally been very involved in each church we have attended, I have no denominational loyalty (although I hold some strong opinions about doctrine). I can worship comfortably in a wide range of churches, but don’t feel completely at home in any of them.
In recent years, through circumstances that I strongly believe were God’s leading, I found myself in an Anglican church that is now part of the ANiC. I was forced to abandon many of my preconceptions about Anglicanlism, but have an even dimmer view of the ACoC. As I said in an earlier comment, I believe that, as an institution, it no longer bears the marks of a true church, and thus I believe that the ANiC parishes that have recently broken away have biblical sanction for what they have done. It is the ACoC that wandered off the straight and narrow road (starting many decades ago in my opinion), and it is ACoC clergy, over more years than you have been alive, who have repeatedly failed to discern error and who have welcomed false teaching. It is not the ACoC that needs to repent - it is the individuals who make up the ACoC (and yes, I fully agree that we are all sinners in need of God’s grace).
I’m sorry to be so blunt, but I believe this statement is wrong and has no valid biblical warrant.
Anyway, I hope you continue to post here and aren’t put off by contrary opinions like mine.
#9 Kate
“To be perfectly honest, I don’t think that signing a letter qualifies as action, although it is a good start.”
On the contrary, Kate, well-argued pieces like this are extremely effective in advancing the orthodox cause - more effective in many ways than running away in righteous indignation complaining that SSB is “the straw that broke the camel’s back” without being able to explain why, or that sex is “the tip of a theological iceberg” without describing the other nine-tenths.
Look what happened when Martin Luther posted nothing but words on the Wittenberg church door.
“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
Hebrews 4:12
Noli -
The “theological iceberg” comment was a reference to an interview with Kendall Harmon, which has been widely circulated on the net. You have been directed to it elsewhere on this blog - to say that you don’t understand the reference is dishonest. Have you taken a look at the ANiC website? There are reams of virtual paper stored there on the subject of why we took the steps we did. Perhaps you would care to take a look and then reconsider your comment? Your characterization of ANiC is simply inaccurate.
Edited to add a link to the website:
http://www.anglicannetwork.ca/resources.htm
Because I evidently can’t make hyperlinks this morning.
Noli,
On the contrary, Kate, well-argued pieces like this are extremely effective in advancing the orthodox cause
If that proves to be the case, we will all be delighted.
running away in righteous indignation
As has been re-iterated ad nauseam, ANiC has re-aligned with orthodox Anglicans, not run away.
“the tip of a theological iceberg” without describing the other nine-tenths.
The post you are referring to did have a comment with a pointer to Kendall Harmon’s iceberg video; in case you missed it, it is HERE
Wow! Have read all of the above and can empathize with both sides of this debate.
When I initially wrote: “don’t recall that He ever told them to give up”, I was going to write: “Don’t recall that He ever told them to leave”, but thought that was too inflammatory. However, it has since been said.
I, for the most part, agree with Katie, especially about the effects of schism. At the same time I know that it is very difficult, to the point of being almost impossible, to remain in a church that is apostate. Interesting to note that no-one seems to have any difficulty using the term “church” for these institutions, not even our Lord when He addresses the seven “churches”, of which Laodicea is one. For me the term “true church” is as redundant as “true christian” - either you are or you aren’t and “true” doesn’t change that.
I mentioned the prophets, not to say that the writers of the letter are prophets in the same sense as the OT prophets, but to show that God chose His prophets from within an apostate nation asking them to remain identified with that nation while they spoke His words to them and in some cases doing some strangely unorthodox things to illustrate the point (I am thinking of Hosea marrying a prostitute and the awful names he had to name his children).
And, finally, I do think that writing that letter is “doing” something. For one, these people have put their livelihoods on the line since bishops have the canonical right to dismiss “troublesome” clergy without cause. And secondly, the Lord sends His Word out through faithful people like these and “it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”Is 55:11 His Word can accomplish a wide spectrum from repentance to hardening of hearts - from redemption to condemnation. I pray the Lord it will accomplish the first because I, too, am “not willing that any should perish…”
Katie [#18],
If you agree that the ACoC and TEC were the initiators of the schism, then surely to stay with either of them is to perpetuate the schism, is it not?
I am not claiming that there are no Christians or Christian parishes left in the ACoC. I am claiming, though, that a significant number of the ACoC’s leaders are promoting views that are not Christian; so much so, that I don’t think it makes sense any longer to call the ACoC a Christian church.
How this eventually plays out remains to be seen, but I don’t think it is quite as clear cut as you are saying. For example, the following Archbishops have declared themselves in impaired Communion with the North American Anglican church: Archbishops Peter Akinola (Nigeria), John Chew (South East Asia), Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya), Justice Akrofi (West Africa), Henry Orombi (Uganda), Gregory Venables (Southern Cone) and Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda). These archbishops represent more than 30 million Anglicans (out of 76 million, of whom 26 million are recorded in England).
Unfortunately I do not have time to read through the rest of the comments in enough detail (must stop procrastinating and write thesis!), but must say that I have quite enjoyed the conversation I have shared in with the folks here.
One key point that I want to clarify. The arguments I make, I make for the sake of those still in the process of discernment about their future in the Church, not against those who are in ANiC; I want to be very clear about this. Much ‘blood’ has been shed in conservative groups fighting conservative groups in the US and I hope and pray we do not take this route in Canada; it has proved incredibly detrimental to a whole generation of North American Anglicans and it has spilled over into my generation (Gen Y) to the point where most simply brush their hands of Anglicanism in general. It is largely for this generation that I write and that I argue (by the way there is a second letter in the ‘news section’ of the federation site, that letter was written by me and two other seminary students/postulants) because I truly believe that a polity of conciliar Anglicanism (one that is being proposed through the Covenant Agreement), has a particular witness that it can provided to our divided Churches.
Yet I know that some have chosen to leave, some, like Warren (I think) simply ended up in an ANiC parish. This is the reality of the situation. I don’t expect to change the minds of those that have made their decisions (for whatever reasons), particularly those in older generations that have been fighting this battle and struggling for many decades; I will respect those people and I will call all of these folks my brothers and sisters in Christ. But there is a new generation of Anglicans (a very small one because as I said above, most have been driven away for various reasons) that see hope amongst the fragments of what Anglicanism is now. That hope is not based on human work, but on God’s breaking through and healing and repairing the Church. These are the folks who are discerning where they are called to serve God’s Church … and these are the folks I am primarily appealing to. God’s peace and blessing to all of you and in all of your ministries.
Edited to add hyperlink. –admin.
NA (#22),
Can you cite any concrete examples where the “orthodox cause” is being advanced within the ACoC? For example, repenting of and subsequently reversing previous decisions, admitting that significant theological and doctrinal errors have been made and that changes need to be made, etc., on the part of those who control the church? I would be blessed to read of even one case. Maybe it is because I tend to look for negative examples, but the ACoC seems to be accelerating its efforts to distance itself from orthodoxy.
The Anglican Church of Canada may continue to decline in membership and worship attendance, but the Church of Jesus Christ will survive until the Lord’s return.
#28 Warren - if you look for negatives, you will always find them. However, the much-reviled Diocese of Ottawa is holding a “Faith Talk Series” with Dr. Edith Humphrey on “The Uniqueness of Christ”, The Rev. Jo Bailey Wells, and The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner in May, also others - details can be found at St. Paul’s Hazeldean Kanata (sorry, PDF) website. So, it’s not all the flakiest stuff.
(There’s a tempation to advertise “a labyrinth walk for the MDGs with raisin cake eucharist” next Wednesday morning* - but I’ve already discovered that most people have lost their sense of humour about these topics.)
(* next Wednesday is April Fool’s Day)
That’s because I’ll bet you could find something similar actually happening, Henry.
Michael #29
Indeed we have the Lord’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church. The tragedy is that the ACoC is fast loosing any claim – if it has not already given up that claim – to be part of the church of Jesus Christ. Currently apostasy reigns and having committed clergy and laity speaking up is the only way for the ACoC to be pulled out of the pit of apostasy. Calling the apostates “liberals” is a gross distortion. We need to call a spade a spade and not a shovel.
Henry (#30), I know I’m being negative again, but do you think the examples you have given will “advance the orthodox cause”, or are they just bones being thrown to those who are disturbed with what they see happening in their Dioceses while the change agenda marches on?
#23 Kate:
“The “theological iceberg” comment was a reference to an interview with Kendall Harmon, which has been widely circulated on the net. You have been directed to it elsewhere on this blog - to say that you don’t understand the reference is dishonest.”
I wrote comment #22 in haste this morning before heading out to a funeral, so I wasn’t in the best frame of mind. My apologies for the belligerent tone and lack of precision.
When I wrote of the Concerned Anglicans letter being more “effective,” I was comparing it to Bishop Harvey’s speech reported in the Church Times, where he begged the question about the iceberg. In fact, I did listen to Kendall Harmon’s “iceberg” comments via the link posted to an earlier thread (several times, as a matter of fact) and found them, like the Concerned Anglicans letter, more “effective” than Bishop Harvey’s speech, although both raised many questions in my mind regarding marriage, which has already been effectively re-defined within memory when the “lifelong” part was dropped and the remarriage of divorced persons was allowed. Also, I have to grudgingly admit that women’s lib and birth control have changed gender relations and reproductive behaviour so that childless marriages for the purpose of partnered companionship without procreation have become common. Perhaps it IS time for a rethink on marriage (or maybe I’m just inclined to re-open all of that in my mind now because I’m currently tempted to re-marry but have no interest in procreating at this point mid-life).
#28 Warren:
“Can you cite any concrete examples where the “orthodox cause” is being advanced within the ACoC? For example, repenting of and subsequently reversing previous decisions, admitting that significant theological and doctrinal errors have been made and that changes need to be made, etc., on the part of those who control the church?”
Your idea of advancing the orthodox cause, Warren, seems limited to complete and immediate capitulation by the church’s now-dominant liberal wing. If that’s the only possible way forward, then the inside strategy is indeed doomed, because that just ain’t going to happen. Not in this generation of church leadership… although a pendulum swing towards greater orthodoxy when Katie’s generation comes of episcopal age is not unthinkable.
In the meantime, though, there are thousands and thousands of moderate/conservative Anglicans all across the country, basically orthodox in outlook, who are trying to figure out how to respond to the disturbing developments currently engulfing our church. The liberals have already made up their minds and are unlikely to be change their views. However, many conservatives (both evangelical and anglo-catholic) are still in what Katie describes as discernment: should we stay or should we go? If we go, then to where? If we stay, then how can we keep the gospel torch alight in this growing darkness long enough to pass on to the next generation? It’s to us that Kendall Harmon’s iceberg video and the Concerned Anglicans letter speak more effectively than the usual ANiC sermons to the choir.
Frank Wirrell #32
The Anglican Church of Canada may not survive before the Second Coming.
Some open thoughts to all;
The Italians have a saying “Distance lends perspective” as in, if we move far enough away from the trees we may see the forest.
There is a great mystery here. How can so many learned and august members of the Anglican executive in North America get it so obviously wrong?
Are the issues separating Conservative vs Liberal or Orthodox vs Post-modern simply red-herrings.
IS THERE A HIDDEN AGENDA ? Before you laugh go back to my first question.
Stuck in Toronto (#36), given what the Bible says about man’s sinful nature, there isn’t any mystery. Learning, unless rooted in the fear of the Lord, does not lead to Godly wisdom (Ps 111:10). There may be many “hidden agendas”, but God knows them all and those who earnestly seek His face needn’t fear them.
If you read the Bible, Stuck, you will find a great many instances of godly people stumbling. Sometimes with dire results.
#36 Stuck
For the most part leaders in the churches today want to make faith in Jesus RELEVANT to people today. Unfortunately many have made the mistake of trying to make faith in Jesus PALATABLE to people today. The result is two faiths in one church.
#35 Michael
On a completely different note: I don’t want to get into end times discussions, but I would think that the Anglican Church of Canada as an organization would survive the Rapture largely unscathed.
A topic for another day: where does the Bible teach that there will be a rapture? Would the founders of the Church of England even recognize the modern concept of a rapture so popular in evangelical circles?
I asked two secular questions. You respond with religiosity. Perhaps I should have addressed them to the Rockerfellers, Cintons, Blairs, Gorbachevs. not to mention the U.N. However speaking of end times - Check your oil levels. -Love in Christ
Stuck (#41), I answered both questions. Sorry you didn’t like the answers. And sorry for dragging the Bible into a discussion on a blog that is concerned about the spiritual health of Canadian Anglicanism. What was I thinking?
#39 - Ouch. I hope you aren’t right about that, but I fear you may be.
#40 - They probably wouldn’t.
#41 Stuck: I was glad that a couple of people gave thoughtful answers to your comment in #36. To me, your post was so cryptic it was mummified! Perhaps you can expand on your questions for those of us not living in your head.
By the way, there were three questions. You just tried to trick us by leaving out a question mark!
[#42] Warren,
How rude of you to seek a scriptural response!
Peace,
Jim
Stuck,
Could you please clarify your questions? I sense you are attempting to imply some type of conspiracy whether contrived or incidental I’m not sure; but your hints have not shed sufficient light on the matter. I’m also not sure how you are using the categories or conservative and liberal (more clear), and Orthodox vs post-modern. Orthodox what? Eastern Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodox theology, conservative theology, traditionally accepted Christian articulations of theology? And post-modernity in what sense? Its influence on theology, its integration into the average person’s reception of Scripture, general social trends?
You said in post 40 that your previous 2 (or 3) questions were in reference to a secular subject, but refer to the “Anglican Executive” and you use the terms “liberal and conservative,” “Orthodox and postmodern,” so I’m guessing this is a hint that the ‘conspiracy’ has to do with secular or political agendas driven by a secular organization.
But I must admit to being quite lost amongst the hints thus far. Perhaps if you clearly stated what you mean to imply, we could answer and engage in an exchange with some more clarity.
I have refrained from putting ‘pen to paper’ to respond to Stuck in Toronto (#36) since (s)he posted, but of COURSE there is a hidden agenda. There always has been. Use another word for ‘hidden’ and there you have it.
Called the great Deceiver, subtlety is his art.
That is not to say that the “learned and august members of the Anglican executive in North America” are actively in league with him (at least as far as we know), but his goal in life is to bring down the Church of Jesus Christ. What better way than ‘influence’ the leadership?
And are the issues red herrings? You decide. Look at the issues from this ‘other’ vantage point and a different perspective comes into view.
It seems everyone is struggling to answer because it isn’t a ‘one-size-fits-all’. There are too many different angles (as in aspects) but the more lines that cross in the centre, the clearer the picture becomes.
Lazarus here, To all: My mistake was in not starting a new Israel after Jesus did that amazing 4 days late thing! But though I didn’t , Jesus did and we seem to be having a heck of a time not mangling it while we try to be it and preserve it!
Dear folks, thanks for all the imput. Question: Is it worth while to ask about the issue of “calling” when trying to discern whether it is biblical to stay in ACoC or biblical to leave it? Premise: SSB cannot be both God’s will and not God’s will. Is staying/leaving of the same order? I think it is a different order of biblical issue that allows for God’s will to not be restricted to one theology of staying or leaving. God does not contradict His word, hence SSB is not his will. Does God’s word clearly state uniformly a single truth about staying/ leaving that truthfully applies to all in our present ACoC situation. Again, not that God is in conflict but rather that some are called to a faithful leaving of ACoC and some are called to a faithful staying within ACoC. ie God is free and not in contradiction to call some out of ACoC and some to stay. (And He can certainly use our mistakes as well!). Our response then is discernment of motives, calling and obedience to God, not self. If God alone defines faithful leaving, then I hear Katie saying that, while that time for faithful leaving may come, a longer view that involves a painfully slow (to our point of view) process (with the “Anglican Covenant” and formalized statements of those who are not in full communion, having worked through the process,) has not been completed. I know she and others are not attacking ANiC, (we are close friends with ANiC) yet I do hear a line of thinking that indicates that, theologically, she (and maybe the Anglican Federation in general) does not think the time has come for most ACoC folk to leave to realign with ANiC or the Common Cause or GAFCon. I hear a view that says in fact, unless you are sure that God is calling you out of ACoC by a sovereign act, and not that you are angry or frustrated or feel betrayed etc., then His will is that you stay in ACoC and be a faithful witness until due process in the Anglican Communion, however slow, makes it clear where the full communion anglican body exists. If Lambeth and GAFCon “split”, this will be much more confusing.
I tend to think that theologically and biblically, the “norm” for our present situation is a faithful and sometimes painful “staying”, but I do think that “leaving” (also painful) the ACoC is not a contradiction for God to ask of some, just not the norm. And not because we are fed up! The freedom that we have in Christ to decide for ourselves on this issue I believe is largely modified by the immensity of the wider issues and ramifications in the Kingdom of acting without explicit leading from the Holy Spirit. I know that claiming Divine Guidance is a touchy subject in terms of subjective fallibility, but His sheep (is that plural or singular, better plural) hear his voice and follow.
This is not going to be a popular thing to say, but I am going to say it anyway. I think that the good Christian leaders who are staying in the ACoC are being used by the apostate leadership to try to prove that the ACoC is still fundamentally a Christian church, and that “living into the tension” actually means something. Why be used? Why bring your children into an organization that you can’t trust to preach the truth?
#49 - Maybe it is the same thing as God calling us to stay in the world as witnesses rather than reclusing to some island with like-minded people. And maybe it is the same thing as sending our children to pulbic schools when there are no Christian schools in the area*. My father always said that it was much easier to delineate between Christian and secular in the public school system than in the Christian school system - one is more on guard against the wiles of the devil there. More people are led astray by wolves in sheep’s clothing than by the wolves that are now quite visible in the ACoC! They do not fool the faithful. Even our Lord said that no-one would be able to “pluck them out of my / my Father’s hand.” John 10:28,29
*(Even homeschooled children play with non-Christian “friends” and visit in non-Christian homes; they need to be taught very early to be on guard, whether around home or even in the church, whether with misguided “tares” or errant preachers)
Kate,
“I think that the good Christian leaders who are staying in the ACoC are being used by the apostate leadership to try to prove that the ACoC is still fundamentally a Christian church, and that “living into the tension” actually means something. Why be used?”
It is not within the scope of our knowledge or understanding to determine whether the ACoC is a ‘Christian Church.’ As I have said before, this is God’s realm to determine. It is not for us to know the fullness of God’s ways, nor his timing; this is why I think if one is in discernment (or not) the faithful statement to make is, here I am God, and the faithful question to ask is, how do I serve your kingdom where I am. We don’t know how God will use us within the context we are in necessarily but that is what having faith and trust in God is all about. If we spend most of our time either trying to find the ‘true Church’ or justifying our move to another Church (see Newman’s post Roman conversion arguments), then we most often fail to point to God; rather we point to ourselves.
“Why bring your children into an organization that you can’t trust to preach the truth?” They have been brought into the world haven’t they? Does the world teach the truth? You trust them to schools, to the workplace, to the media, to their friends and social circles? Do you honestly believe these groups teach them the truth? Like any parent I would think, I would seek to guide and educate my child, to give them tools of discernment to be able to make judgments about what they are learning. I would read the Bible to and then with them, I would provide guidelines and boundaries and ‘kid sized’ analogies for their lives, their behavior, their learning, that are soundly biblically and theologically shaped so that when they came to read the Bible for themselves, or when they were in the midst of learning it in their Church they would have the tools to discern and perhaps challenge. I’d also ask them what they were learning, how they were perceiving things and try to give them direction and challenge. This argument often perplexes me … as though people believe that they can somehow shield their children from the realities the world and its corruptions. Parents have the responsibility of shaping, forming, guiding, nurturing and leading their children by giving them the tools to learn, discern, and grow … this goes doubly for their faith lives.
Growing in faith is a process of formation that occurs across time and it sometimes involves getting and sorting through poor teaching, poor witness, times of struggle and lack of surety, of making bad mistakes and learning how to respond in those situations. Faith is a journey, not simply a destination (salvation); the journey part is the witness of faith, of failure in faith, confession, repentance, and forgiveness, and of constantly facing into the grace of God that requires staying put where we are; where we have ‘landed’ under God’s providence. This journey of staying and witnessing is how we show God’s action in the world to the world rather than showing our own action.
Let me ask this. Do you think that the world understands what is going on in the disputes within the Anglican Church? It doesn’t. We are so far on the periphery of people’s thoughts that the only time we pop up is in negative light in the media. Why is this? In part because we are one small blip amongst the thousands of Churches that are divided. When people look at the Anglican Church, all they see are divided and angry people warring with one another. These battles of course, have always gone on in the Church. But the difference over the last 500 years of ecclesial division, is that we have turned the Church into a market place of choices … not only do we compete against one another, we compete against all the other things the secular world has to offer. The Church is as a whole, shrinking. What’s growing? Well atheism obviously, but also Buddhism, Wicca, Islam. These are yet more ‘choices on the market place.’ And if you think about it, Churches have responded like businesses … how do I reach the marketplace amidst these other competitors … how can I be first to market, what unique characteristics can I integrate to attract people. And when we run our Churches like this (all Churches I mean), people respond like consumers … I’m bored, this doesn’t suit me, I want to try something else, I think this Church fits my style better. And this is our fault; not because we haven’t got our doctrine right, not because we don’t have ‘truthful Churches’ (please, if this were the case, then why do we have thousands of denominations each claiming it has ‘the truth’, why have ecumenical efforts to reunite around ‘the truth’ been completely unsuccessful in growing the Church or in unifying Churches without mass exodus to other Churches), but because in our lack of charity and christiform living, we point only at ourselves and our own actions and self justifications for our divisive behavior … that isn’t compelling; how can a divided Church testify to the one God, to the one physical body of Christ in whom they reside (not that we all don’t; we do reside in the one Christ, but in division, we do not testify to this ultimate reality in our actions at present).
So we can keep dividing until there is nothing left of Anglicanism in Canada (how small is Anglicanism in Canada?), or we can seek to find a more fruitful way to move forward. As I’ve said above, I believe that if we are willing to face into his grace, God will use the particular concordant conciliar polity of Anglicanism (that proposed by the Covenant Agreement), to bear fruitful witness both to other Churches and to the world. Conciliarity is not a new concept, nor is it one we can simply extract in whole from the past and apply to the present; however, it is one that has the potential to enable our crumbling Church to face into God’s grace and to receive his healing that we must wait on and be attentive to over time … this is how we are called to witness … in God’s time, in his ways, and according to his purpose. If anyone is interested in knowing more about conciliarity have a look at Nicholas of Cusa’s “The Catholic Concordance;” or his writings edited by Thomas Izbicki “Writings on Church and Reform;” for a modern version check out Philip Turner’s presentation to Duke divinity students: http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=386
And if you’ve got some time and patience, Ephraim Radner’s “Hope Among the Fragments;” and “Fate of the Communion.”
Many of the questions and challenges brought forward on this thread have been addressed in extensive biblical, historical, and theological detail by these sources.
Of course it is. Is the preaching and teaching that is coming out of the upper leadership according to God’s word, or contrary to it? Are bible believing Christians automatically turned down for ordination because they believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God? (This is happening in Ottawa).
No, I don’t. That is why I want my church to be a safe place, a place that will equip them to face the world. That doesn’t mean that I give up all my responsibilities in that regard to my church, far from it. It does mean, however, that I can trust my Sunday school teachers and pastor to be teaching them things that align with God’s word. We shouldn’t have to be evangelizing our church leaders! The church should be a place to equip us to “go and make disciples”.
“Of course it is. Is the preaching and teaching that is coming out of the upper leadership according to God’s word, or contrary to it?”
Some of it is and some of it isn’t. Just the same as in every other Church. As I said before, I have heard both wonderful and theological atrocious notions coming out of ACoC and network leaders.
“Are bible believing Christians automatically turned down for ordination because they believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God? (This is happening in Ottawa).”
No they aren’t. All of the Bible believing Christians - evangelical, evangelical catholic, anglo catholic and yes even liberal - who I attend school with right now are being ordained or have been ordained to the deaconate or the priesthood this year.
Kate, the Church has never been a ‘pure’ entity with pristine teaching - ever. This is why we need to equip our children not just to swallow everything they hear even in the Church, but to be able to discern and learn, to weigh and balance. Yes … yes we should be evangelizing our Church leaders … they are not pristine either … I once went to an RC Mass where I heard the most Pelagian sermon (one could argue all sermons are Pelagian … it is a matter of degree!); afterward a retired teacher approached him and spoke with him for an hour about why his exegesis was in error by pointing to the implications of his rendering of the passage as they had played out in history. The Church has always had horrible priests right from day one. The advantage we have now, is that most of us can read and our children are educated … we’re not reliant solely upon our Church’s leadership to teach … we can take responsibility for that as well.
[51] Katie,
This post is far too long to address in a Blog format. At the risk of being brusque, I’ll only pose a couple of questions.
If you are unable to even determine what constitutes a “Christian Church” how on earth are you going to determine whether you are being faithful to God? Two thousand years of church teaching gives us more than an inkling of what constitutes a Christian Church. The ACoC’ s actions are rapidly removing it from that catagory.
Do you not hear the anguish of those that have left the ACoCcategory over its heresy? These are not Sunday morning butterflies and to denigrate their faithfulness is patently unfair.
With respect to the size of Anglicanism in Canada, that’s a fatal preoccupation of the organized church not Essentials and certainly not ANiC.
Faithfulness, first, last and always.
Peace,
Jim
Begging your pardon, but in Ottawa, they are. I can introduce you to quite a few people who were turned down for precisely that reason. I am interested to know how you would define bible believing liberal….
I would like to see some examples of “theologically atrocious” notions coming out of ANiC leaders, please. My point is, what is the pattern? Same sex blessings are going to go ahead in Ottawa and the bishop of Ottawa has not been disciplined. Has Michael Ingham been disciplined for denying the basic tenants of the Christian faith in his book? No, he hasn’t.
I am not the legalist you are trying to paint me as, and I am not saying that ANiC is pristine. What I am saying, is that I believe that the ACoC leadership is apostate, and has absolutely no intention of doing anything more than patting the theological conservatives on the head and saying “there there dear, you will come around to our enlightened view eventually.”
ML and Katie,
There is a difference between being in the world but not of it – something we are commanded to do - and voluntarily associating oneself with an organisation masquerading as a Christian church; we are not commanded to do this.
Kate’s point is that those who have chosen to stay are being paraded by heretical leaders to reassure the naive that the church is “diverse”; in fact, the liberal leadership in the ACoC neither listens to nor values the opinions of the conservatives who remain. As far as they are concerned the conservatives are little more than an antediluvian throwback who, in private, are mocked as “fundys”, but in public are used to string along the gullible.
There is a political parallel from the 30s when starry eyed western liberals visited Stalin’s USSR to give glowing reports on the worker’s paradise: Stalin used them. It was only when journalists like Malcolm Muggeridge started reporting the facts that the truth was acknowledged.
Jim,
As I have stated repeatedly, I am not arguing against ANiC. Individuals within ANiC have made their choice for a whole variety of reasons. I am making arguments for those who are in discernment. In doing this, I am pointing to the pitfalls of believing that leaving the ACoC is going to somehow remove one from God’s judgment, or to put them into a ‘true Church’ vs a Church that is ‘not true.’ You cannot paint with such broad brush strokes; if there are two or three persons in the ACoC that are ‘faithful,’ is the Church no longer Christian? Are you saying that I am no longer a Christian because I’m in the ACoC and will be within the leadership of the ACoC? This is God’s judgment, not yours to make.
“If you are unable to even determine what constitutes a “Christian Church” how on earth are you going to determine whether you are being faithful to God?” This question has been answered well, but as you stated, it is probably best not to attempt to address that in blog format. Have a read of the books I suggested, or of Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries by Von Campenhausen, or City of God by Augustine. I will say only this, in response, if 2000 years has given has provided us with clarity on what constitutes the Christian Church, then why have we spent 500 years dividing over the issue and why do we now have thousands of different denominations/churches?
“Do you not hear the anguish of those that have left the ACoCcategory over its heresy? These are not Sunday morning butterflies and to denigrate their faithfulness is patently unfair.”
Yes, and once again, I’ve said that I am not denigrating their faithfulness; these folks have chosen or fallen into this route. This is the reality of the situation and I do hope their ministry will be fruitful. However, there are implications to having chosen this route which the whole Church will bear and these need to be laid out and examined. I am making a case for the faithfulness of those contemplating staying within and pointing to the realities of the historical implications of continued ecclesial division.
“With respect to the size of Anglicanism in Canada, that’s a fatal preoccupation of the organized church not Essentials and certainly not ANiC. Faithfulness, first, last and always.” Of course faithfulness first, last and always. That is precisely the point I am making for those in discernment. Here’s the problem with not considering size (an implication of division). There have been many divisions in the Christian Church. There was a division when WO was allowed in the Anglican Communion. A group of clergy and laity left; there was great energy and momentum in this movement, but it was small. When they left, they lost momentum and had no generation to follow with the same willingness to struggle and fight because that generation was not in the midst of the battle that generated such energy. Those churches are tiny and shrinking as my generation (Y) is not ‘replenishing’ the stock of church goers. But the greatest loss is that now, if someone doesn’t believe in WO in the ACoC, to whom are they able to turn? Those who left, left those inside without a voice; and those without a voice either leave the AC or the Church entirely. When we divide we create Churches without any diversity - we end up with thousands of Churches all full of people with like minds that revert to RC like confessional ecclesial order. The Church must be capable of reform if it is to proclaim the Word to an ever changing world. Reform requires time and space for the discernment of God’s Word and this necessitates diversity … BUT bounded/limited diversity (which our broken Anglican Communion doesn’t have right now, hence the Covenant … as I’ve mentioned above the fear is that our current unwillingness to wait on the Covenant will just cause complete fracture).
If we’re going to discern our future in faith, we need to draw out the implications of our actions and not simply agree to disagree and go our own separate ways. The Church is called to discern together and sometimes what one group hears about the implications of its actions is painful … imagine how gay people feel. I’m not laying out this case to tear people down or apart, but to engage in a faithful exploration of what our actions bear witness to.
Kate and David (particularly the last point),
So what precisely was said to them by Bishop Chapman and/or by ACPO? It is very difficult to judge something without context of exactly what was said, who said it and the process of discernment through which people have gone. I don’t doubt for a moment it is more difficult for conservatives; I happen to speak as one. However, once again, much comes down to the way in which one engages in their ministry. I will not comment any further because to do so without knowing the context of the whole discernment process that went on for these individuals would be disingenuous.
“I am interested to know how you would define bible believing liberal” generally someone who believes most of what I hear orthodox/conservative people proclaiming but who isn’t necessarily sure on the issue of SSB, or who attempts to give more weight to historical context than to Scripture itself (which by the way, very conservative evangelicals do as well).
“I would like to see some examples of “theologically atrocious” notions coming out of ANiC leaders, please.” I made no reference to ANiC leaders. I was referring to the example I provided earlier of hearing from a professor of theology about a particular theological notion put forward by a network church in the US.
Yes the Church has failed to act in disciplining or halting two acts that are not theological or biblically sound. The reason for that is because we do not have the structural capacity, nor an adequate understanding of how our structural capacity works or should work to address these issues since until more recently they have not been pressed in such a manner as Michael Ingham pressed them. We absolutely must address these issues and that is going on … as I’ve said, we cannot have unlimited diversity. But the manner of addressing these things needs to be undertaken carefully because the fruit of our labors to address the issue matters as much as the end result of addressing them.
The Covenant Design Group is meeting right now, through to Friday of this week to attempt to gird our structures and chart a more fruitful adn more faithful way forward for the whole Communion. Please pray for them. I have some idea of what is being presented and proposed and it is quite hopeful … but it is always a challenge to work through processes and in diverse groups. They need our prayers and support so please, please pray for them and for our Church.
“I am not the legalist you are trying to paint me as, and I am not saying that ANiC is pristine.”
I’m not painting you as a legalist. I am making arguments about implications and perceptions … and they are most certainly not personally directed … I argue on content not ad hominem.
What I am saying, is that I believe that the ACoC leadership is apostate, and has absolutely no intention of doing anything more than patting the theological conservatives on the head and saying “there there dear, you will come around to our enlightened view eventually.”
Some are apostate, others are not; we need to be careful not to be too broad brush. The same is often argued of TEC … but what about the Communion Partners bishops and rectors, what about the ACI folk (hardly apostate). Some in the ACoC leadership can pat us on the head … but liberalism has a tendency to lead to ecclesial indifference (not entirely but at least in part). They’re now asking questions about how to close down churches, how to address the lack of young people in their churches.
Those in my generation who do go to Church, and particularly those who are going into leadership seem to be moving in more conservative directions theologically and morally … why I’m not sure exactly, but this isn’t isolated … I travel throughout North America for conferences and there is certainly a small but burgeoning movement in this direction. We are the future of the Church and we’re pushing back against the liberal movement. They can pat our heads all they want, but they’ll be retiring at some point soon and we’ll come into our prime in another 5-10 years in both pastoral and academic leadership. The Church doesn’t stand still; it is quickened and reformed by the Spirit … we are being caught up in that. We’re asking where we plant churches, how we develop catechetical programs for youth, young adults and adults who are unchurched, how we teach and form a new generation. How we bring the whole of Scripture (not propositional points), how we bring the Church fathers, and the medieval conciliarists to bear on our present situation. We are exactly what these many liberal bishops want and cannot find in the liberal clergy they have; they know they can’t afford to lose us. We are bringing the growth and the future. This isn’t just a guess … there is concrete reality attached to these claims.
I don’t know. What I do know is that between 1987 and about 2003/2004, St. Alban’s Ottawa supplied about 1/3 of the ordinands in the diocese of Ottawa. Then, for no reason that I can see other than our association (at the time), with Essentials, every single candidate from St. Alban’s was refused. Every one.
I am 44 years old and have been an Anglican all my life. Essentials has been around since 1994, calling and praying for renewal, and nothing has changed; in fact, things are getting worse and worse. I am afraid, Katie, that the ACoC leadership would like nothing better than to lose you, and conservatives like you.
Further to #59, in Niagara potential priests are being turned down if they will not assent to SSBs and agree to follow the bishop come what may.
I am 124 years old and have been in the Anglican church for over 30 years; as Kate says, it is getting worse.
In fact, in the latest rounds of unpleasantness, I am convinced that the diocese is intent on avenging what they see as an affront to their authority by squashing ANiC parishes as thoroughly as they can.
Conservatives are welcome in the diocese providing they do as they are told and are willing to be paraded on a leash as tame examples of diocesan inclusiveness.
Katie, as I’ve mentioned before, I find your points very interesting and thought provoking. My gut, however, in addition to what I observe, tells me that you are raising issues that should have been raised decades ago. The cows are a mile down the road and you are discussing (and nuancing) the finer points of fence repair. Sadly, those in leadership who came before you ruined the church and have also ensured that all those who exercise power sing from the same song book (or is it read from the same prayer book?). God’s holiness and incredible grace in light of our desparate wickedness seem to be an abstract idea for them, not something that regularly brings them to their knees in tears and gratitude. Social justice issues and self improvement are much more inportant to them than telling sinners of their need for a saviour.
No, the ACoC is not just like every other church (unless by every other church you mean the United Church and other liberal mainline churches). I have lots of issues with evangelicalism - which I won’t get into here - but they are fundamentally different than the issues I have with the ACoC. Despite the “thousands” of denomination that you have mentioned, I can walk into a wide range of churches, each with very different label and different styles of worship, and still feel like I’m with fellow members of the body of Christ. If I walk into an ACoC church, my going in assumption is that it will only be superficially Christian and that I will not find true fellowship (although I would be happy to be proven wrong). If I had opportunity to lead someone to Christ, an ACoC church is one of the very few that I would recommend they not attend.
Maybe this is reassuring for some people, but it doesn’t even start to cut it for someone like me. I don’t want my pastor to be “moving” towards a conservative position theologically and morally. For me, that needs to be his rock solid starting point. If he isn’t there himself, how can he ever move young believers and those whom the Holy Spirit is drawing in that direction? I have grave doubts that any seminary sanctioned by the ACoC is teaching truly orthodox doctrine and theology - regardless of how many conservative words are tacked on as window dressing. Unfortunately, your words have reinforced that opinion.
Now that I’ve expressed myself in my usual opinionated way, I have a question for you. In all you have written, there seems to be an underlying presupposition that the Anglican Church “deserves” to exist - in a way that the small independent Baptist church down the road (that has gone through 5 splits in the last 20 years) doesn’t. Am I misreading you?
As I think back on all the churches that I’ve been part of, I realize that many (maybe even most) were either the result of a split, or later split after I had moved on. As a child and teenager, I was also lived through a couple of church splits. I would never argue that church splits are a good thing, but they sometimes are necessary. I am not speaking from an Anglican persepctive, but the result of a split is often two healthy churches that looks outwards, rather than a single unhealthy church that is inward focused.
That’s my two cents worth.
Kate: That is unfortunate to hear. I still won’t comment given I don’t know the details.
David: Yes, this one I can comment on as I’ve had an ‘inside look’ at how this has worked. You’re quite right in terms of the leash there on conservatives. But conservatives do the same with liberals - case in point - Algoma - I won’t go into the details but this very same ‘cutting off’ happened quite clearly for the stance this individual held (which had nothing to do with this individual’s stance on SSB since this individual made it clear they would obey the wider Church and not bless SSU). This cuts both ways.
However, in the other dioceses (even NewWest) this has not been the case. Of course part of it is the individual bishop.
Warren: There is no Church/denomination in which all of the preaching is good or is all bad; it’s a mixed bag; that’s just reality and has been since the beginning. It’d be awesome if you could come to church with me sometime; I think you’d be quite happy (it might be a bit catholic for your taste, but my friends who have come from Pentecostal backgrounds have really loved it - particularly because it’s got great liturgy and amazing preaching).
To be quite honest, I can walk into most Churches and expect that I will hear some very particular biblical and theological interpretation shaped not by good exegesis, but rather by the influence of the particularities of that form of Church … rarely am I surprised … and this is certainly not limited to Anglican Churches. But indeed, I been surprised on occasion, by some wonderful preaching and liturgy (now I will say I’m quite catholic and highly sacramental so it has been moreso in RC and EO Churches that I have found this wonderful surprise) and that has truly been a blessing.
I suppose I misspoke to an extent. I didn’t mean that all the priests coming in and being trained are at present moving (although some of them certainly are) to become conservative … many of them are already conservative, many have come in from various evangelical backgrounds. But faith is not static; faith is living and growing as God is working to transform you through the various experiences you encounter and bring to Scripture to discern; that discernment is limited by the whole Church of course … it isn’t simply an endless diversity of personal growth.
“I have grave doubts that any seminary sanctioned by the ACoC is teaching truly orthodox doctrine and theology - regardless of how many conservative words are tacked on as window dressing. Unfortunately, your words have reinforced that opinion.” I guess one’s view of orthodoxy is relative. You come from a very evangelical background and I have indeed heard many strict evangelicals say they would question whether this seminary is orthodox … of course many people believe those types of evangelicals to be fundamentalists. But then there’s a whole range on the scale. We’ve had many bishops from all over the world including conservative Provinces and dioceses in Africa send their postulants here. We also have numerous evangelicals come to study here so who knows.
“Unfortunately, your words have reinforced that opinion.” Yes this is probably true. I’m not an evangelical and you seemingly are. That’s just fine too; you don’t have to think or be like me for me to think of you as a fellow Christian … that is indeed God’s business to sort out at the end of the day. The difference likely stems from our differing theological perspectives. I’m an evangelical catholic and I have found that most evangelicals aren’t fond of evangelical catholic theology … evangelicals tend to think it compromising of the truth, of the literal Word of God. I’d provide a drawn out example, of how the two sides of the argument generally go, but that has been done by scholars far greater than me and it would take far too much room. A really great read to look at some of the different views on these things is Jarolslav Pelikan “Reformation of Church and Dogma 1300-1700.” I’ll just quickly quote a couple things that he has quoted from others, “What the principle of sola Scriptura did was to substitute the private judgment and arbitrary subjective authority of the individual for that of the Church [he’s referring here to the Roman Catholic Church] and thus to change the entire meaning of Scripture in accordance with your own opinion. Yet apart from the Catholic Church there could not be any living and efficacious propagation of the Word,” but only the tyranny of the letter that kills and deceives. Christ had directed the disciples not only to Scripture [the Hebrew Scriptures that is] but to the ‘Spirit of Truth’ who would guide the Church. It had been the universal experience of the orthodox church that heretics - for example - the Arians - arose out of Holy Scripture badly understood. Thus each one who reads Scripture takes it to be the way he is - the Catholic as Catholic, others as something else. When the Reformation had grown from one man to an entire movement, becoming more heterogeneous and more radical in the process, the futility of ’sola Scriptura’ as a means of combating false doctrine was even more obvious: Who is to be the judge among them? Who will ever harmonize all of this? Will it be Scripture or the Church? It was a false alternative, for the two belonged together; and ‘if Sacred Scripture is the clearest possible’ authority, how was it that some who accepted it were denyhing the real presence while others were still affirming it? … The experience of the Reformers themselves was proving that their idea of the perspicuity of Scripture was a delusion, and that orthodox authority was to be found in the concord between Holy Scripture, the Church and the Councils.”
In the middle of these pages, Pelikan talks about how the Reformers wanted their cake (to hold to dogmas formed in councils i.e. the Trinity, atonement as satisfaction which is really found no where in one particular place in Scripture), and to eat it too (to believe that Scripture alone could provide the Church its direction).
So herein lies the fundamental problem. If we all go off in our own directions our Churches just become shaped like us (as I’ve said in posts above); they are not Christiform. The point Pelikan is trying to make here, and it is one repeated by the Communion, by several modern scholars, by Hooker, by Cusanus and by the early Church fathers, and by Christ himself, is that the means by which we come together to discern the Word of God are as critical to our faith and to our mission of evangelizing as the end goal arrival at salvation.
Yes we need to reform our Church; it is not working right now. But we need to engage fruitfully in how we go about reforming. Let me ask, do you think the ACoC will sign onto the Covenant that limits their autonomy? Do you think TEC will? Has anyone looked at the Canadian or the US response to the Covenant, has anyone looked at the St. Andrew’s Draft of the Covenant and the Lambeth Commentary? These are the critical things to examine to discern, to think about, if we are to chart a fruitful way forward (actually I’d suggest holding off on examining those texts since the Covenant Design Group will be meeting this week with a revised draft of the Covenant Agreement). We cannot make wise and faithful choices if we only look to our present; we must, absolutely must look to the past, to draw the implications from our various actions as a Church. There probably are not a whole ton of people reading this but if anyone is in the midst of discernment (i.e. those who have not already chosen their paths … I’m not, once again, looking to do battle, simply to help give biblical, theological and historical perspective to assist) let me know and I’ll be happy to provide some good places to look for various questions or concerns you might have.
pax.
Evidently you haven’t heard about the parish that was locked out of its building on Christmas Eve a few years ago.
That is nonsense. Words have meaning, and that meaning can be discerned, else why write anything down in the first place? We can make mistakes in interpretation, of course, and that is why it is important to be part of a body of faithful believers, and to be able to trust your leadership.
Will it be scripture or the church? The church - subject to the word of God. Scripture comes first.
If the covenant had come fifteen years ago, maybe it would be relevant. As it is, it is simply being used to distract the orthodox while the ACoC carries merrily along.
Katie (#62), this is find of fun and I hope I’m not distracting you too much from your studies. I’m gradually pursing an online theology program (initiated by a fellow called Michael Patton) and this sort of discussion bring life to what I have been studying. Sadly, most people in my church don’t have a lot of interest in theology.
As you have surmised, I hold to the sola scriptura position (but not the solo scriptura position) and believe that the sola ecclesia postion is in error. I don’t know if this terminology means anything to you, but you seem to hold to a prima scriptura position.
I may give the impression of being a fundamentalist, but I suspect that those in the evangelical camp who hold to what I consider to be a fundamentalist postion would throw me out on my ear. Some from the denomination in which I was raised would also likely view me with deep suspicion.
Taking the perspective of Wesley’s quadrilateral, I put value on reason, tradition and experience, but Scripture holds the trump card. I hold to both infallibility and inerrancy and I agree with the Chicago Statement. I realize that the term “inerrancy” didn’t come along until much later, but I suspect that the framers of the 39 Articles wouldn’t have much much trouble with the Chicago Statement either.
I appreciate the offer of additional resource material, but the sorts of books that I have intentions of reading likely aren’t on your list. I have good intentions of studying The Institues and also reading various works by the Purtitans and the church fathers. I’m also interested in reading more from those in the reformed camp (Machen, Van Til, Kuyper, and others). I also greatly appreciate the works of J.I. Packer and John Stott. Sadly, I suspect that J.I. Packer would not be welcome to teach in your seminary. Anyway, good luck in your studies and don’t be afraid to look beyond what your professors are suggesting.
Kate,
I think you may want to read all of the words again. Of course the words have meaning … that is not his point. His point is that when the words become extracted and we use them to justify our continued fracturing, we are unable to correct wrong interpretation. and yes, he would agree that Scripture comes first … but it is not either or, the two must go together (see on this Augustine, Aquinas, Cusanus, Hooker and VonCampenhausen as well … these are not concepts pulled out of the air by one, albeit well respected, theologian).
Actually, the Covenant is the only way that most of the ‘orthodox’ see the Communion as remaining together. How exactly is a Covenant distracting ‘the orthodox’ since many of the ‘orthodox’ are actively working to make it go? Have you read the Provincial responses? The Primates’ Communique? Are you aware of the intentions and statements being made by various primates and bishops? How did they respond to the status of the new Provinces and Networks (and I speak of more than simply Nigeria here).
If you don’t want a Communion, fine. Some are no longer interested in this. And indeed, there are plenty of federal, confessional, and a couple of hierarchical churches to choose from … we don’t actually need any more (which is what surprises me a bit about the new Provinces, I would have thought people would have gone to evangelical, RCC or EO Churches instead). Anglicanism is what it is because its a Communion … if one is not interested in girding that polity, then there are lots of other options out there. For those who are though, it is far from a waste or distraction, it is a faithful response to how God calls us to live not according to our own will (which is often mistaken) but in a polity of time and space to discern God’s Word both enabling and limiting the diversity necessary to receive the quickening of God’s Spirit. pax.
Katie (#65),
I have no problem with this. I do have a problem, however, with those who place “girding that polity” before obedience.
Warren,
I know what you mean. They in fact need to be synonymous. Absolutely no way we can have unity for unity’s sake (this would just mean that unfettered diversity could continue … that would resolve nothing, nor would it allow for the faithful discernment of God’s Word). The obedience must be intrinsic to girding the polity.
This is the thing that the liberal Provinces don’t like and one of the reasons some of them will likely not sign on (this is why ‘conservative’ groups in the US are right now trying to make a case for how dioceses that want to sign onto the Covenant can legally do so (from the standpoint of civil law). The Covenant will not allow for limitless diversity (otherwise known as autonomy) and the many liberal Churches don’t think this is how Anglicanism has ever (or should ever) operate … they’re wrong (I have a whole thesis of work to demonstrate that!). But there is much acknowledgment from all quarters that a Covenant without implications for breaking relationship (so the discernment of the whole Church) is useless. Do have a look at the version that is produced after this week … I’m not sure exactly when it will be made available but not too long after I would imagine (it will go to the ACC for the beginning of May).
Assuming the Covenant does come to be indicative of what it means to be Anglican, I want ANiC and all the network groups in the US to be a part of this; the trouble will be how, now being separated, these groups will fit structurally into the Covenant. There are many scenarios that I won’t play out, because they’re all speculative … but this is why I hope that people will choose to stay in while we work through this process (or at least until it is clearly evident whether we wish to remain a Communion i.e. other Provinces choosing to sign on or not). This is also why I say I have no ill wishes for ANiC folk; you guys are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I need your witness, but I really need it inside the ACoC (which is still considered by the rest of the Communion to be a part of the Anglican Communion).
That should be “fit structurally into the Communion” not “Covenant” (this was one of the issues raised both in the recent Windsor Continuation Group report and in the recent Primates’ Communique).
As I scroll and scroll read and scroll from my last input (41) some 24 hours ago a tune slowly came into my head and then the words “and the wheels they go round and round, the painted ponies go up and down” Please don’t misunderstand. I am not intent on denigrating a single word. some of it is above my uneducated head. All of it appears sincere, but I fear that you may look back at this sometime in the future and hear the same song. At that time you may conclude that the bus you’re all on now didn’t go were you expected. I truly apologize for being cryptic but if I spoke clearly I would be instantly labelled as a kook. That in itself isn’t as bad as my failure to try and communicate. Please re-read my submissions again (36,41). If God leads start by googling the names I mentioned. I am so afraid ..of not getting it right among other things.
As for Warren (42) and you to Muirhead toss the sarcasm it interferes with your love. You’re partially right Warren and hit the nail without realizing it. You are talking and and I’m sure very concerned about Anglicanism were I am not. my concern lays with my fellow Anglicans. Irena 44 you have been addressed, Katie46 try ANiC vs ACC. To you all I repeat check your oil. If that’s to cryptic read Mathew 25. Be Blessed people
[69} Stuck
My comment was for Warren who is our resident bible teacher. We go back hundreds of posts.
When I stoop to sarcasm, it’s pretty obvious who the target is.
By the way, it’s Jim.
Peace
So Stuck (#69), what brings you here . . . and what brings you back? Is your interest primarily in the eschaton, or does it go beyond that? I will admit that I’m finding it hard to make heads or tails of the questions you are asking.
I plead guilty as charged regarding sarcasm. I think I’m getting a little better, but I know it’s an area I need to work on. Although this blog isn’t bad, there are occasional “drive by shootings” where the only response that seems appropriate is one of sarcasm. I probably get carried away sometimes, but I don’t think you would find me totally different in person. On the other hand, drive by shooters rarely reveal anything about themselves but are quite happy to attack others. You know they wouldn’t behave like that in person, because, if they did, they would have been the victim of a homicide a long time ago.
Although there are things I feel deeply about, I don’t hold any delusions that what I say on this blog will make any difference. If anything does, all the glory belongs to God. It is more of a diversion, and I enjoy interacting with the regulars here. I think my wife would prefer it if I stopped posting altogether - and maybe she’s right.
Warren,
Sorry I missed one of your posts above. Let me go back to that. First one point of clarity:
“In all you have written, there seems to be an underlying presupposition that the Anglican Church “deserves” to exist - in a way that the small independent Baptist church down the road (that has gone through 5 splits in the last 20 years) doesn’t. Am I misreading you?:”
Nope. In fact key to what I have been saying is that I, nor anyone else for that matter, is in a position to say whether a Church - Baptist or Anglican is Christian or deserves existence; many of my friends here are baptists and we have great and rather humorous conversations and pranks.
“Katie this is find of fun and I hope I’m not distracting you too much from your studies. I’m gradually pursing an online theology program (initiated by a fellow called Michael Patton) and this sort of discussion bring life to what I have been studying. Sadly, most people in my church don’t have a lot of interest in theology.”
That’s awesome, how long is the program? How far into it are you? What courses do you take? You should come here and take some courses, you might be able to transfer them into your program (they offer some week long intensive courses in the summer and there are lots of people with evangelical backgrounds so you wouldn’t be stuck in ‘catholic land!!’) … then you can come to church with me too, you’d really like it.
I’m having fun too! No you’re not distracting me at all … I love procrastinating! I’m trying to work through a part of my thesis right now; I’ve got to figure out how to shape it so that it will lead into my constructive theology section and the concepts are somewhat complex (i.e. could require a large quantity of pages which I have to condense!). It’s awesome to be able to bring things to life so please do keep it up! Are you anywhere near a seminary where you could go in and listen to lectures or anything?
“I don’t know if this terminology means anything to you, but you seem to hold to a prima scriptura position.” This is pretty close to where I’m at. Scripture is primary, but one can only be transformed through engaging in common conciliar discernment of Scripture, as the Spirit works through the structures of our Church; the Church being Christ’s body as it extends through time and space. The key to the Church’s past decision making is that it brings light to bear on our future direction and a common point for starting from in our discernment (of course this common discernment gets narrower with division and we lose the common mechanisms of discernment and decision making … hence the underlying reason that ecumencial discussions have not worked). Discernment of Scripture by the whole Church becomes the limiting factor on actions (obviously violated by ACoC and TEC). I should note that how this plays out in the Roman Catholic Church, vs how this has played out in conciliar Anglican polity is extremely different. I would hesitate to say that I hold precisely to the Roman Catholic notion of the two sources of authority due to these difference in actual practices.
“I may give the impression of being a fundamentalist, but I suspect that those in the evangelical camp who hold to what I consider to be a fundamentalist postion would throw me out on my ear. Some from the denomination in which I was raised would also likely view me with deep suspicion.” Yikes. Ya, it’s hard to tell on blogs sometimes … well actually it’s hard to tell in general because there really is such a range of position and there aren’t really strict categorizations for these things (or they’re constantly shifting over time). No worries if you were a fundamentalist either!
“Taking the perspective of Wesley’s quadrilateral, I put value on reason, tradition and experience, but Scripture holds the trump card. I hold to both infallibility and inerrancy and I agree with the Chicago Statement. I realize that the term “inerrancy” didn’t come along until much later, but I suspect that the framers of the 39 Articles wouldn’t have much much trouble with the Chicago Statement either.”
Scripture sheds light and gives shape to reason, tradition and experience … never the other way around … so I think we agree on that point. Of course Scripture is infallible. What do you mean by ‘inerrancy;’ I thought I knew what it meant until I discovered that there is some range on its meaning and interpretation amongst various Churches.
“I appreciate the offer of additional resource material, but the sorts of books that I have intentions of reading likely aren’t on your list.”
Come on … just try some Nicholas of Cusa … it’ll be a whole different ball game but it’s so cool because he’s writing about 50 to 70 years before the Reformation so you see his letters to the Hussites about issues on Scripture and the Church that really shed light and form the precursor arguments we see played out in the Reformation … so fascinating.
“I have good intentions of studying The Institues and also reading various works by the Purtitans and the church fathers.”
Calvin will be one part of my PhD thesis. I’m comparing his ecclesiology with Nicholas of Cusa’s (well more specifically I’m going to be looking at the change in articulation of metaphysics, polity and theology, the nominalist influence and how these things have impacted post Reformation ecclesiologies and then constructively what fruit might be derived from these observations for our present ecclesial situation). Who are you going to read for the Puritans and the Church fathers?
“I’m also interested in reading more from those in the reformed camp (Machen, Van Til, Kuyper, and others). I also greatly appreciate the works of J.I. Packer and John Stott. Sadly, I suspect that J.I. Packer would not be welcome to teach in your seminary.”
I couldn’t say re the teaching. Packer is a great evangelical writer. I ran into some questions as I was reading him though and this is what pushed me both into a more in depth study of historical theology and in more catholic directions.
I’m not actually overly fond of a lot of modern theological writers … I like reading much older stuff. Ok, when you start reading the fathers, go for their sermons … they are so good … they’re mostly figural (but that was simply how the early Church interpreted Scripture). Also, Donne, Andrews, Keble for Anglican stuff (you will not be disappointed … this stuff is fantastic. Look at Donne’s sermon that he delivered three days before his death. Also, particularly if you like history, look at Donne’s sermon that he delivered at a plantation in Virginia - oh man, what these writer did with just a few words of Scripture).
“Anyway, good luck in your studies and don’t be afraid to look beyond what your professors are suggesting.” Thanks Warren! For sure I will. I actually started out way outside of what my profs were reading (my parish priest was an evangelical so he started me on Packer and then Clark, Schaeffer, Berkhof, Erickson, Henry, Oden, McGrath, Bloesch, but as I said above, I ran into some questions and challenges with their theology that I needed to explore some more which pushed me back into reading the fathers, discovering figural exegesis, the history of reception and interpretation, then into ecclesiology). I always thought it was a bit of a strange path … but I’ve discovered that that is seemingly how a number of people have gotten to about the same place I am (I mean some former evangelical and now potential Anglican clergy and scholars).
Ok, so just try these out: Nicholas of Cusa “Writings on Church and Reform;” Augustine “City of God (there’s your first Church father!); “Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power.” Then go for the Church father sermons … then come to the Institutes. Just try them out and then we could chat about it and see how these ideas fit (or not!) into your background and understanding. It’ll be great, then you can talk about theology 24/7 (since I’m always looking for excuses to come on the blogs and talk about theology!!!)
Warren,
“I think my wife would prefer it if I stopped posting altogether - and maybe she’s right.”
With all due respect to your wife, you can’t stop posting. When the theology bug bites, you have to talk about it or else it will make you go crazy. Besides, you’re doing your course and now you’ve got a whole bunch of things that you can read and chat about … you’ve got to have a place to exercise the theology muscles.
Brothers, Warren & Jim - Warren I don’t think there was any hate or anger in my two imputs. Consequently your eloquent analagy of a drive by shooter doesn’t apply….I assure you.
Jim, my apologies. I assumed you were supporting Warren’s sarcasm with regard to my response (41) and to be frank you P….d me off. My problem not yours.
Eschatological thinking? Only as evidence mounts in support. So many have been so wrong. Some innocently, others, antichrists in their time. As I said I fear getting it wrong. Or (forgive me) getting it right and turning it into another Red-Herring. If I am to prophecy the Spirit needs to do more work. If that happens I am sure you will hear me if only for a short time. In the mean, certain bishop’s recently went for a walk in support of………..
Yes, I want to be part of the Anglican communion, and so does ANiC. That is why we have been given refuge under the authority of the Southern Cone. I said that I believe the covenant to be distracting the orthodox because I think it is a pointless exercise. The barn door is blown wide open and the horses are long gone - I would much rather put my energies into building North American Anglicanism through ANiC and ACNA.
Now I am off to bed with the tunes from the Steve Bell and the Ottawa Symphony Orchestra concert I just saw lingering in my head….
Katie
I don’t think you are correct in indentifying The Anglican, The Baptist, The Roman Catholic and any others as churches. To my “reason” These are parts that fit tightly together, They are (if they are) tools, God’s gift to the Body of Christ. I see the “church” as bodies of peoples (many waters) found in nearly if not all communities that call themselves Christian.
I am NOT arguing semantics. If this is not seen as important now it will be as “the church” shrinks ever smaller, ever whiter. As it moves ever closer to that great and dreadful day of the Lord. I was born into life as an Anglican, I will always be an Anglican first. It is my passport into the Body. Praise God.
If this is insufficient consider these words, which are not mine.
“While God waits for his church to be built of love, men bring stones.”
Katie (#72),
Actually, I did read City of God at some point in the past (I don’t remember when), and the book is sitting on my shelf. I’m an engineer, so I have to take these “artsy” things in moderate doses.
The Theology Program: http://reclaimingthemind.org/ttp/home
Katie (#72), I forgot to add that my view on inerrancy is well represented by the Chicago Statement (J.I. Packer was one of the signatories): http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
Kate,
Very nice!
If in fact the rest of the Communion accepted ANiC and ACNA as Communion members, that be a different story; but they don’t. Nor, given what was stated in the Windsor Continuation Report and in the Primates’ Communique, do they seem to be for this. In order to build Anglicanism, ACNA cannot simply assert that it is the Anglican presence in North America; this must be decided upon by the whole Church … this was explicitly stated by the Primates. As I said above, Anglicanism has been until recently shaped by a conciliar polity … you could create the ACNA Church or the ANiC Church in federal or congregational polity by self assertion; but not Anglicanism.
The critical thing is how we, as individuals (parishes, dioceses), move within the larger body (the Communion) … autonomous self assertion regardless of cause cannot retain a Communion polity by definition. And as I said, if we all no longer wish to be a Communion, then so be it. I think that would be unfortunate because such a polity truly has a particular gift (as does every other Church) through which God works to gather all nations. But at a more practical and fundamental level, if we are no longer a Communion, I see little reason for people to go to an ANiC or ACNA Church vs a Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church.
Without the Covenant (something stated and recognized by the Primates) we no longer have the structural integrity to hold together as a Communion. The challenge with splinter groups (at least historically) is that once they settle the initial issues of separating from another body, they realize that there is plenty that divides them and they are not well equipped, nor do they have sufficient membership to sustain the resource drain. There are already rumblings about the same old issues within ACNA: women’s ordination, Prayer Book, anglo-catholic vs evangelical theologies. These issues, like SSB join the train of various issues that have confronted the Church since its beginning. This is why the Church’s order/structural integrity (i.e. what is being proposed by the Covenant) is so critical. One can line up all of their ideas and theologies with the idea that if they just get these right everything will fall into place (ala Millbank), but the practical ground floor reality is that without the means and mechanisms in place to ensure structural integrity of the society (church), nothing works (just look at the history of the last 100 years of ecumencial work for concrete proof of that).
There are now some complications added to the Covenant process by issues of overlapping jurisdictions that could make retaining a Communion polity impossible. This is why there was a plea not to go forward with these actions. I hope and pray for the sake of those many Anglicans in other parts of the world that deeply desire to remain a Communion, that our actions in North America, starting with the ACoC and TEC, and continuing with these boundary issues don’t compromise our ability to remain a Communion … but we shall see how things proceed I suppose.
I hope it was a good concert! My mom and dad saw Steve Bell a couple years ago for the first time and quite enjoyed him … I think.
Warren,
“Actually, I did read City of God at some point in the past (I don’t remember when), and the book is sitting on my shelf. I’m an engineer, so I have to take these “artsy” things in moderate doses.” LOL - ok, go for Aquinas then … very logical and systematic! Ok perfect then, you’re all set for Nicholas of Cusa!
Hi again - anybody read “The Shack” I bring it up to share my experience. I was given a copy of Dr. Packer’s “Knowing God” I spent the last half of last year trying to read it. Day after day back and forth It was just over my head. This comes from not finishing High School I’m sure. Then I found the Shack - Price Club 8.95 why not….. finished it in three days. Then guess what, back to Dr. Packer so clear I could almost hear him speaking. Both writings spoke of the same thing just from different ends of the spectrum. One a magnificent text book for the enlightened the other, a beautiful comic book, also for the enlightened. The recent critique in the current issue of Anglican Planet was wrong. The writer demonstrated to much theology and not enough heart. Like most critics more interested in the echo than the substance.
Stuck (#81), I’ve read both and enjoyed both; but I can understand why some take offence with The Shack. By the way, my condolences for being stuck in Toronto. I can’t think of any other place in Canada where I would less likely want to be stuck.
Stuck,
“I don’t think you are correct in indentifying The Anglican, The Baptist, The Roman Catholic and any others as churches. To my “reason” These are parts that fit tightly together, They are (if they are) tools, God’s gift to the Body of Christ. I see the “church” as bodies of peoples (many waters) found in nearly if not all communities that call themselves Christian.”
I’m not sure I follow you but if you are saying that each ‘part’/'church’ is a member of the body of Christ. I would agree. Christ is gathering all our divided ‘parts’/'churches’ into him until all will be all in him. That is in fact partially the point I’ve been driving at. Our ‘task’ is to participate in witnessing to God’s gathering process; the issue being discussed above has to do with the manner in which we engage in this vocation.
“I am NOT arguing semantics. If this is not seen as important now it will be as “the church” shrinks ever smaller, ever whiter.”
As what is not seen as important now?
“As it moves ever closer to that great and dreadful day of the Lord.” As what moves closer to the final consummation?
“I was born into life as an Anglican, I will always be an Anglican first. It is my passport into the Body. Praise God.”
Great, me too.
“If this is insufficient consider these words, which are not mine.
“While God waits for his church to be built of love, men bring stones.””
You have really lost me here. If what is insufficient? You being born into life as an Anglican? If this is what you mean, I think it perfectly sufficient … that has been the point I’ve been making.
If are you talking about you being an Anglican first? I’m not entirely sure how that is relevant, but maybe I have missed something. Or something else?
Stuck (#81), one more thing regarding The Shack. I had opportunity to listen to a lengthy interview with the author before I read the book. Had I not done so, I expect my reaction would have been more negative. Understanding where the author was coming from and his purpose for writing the book was helpful.
Warren,
You must be out west?! Come on, how could you not want to be in the center of the universe?
Katie (#85), unfortunately, I am within two hours of Toronto (for the time being) - but was born and raised in BC. I’ve lived in five provinces as an adult and so my preferences are not just based on speculation.
LOL, I detested Toronto while I was growing up. But it’s actually a fun city if you live right downtown. There’s plenty to do and you can walk everywhere. I like either wilderness or city; but it’s tough to find jobs in the wilderness and I detest suburbia so it is the city for me (well that and I need access to a theological library for at least the next 5 years!!!)
Hey that’s perfect though, you can come into TO and take courses! Just take the train in, close your eyes on the subway and you won’t have to see most of the hideous city life!
Katie (#87), given how a trusted and respected friend who graduated from your seminary (if my assumptions are correct) a few years ago has characterized the teaching - well summarized by 2 Tim 3:5 - I’ll admit that I don’t have much interest in taking any courses there. He is now at Westminster Seminary California and I would much rather study at that sort of institution (and not just because of the location). There I go being negative again. I’m heading to bed.
There are two seminaries here … I am at the one without the big cathedral like chapel.
I could definitely see, given the Chicago statement, why you would not feel comfortable here. I don’t think it fair to say that the faculty hold to the outward form of godliness but deny its power. It is not particularly mean; it is simply rather ignorant in the sense that it demonstrates a narrow view of Scripture, theology and history.
It is interesting because I could picture some of the Southern Baptists I knew in North Carolina (where I did my undergrad) thinking this very thing. Westminster of course is Calvinist in background; I didn’t know that there were such similarities between these two groups. I guess both groups tend to be identified as fundamentalist with rigid confessional guidelines that indicate whether one is a true Christian or not and so whether one is saved or not. Very interesting. Now if indeed you are of the same mind as your friend, why are you an Anglican as opposed to a Calvinist Baptist? I struggle to see what attracts you to Anglicanism of any sort.
Southern Cone hasn’t been kicked out of the communion last time I checked- whereas the majority of Communion have declared themselves in impaired communion with Canada and the USA. We have not declared ourselves to be a separate group by autonomous self assertion, nor have we left the Communion. We are authentically Anglican - unless you want to ague that somehow Southern Cone is no longer Anglican.
That simply isn’t so. If those had been huge issues ACNA would never have got off the ground in the first place, nor would +Bob Duncan (who will ordain women) have been asked to lead it. I find it most encouraging, in fact, that those differences have been recognized to be second order issues.
Katie (#89), I’m now quite certain that my friend is a graduate of your seminary. Here is a small extract from something he wrote to a perspective candidate a year or so ago:
These are some of his milder words.
What attracts me to Anglicanism? That is a good question. It certainly isn’t infant baptism or the form of government. Things I do like include the celebration of the Lord’s Supper every week, the depth of meaning in the words used in the liturgy, the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer (in its older forms), some of the music, and the fact that Anglicans are being forced to examine doctrine and their view of the authority of Scripture.
I won’t bore you with details about how I came to worship in an Anglican parish (which I’ve recounted elsewhere on this blog), but I know it was the Lord’s leading. It must have been, because I generally believed that Anglicans were apostate and that I would never darken the door of an Anglican church. Because of a job-related move, I needed to find a new church within walking distance and I took the time to listen to an online sermon from a parish that was close to my new place of residence. After listening to the sermon, I knew I had to check out this particular church.
I encountered a pastor who preached the gospel with a quiet intensity that I had not encountered before. A man who loves Jesus and who is regularly brought to tears when he talks about His death on the cross. A man who is not afraid to preach about sin, but who also knows God’s grace. I also encountered a group of people who were enthusiatic about their faith and who loved God’s word. People who wanted to share their faith with others. I spent considerable time with a group of university students who called the parish home during their academic year, and was impressed by their desire to study the Bible (their approach was implicitly one of inerrancy). The parish was not perfect by any means, but it was my most positive and meaningful church experience to date - and I’ve been part of a lot of churches. The parish is now part of the ANiC and it wouldn’t surprise me to see the Diocese launch an attack in the near future to try and obtain the building. Should that happen, I don’t think that most people will be disheartened or flag in their desire to follow Jesus.
I have subsequently moved again and am now in a large church that I would call a Willow Creek clone. There is no basic problem with the doctrine or preaching, but it does not have the same vitality or gospel orientation, and there is not the same enthusiasm about studying God’s Word. There are no ANiC parishes anywhere close, and the ACoC parishes in the area are liberal. I’ve become friends with an elderly couple in my church who are both cradle Anglicans and who finally couldn’t take it anymore after some 70 years of faithful service. For this region at least, I’m back to my attitude of not wanting to darken the door of an Anglican church.
So, in summary, it wasn’t Anglicanism that attracted me, but rather the Anglican way of following Jesus in a particular parish. I’m looking at another move this coming summer and have an inkling in the back of my mind that I would like to give orthodox presbyterianism a try. We’ll see. I’ll also see how long-suffering my wife is.
There are many Calvinst Baptist leaders and teachers that I greatly respect, but there is something about worhipping in Baptist churches that doesn’t ft well with me (I’ve tried it in the past). The majority of students and staff associated with The Theology Program are Baptist and I enjoy giving them a hard time too.
Kate,
“Southern Cone hasn’t been kicked out of the communion last time I checked- whereas the majority of Communion have declared themselves in impaired communion with Canada and the USA. We have not declared ourselves to be a separate group by autonomous self assertion, nor have we left the Communion. We are authentically Anglican - unless you want to ague that somehow Southern Cone is no longer Anglican.”
No you’re correct the Southern Cone has not been kicked out of the Communion and that is not what I stated. I stated that the future direction of the Communion or to put it more directly, whether or not we remain in a communion polity is going to be made more difficult b the fact that ANiC is in the southern cone. This has to do with particular issues of Church order and the fact that whether we remain a Communion depends upon how we live out our ecclesiology, not just the ‘end point’ of what we do. The Primates’ Communique and the Windsor Report both identified the currently operating parallel jurisdictions in North America to pose challenges to how we move forward and that their membership has not at all had a consensus understanding by the member Provinces of the Communion. One of the clear statements made was that these parallel jurisdictions cannot decide for themselves whether they are in communion with the Communion. ANiC has a political tie through the Southern Cone, but this itself compromises the Church’s polity as a Communion due to jurisdictional issues. And this is in part, the problem that we will have going forward as a Communion.
There are already rumblings about the same old issues within ACNA: women’s ordination, Prayer Book, anglo-catholic vs evangelical theologies.
That simply isn’t so. If those had been huge issues ACNA would never have got off the ground in the first place, nor would +Bob Duncan (who will ordain women) have been asked to lead it. I find it most encouraging, in fact, that those differences have been recognized to be second order issues.
“That simply isn’t so. If those had been huge issues ACNA would never have got off the ground in the first place, nor would +Bob Duncan (who will ordain women) have been asked to lead it. I find it most encouraging, in fact, that those differences have been recognized to be second order issues.”
Yes it is so. All one has to do is to read the comments of the actual persons who will file into the pews as to whether these are issues or not. Out of the diocese that have currently left TEC … which one’s ordain women? Unfortunately, more recent Church history demonstrates that churches that break away thinking that they have all things in order … really generally don’t and it they end up fizziling in membership … of course part of this is because they just become another very similar option on the market place of Churches.
Hi Warren,
To each his or her own I suppose. I understand, and would need to admit that there are several places (probably the ones your friend would attend) that I simply could not attend given the biblical and theological understanding. As I said above, faith and its terminology are never static; that is part of being a Church whose vocation is mission … the transmission and transposition of the gospel. Look at debates between the East and West and between theologians in the west over theological terms and their meaning. This is actually the main point … one needs room (as the early Church up until Reformation divisions) to discern and debate these issues or else mission dies because everything becomes uniform and static and makes no sense from one generation to another. But, we should probably leave this particular topic; it is not a very fruitful topic of discussion.
Presbyterianism - I was going to ask about this as well for you. This might be a good fit, although I’m not sure how uniform the ‘orthodoxy’ levels are … I would suspect they’re pretty good though. God bless your endeavors in finding a Church that fits your inclinations; it can be a long and frustrating search I know.
Whether we like it or not more people will continue to leave the Anglican Church of Canada because of the blessings of same-gender relationships. Even more will leave when a future General Synod decides to change the Marriage Canon to include gay people. My family have been members of the Church of England for more than 130 years and I am not leaving, but I won’t stop my grandchildren from leaving if they decide to do so.
Katie (#93),
Wise words. I doubt that either of us planned to spend so much time on this thread and others are probably wondering how we got so far off topic (sorry). My prayer for you is that you will find the right balance between head and heart; theological knowledge and Godly wisdom. Also that you will be bold in your witness and obedient to the Spirit - regardless of where God may lead you or what he might call you to do. Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be added unto you.
It is not a political tie, it is an ecclesiastic tie. Relabeling it political doesn’t change what it is - temporary shelter under an authentically Anglican bishop, who is part of the Anglican communion, to protect us from apostate leadership.
Would you care to back that assertion up? I gave you my reasoning. What is yours? What comments have you read, and where? They are not huge issues among the leadership, or ACNA would not have been formed in the first place. Where the issues come up, I am confident that our leaders will be able to deal with them in honesty and Christian charity. I do not have the same confidence in the leaders of ACoC or TEC.
Hey Warren, come back to Ottawa, we miss you!
Kate (#97), something unexpected popped up on the radar screen about 10 days ago and, for a few days, it looked like we would be coming to Ottawa this summer. Now it’s back to the Colorado Springs plan. It would have been great to come back to St Alban’s, but the mountains will be nice too. We’ll be in Focus on the Family land.
Darn. Oh well.
Hi Katie this is probably the best way to respond I’m sorry for the confusion I have repeated your response here;
“I don’t think you are correct in indentifying The Anglican, The Baptist, The Roman Catholic and any others as churches. To my “reason” These are parts that fit tightly together, They are (if they are) tools, God’s gift to the Body of Christ. I see the “church” as bodies of peoples (many waters) found in nearly if not all communities that call themselves Christian.”
I’m not sure I follow you but if you are saying that each ‘part’/’church’ is a member of the body of Christ. I would agree. Christ is gathering all our divided ‘parts’/’churches’ into him until all will be all in him. That is in fact partially the point I’ve been driving at. Our ‘task’ is to participate in witnessing to God’s gathering process; the issue being discussed above has to do with the manner in which we engage in this vocation.
[what I was trying to say is there is only one church]
“I am NOT arguing semantics. If this is not seen as important now it will be as “the church” shrinks ever smaller, ever whiter.”
As what is not seen as important now?
[The ability to identify with the “one church”]
“As it moves ever closer to that great and dreadful day of the Lord.” As what moves closer to the final consummation?
[The one Church]
“I was born into life as an Anglican, I will always be an Anglican first. It is my passport into the Body. Praise God.”
Great, me too.
“If this is insufficient consider these words, which are not mine.
“While God waits for his church to be built of love, men bring stones.””
You have really lost me here. If what is insufficient? You being born into life as an Anglican? If this is what you mean, I think it perfectly sufficient … that has been the point I’ve been making.
If are you talking about you being an Anglican first? I’m not entirely sure how that is relevant, but maybe I have missed something. Or something else?
[when I said “if this is insufficient” I was referring to my expanations of the one church perception and used my quote as emphases]
Again I apologize, I feel inadequate and yet my growing frustration also creates cynicism. or vice-versa I’m not sure which.
Warren
Could you please give me some examples of your agreement as to the negative criticism of the Shack?
By the way I am not so much stuck in To as much as I am just stuck. Although sleeping under the trees in a deep dark forest is were I go every night. (or try to).
Katie [#62],
It could cut both ways if there were equal numbers of conservatives and liberals in leadership: as it is, there aren’t, so in practice, conservatives tend not to be hired. Your point, perhaps, is partly that conservatives would do the same given the chance. Possibly; I view that as a good thing, since I have little use for liberal-conservative diversity.
I’m not sure what you mean; you cannot possibly mean that Ingham is happy to hire conservatives, surely?
Stuck (#101), I can understand why some find it irreverent or even unbiblical to portary God as a woman and give Him human characteristics when He is a spirit and His ways are so far beyond our ways (I think the big word for this is “anthropomorphize”). I did not get the sense that the author was suggesting that God is actually like the characters in the book (which I would have taken exception to myself) but rather he used the characters to illustrate God’s qualities - information that can be found in the Bible. I didn’t discover any new insights in the book, but the author did present things in a new and interesting way.
Warren: Thanks! I shall seek to be obedient to God, and confess and repent when I fail in that and pray that God forgive and have mercy on my failings. God bless in your studies and in your ministry.
Kate:
“It is not a political tie, it is an ecclesiastic tie.” You can’t separate the two; that is a fallacy of nominalism that has led us to turning Scripture into a rule book rather than receiving it as the living Word of God received and discerned in the Church for proclamation to all nations.
“Relabeling it political doesn’t change what it is - temporary shelter under an authentically Anglican bishop, who is part of the Anglican communion, to protect us from apostate leadership.” This isn’t relabeling; the Church’s order is fundamental to its proclamation of the gospel. I am no longer going to dispute this issue as it has been dealt with substantially in Anglican documents beginning with the Virginia Report through to the Covenant Agreement and by some wise Anglican minds: Norman Doe, Paul Avis, Ephraim Radner, Philip Turner, Chris Seitz. There are plenty of resources available to demonstrate how what you argue has been played out throughout history and how it will potentially play out given our present ecclesial context.
“Would you care to back that assertion up? I gave you my reasoning. What is yours?” Well StandFirm and Kendall Harmon pop into mind first and foremost - where these individuals tend to congregate. There have been several threads on each of those topics. Other comments and knowledge I am not at liberty to share. Finally, of course the leadership while it is trying to establish itself is not going to start off with disagreement … this is exactly what I acknowledged. It is down the road that these divisions begin to create greater chasms … this comes from a study of the history of these splits historically and more recently as the historical, social, cultural and demographic context in which divisions occur changes.
David: the current trend in some liberal circles has nothing to do with diversity, I’ll readily admit that. But militant exclusive liberalism is limited and by no means the norm in the ACoC. I don’t see any conservatives with whom I am currently attending seminary not being ordained throughout the ACoC because they are conservative; and they are not from conservative dioceses.
Ingham may not be happy to hire conservatives, but he is supporting at least two anglo-catholic individuals I know to move through the ordination process fully aware of where they stand on issues. That’s concrete reality; not speculation. As for Niagara, one evangelical catholic I know of is moving through that process of ordination with the bishop fully aware of this persons leanings … there are your most extreme examples within Canada.
Katie, I just don’t buy it. I am sure that both those bishops are quite happy with anglo Catholic symbolism, smells and bells, etc, but the minute those anglo-Catholic ordinands confess clearly that they are against SSB they will be out the door.
I have read some of the threads you mention, and frankly, many of the people commenting there on those issues are not part of ACNA and probably never will be. The only wise Anglican mind that I know of on your list is E.Radner, and what I have read of his thinking on the issue strikes me as to be so cautious as to be paralyzed. I don’t think he or the other minds at ACI will ever recognize that concrete action, beyond having meetings and writing letters, is necessary. Lastly, using “knowledge I am not at liberty to share” on a blog isn’t really an argument.
Stuck,
No need to apologize; it’s sometimes hard to express what can actually be very complex concepts … particularly on a blog!
You make a great observation actually. Your observation points to a very traditional understanding of the Church wherein the three concepts of metaphysics (God’s providential ordering of the world), theology (Scriptural discernment), and polity (how the Church goes about discerning Scripture, making decision, teaching the faith and proclaiming the faith - missions) are intertwined. Your observation, that there is only one Christ to which we are all (even in our divisions and our failures) ‘attached,’ testifies to this understanding. In fact, much of our problem in the Church comes from the fact that as we have divided, we have lost the interweaving of these three concepts and so lost our ability to proclaim the gospel to others with any convincingness.
Again, you are right on that we, in our divisions, have lost the ability to identify with the one Church. In part, this is because those divisions have obscured our ability to see beyond our own ecclesial confessions; and in part because we have no common practices of discernment (this is tied into the division of politics, theology and metaphysics).
The only point I would make is that we are in fact concretely, historically and visibly divided (even though you are correct, we are ultimately one in Christ). So you are absolutely right in that ultimately, we are one in Christ … but we have yet to be fully consummated as one in Christ. We are living in the time between Christ having called us to proclaim the gospel, that is to point to the oneness we are to ultimately have in Christ, and Christ’s coming again to make this ultimate reality of unity with him fully present.
So where the distinction between the ultimate reality (which you have stated) and our present concrete reality (of the division of our Church) becomes important is in our vocation. Christ has called us to witness to the ultimate reality that he will bring about of unity with him (something that we don’t yet have). If we’re going to do that we can’t be pointing at ourselves, which is what division does; our concrete divisions inherently point to us (since Christ cannot be divided), not to Christ.
So what you’re saying is certainly true on the one hand, but needs to take account of the time we are living between Christ’s having come and his coming again.
So in conclusion, do not at all feel as though you are inadequate in expressing what you have. What you have communicated is actually an incredible insight that few people at present actually grasp; as I said, what you have said in part, was a common understanding of metaphysics in the early Church fathers and the medieval scholastics and conciliarists. So well done! Be encouraged … the ability to articulate will come with prayer, study, practice, patience, endurance, perseverance, and most importantly with a heart of charity.
Katie [#104],
Perhaps we are back to tame conservatives; have the anglo-catholics expressed disagreement with SSBs?.
In Niagara I know of a number of evangelicals who have been turned down because of their stand on SSBs; if your evangelical is intent on employment in Niagara, he will have to compromise.
Katie [#104],
Of course politics can be separated from ecclesiology:
Politics: The art or science of government or governing.
Ecclesiology: the branch of theology concerned with the nature and the constitution and the functions of a church.
Receiving Scripture as “the living Word of God” sounds suspiciously like making it mean what you want it to mean. It may not be just a “book of rules”, but it is a propositional revelation of what God has to say to us. Saying it is “the living Word of God” implies the meaning changes over time; you did not mean this, surely?
Kate,
“Katie, I just don’t buy it. I am sure that both those bishops are quite happy with anglo Catholic symbolism, smells and bells, etc, but the minute those anglo-Catholic ordinands confess clearly that they are against SSB they will be out the door.”
You don’t have to buy it; I can only state what is actually happening … only you can believe it or not.
“I have read some of the threads you mention, and frankly, many of the people commenting there on those issues are not part of ACNA and probably never will be.”
That isn’t true. I know who some of these individuals are, what dioceses they are from and what parishes they are a part of. Furthermore, you cannot simply ignore history wherein we find evidence of how these splits have played out; that is a rather dangerous way of discerning one’s way forward.
“The only wise Anglican mind that I know of on your list is E.Radner, and what I have read of his thinking on the issue strikes me as to be so cautious as to be paralyzed.”
The others are have been critical in forming many of the documents that the Communion as a whole have supported in charting a way of giving our structures integrity … you might wish to take a look at some of their writings (particularly since these documents have been moved forward by the whole Church … part of the reason we’re in the mess we’re in is because so many are making personal judgments that are not founded on the decision making processes of our whole Church so I would think this might be an important part of one’s discernment about what we do).
“I don’t think he or the other minds at ACI will ever recognize that concrete action, beyond having meetings and writing letters, is necessary.”
I think the manner of witness ACI proposes is informed by a richness of biblical, theological, historical, experiential understanding (they are priests and missionaries as well as professors), that not only takes into account some of the concrete actions that I have heard proposed, but is able to anticipate their insufficiencies, and chart a more fruitful and faithful path.
“Lastly, using “knowledge I am not at liberty to share” on a blog isn’t really an argument.” No, it is simply the truth of the matter. I’m not making an argument about it. I’m stating that I have been witness to information that allows me to make some of the arguments that I do from information that I am not at liberty to share. I’m not trying to substantiate that with you … I’m clarifying.
Katie [#109],
By “what is actually happening” are you maintaining that your anglo-catholics have made their opposition to SSBs known to Ingham and he continues to support them? If they have, I find that difficult to believe.
If they haven’t Ingham’s support is not particularly significant since he would view them as malleable and ultimately useful for his cause.
David,
“In Niagara I know of a number of evangelicals who have been turned down because of their stand on SSBs; if your evangelical is intent on employment in Niagara, he will have to compromise.”
No, he will have to be wise about his actions. There is a distinction.
“Of course politics can be separated from ecclesiology:
Politics: The art or science of government or governing.
Ecclesiology: the branch of theology concerned with the nature and the constitution and the functions of a church.”
Yes, it can be and it has been; the result is what you see in front of you. What I was implying was that its separation has been detrimental to the vocation of the Church.
“Receiving Scripture as “the living Word of God” sounds suspiciously like making it mean what you want it to mean.
No I am not being a liberal (unless you believe the Church fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, Cusanus and Hooker to be liberals).
It may not be just a “book of rules”, but it is a propositional revelation of what God has to say to us.”
Scripture is by no means a propositional revelation. If that were the case, we’d all be one uniform Church. Have you ever read anything on the history of interpretation and reception; have a look in this field as it will help to explain how this is not the case. I can recommend some books if you’re interested.
David,
“If they have, I find that difficult to believe.”
As I said to Kate, I can only report what I know. Whether he believes them to be malleable to his cause, I have no idea.
Katie [#112],
I had a long chat with J. I. Packer in 1979; one of the things I asked him about the Anglican Church was “where has it all gone wrong?”. He said that many in the leadership no longer believe that Scripture is God’s propositional revelation to us. I think he was right - not that my opinion adds any weight to his.
Katie [#111],
Yes there is, but wise to what end? If he wishes to be a mole who will later burst forth with his opposition SSBs when he thinks the time is right, that could be counted as wisdom. If he intends to keep quiet for the sake of employment that is compromise.
Katie [#111],
We’ve gone from your saying in #104 that you cannot separate politics and eccelesiology; now you are saying you can, but you shouldn’t.
So you appear to be saying now that bishops should be more political; are you? The art of politics is generally Machiavellian; I think ACoC bishops are already sufficiently well practised in this.
Katie (#109),
If there is one thing I have learned about Anglicanism, it is that the decision making processes of the “whole Church” are totally dysfunctional. Of this I have no doubt. Continuing to rely on these dysfunctional processes is just making the mess messier and, in my opinion, has contributed greatly to the decline of Anglicanism in the US and Canada. Anglicanism seems hard pressed to produce any men of action - no matter how great the crisis.
Katie [#112],
Having worked in business for the last 40 years and having observed closely the techniques used by those who exercise power, I have little difficulty stating with reasonable confidence: he does.
Katie I strongly disagree about there being a difference in today and the time of His coming. It is written that things will be normal at that time. The great change for humanity took place “at the fullness of time” when our Lord first came. His final words on the cross were “It is finished” . I believe that there is much evidence that the time for understanding is even now being presented. I will let scripture say the rest.
Mark 13;
19. For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
20. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
21. And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
22. For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
23. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
God Bless you all
“nominalism that has led us to turning Scripture into a rule book rather than receiving it as the living Word of God received and discerned in the Church for proclamation to all nations.” (#104)
Katie: Your words quoted above imply that what is ‘living’ about the Word of God is how it is interpreted ‘received and discerned by the Church’. The problem with this way of using the Word is that we humans (with our deceitful hearts) ‘receive and discern’ it to say what we want And voila: we have today’s flavour of liberal ‘Christianity’.
The writer of Hebrews gives us the correct biblical view of Scripture:
“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12
In this view the living Word does not submit to our interpretation. Instead it ‘interprets’ us; and those who have ears to hear find themselves repentant, prayerful, and cleansed.
More food for thought
http://anglicanissues.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-do-faithful-christians-stay-in.html
Katie #????
In 5 days and 119 entries, 30 of which were written by you, there have been (according to my word processor) 26554 words written of which over half were under your name.
My ‘ead ‘urts!
I am a techie and having trouble following the train of thought. Could you please summarize in point form for me?
Indeed. If you quack like a duck for long enough, you eventually become one.
Katie [#120],
The article doesn’t really give a particularly convincing reason for being in the TEC (basically, God told me to - why?), but it does throw up a number of straw men such as: Salvation and holiness are not assured by jumping ship. No-one claims they are.
The reason that people are either leaving the Anglican church or realigning is the same as that of a vegetarian who chooses not to belong to a butcher’s confederation.
If we were actually a split, you might have a point, but we are not. We are still part of the Anglican communion. My Anglican heritage is important to me, but it is more important to be bringing my children up in a church that is authentically Christian, and to have leaders that I can submit myself to in confidence that they too are really Christian. I am thankful that ANiC has enabled me to do both.
If you can’t back up your story better than that I doubt that very many other people here will believe you either. Have you been following the actions of +Niagara and +NewWest? Do you really expect us to believe that a bishop who has treated conservatives in his diocese so shabbily, and who has published a book in which he denies the basic tenants of the Christian faith, would support a candidate for the priesthood who thinks that the things the NT says happened actually did happen? All on your say so?
Stuck,
Then why do we still sin? Why does Scripture say Christ will come again, why does Scripture say that Christ is gathering, why were we commissioned to proclaim the gospel? Then why do we have a Church at all?
David,
Politics and ecclsiology have been separated, but they shouldn’t be. When I stated my point initially, I was trying to emphatically state that they shouldn’t be separated … not that it is an impossibility that they are.
Warren,
You’re right, that is why we’re trying to provide integrity to those structures that we have not, prior to this, needed.
Jack
1. I’m writing primarily for those Anglicans still in discernment about how to respond to what is going on in the Church and to my own generation (Y) that is primarily uninterested in what has been going on.
2. I think the fruitful and faithful response based on biblical, theological, Scriptural and practical evidence is to remain within the ACoC for the time being while we await to see what happens with the Anglican Covenant Agreement
3. Leaving will not allow for the preservation of Communion polity, which is the uniqueness and gift Anglicanism brings to the divided Church (as others bring other gifts). If people would prefer the polity of a federation or confessional or congregational Church (or a hierarchical Church) that is just fine; but there are already plenty of them out there, so why not just go to a Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, RC or EO, etc. Church. What really is the point in being Anglican if to be Anglican in name we have to dismantle the Communion that Anglican is.
4. That’s it. Otherwise, read the link I posted above. That’s a pretty good summary.
“If you can’t back up your story better than that I doubt that very many other people here will believe you either. Have you been following the actions of +Niagara and +NewWest? Do you really expect us to believe that a bishop who has treated conservatives in his diocese so shabbily, and who has published a book in which he denies the basic tenants of the Christian faith, would support a candidate for the priesthood who thinks that the things the NT says happened actually did happen? All on your say so?”
What proof would you like me to give Kate? Believe whatever you wish; that is your choice. As I’ve stated now for the third time, I am not trying to make you believe.
I would say that it is liturgical traditions, the church year, and the willingness of different Anglican churches to adopt to local cultures without watering down what it is to be Christian that is Anglicanism’s true gift to the body of Christ, not polity. Most Anglicans in the pews don’t know the first thing about polity, but would pretty much instantly know that they had walked into an Anglican church - from the liturgies and forms of worship. The problem comes when those liturgies and forms of worship disguise the fact that a given parish is watering down the faith.
Katie [#126],
Fair enough; but why? Politics is devoted to the exercise of power, generally with the intention of getting one’s own way and of enlarging one’s fiefdom. That is exactly what the ACoC’s bishops are doing to the detriment of the Christian faith, the church and Anglicanism.
Normally when you have a conversation, you want to convince the other person, no? Isn’t that what blog comments are about?
Katie (#120), if the “blogosphere” accurately represented the real world in terms of how people conduct themselves towards on another, then the article from St. George and the Dragon would be of concern. Fortuntately, the real world is far removed from the blogosphere and I think St. George is flailing madly at a straw dragon (although I concede he does make some valid points). I grant that my sample size is small, but the image he paints really doesn’t ring true with me in terms of the people I know or have observed who have left the ACoC (I don’t count people like myself who were never really part of the ACoC). If I drew conclusions about human nature based on comments made on Internet news stories, I doubt I would want to leave me house without a gun. Fortunately I can walk away from my computer and discover that most people, although totally depraved, are not utterly depraved (I’m drawing here from one of the five points of Calvinism in case anyone is wondering). Many of them are actually quite nice.
Kate and David, I’m sure we are still well short, but do you know what the record is on this blog for the number of comments on a single thread?
Warren,
I presented this simply as another person’s argument for why they’re staying; not to imply there is some great movement toward this perspective. Simply as “more food for thought” for those in discernment. He makes some points some may want to consider, that’s all.
Kate:
“I would say that it is liturgical traditions, the church year, and the willingness of different Anglican churches to adopt to local cultures without watering down what it is to be Christian that is Anglicanism’s true gift to the body of Christ, not polity.”
These things and our decisions about how these things play out are integral to our polity because our particular polity has to do with common decision making and common mission.
No I don’t think my task is trying to convince people of things on blogs. I’m presenting arguments and countering arguments so as to provide people with perspectives for discernment. Formation in faith is about how we get from point a to point b, not about just getting to point b. Formation requires time and space and resources for discernment.
David: I didn’t say politics, I said polity. Polity has to do with Church order, authority and decision making and it is a concept that until the Reformation, was thoroughly integrated with an understanding of theology and God’s providence. The division of these three things has resulted in individualism based on nominalist understanding of things. This removes God’s providential work in history from the picture.
Katie [#133],
Yes, I know what polity means and you have been talking about it. In this particular exchange, though, you were talking about politics.
It started in 92 where you said, ANiC has a political tie through the Southern Cone
In 96 Kate responded, It is not a political tie, it is an ecclesiastic tie
In 104 you said “It is not a political tie, it is an ecclesiastic tie.” You can’t separate the two
In 108 I said Of course politics can be separated from ecclesiology:
And so on. Politics, not polity.
Warren [#132],
I seem to recall there was one that was over 400 long.
After a quick flip through the posts it looks like this might be the longest at 305.
Well, you caught me David. In these cases I meant polity and did indeed use the word ‘politics.’ I shall endeavor to be more concise in my word choice as I could see how this would be confusing.
Katie [#136],
Precise. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Mind you, concise wouldn’t hurt, either.
Yes, you are once again correct. Precise. Although I suppose had I been concise I would not have had so many opportunities to use the wrong word!
Katie [138],
Now we seem to be agreeing, perhaps I can persuade you to join ANiC.
Katie, as I have mentioned earlier in this thread, you have presented some excellent food for thought. Your arguments have sometimes been difficult to follow, and some of your points have been more nuanced than some of us might like (although you are just following in the tradition of many seminary-educated Anglicans), but I do appreciate the time and effort you have taken to present your arguments.
Would you be willing to move in a more pastoral direction and share your thoughts on what all this means to the average Joe? What about the parent who wants to raise their children in the nuture and admonition of the Lord? What about the person who had found themselves in a meaningful discussion about Christianity with their neighbour and would like to ask them to join them in church so that they can hear Christ, and Him crucified, preached without apology? How about the person who has a heart for the lost and would like to see their parish become more missional and outward focused (and by missional I don’t mean helping in a soup kitchen)? What about the sinner who feels deeply convicted of their sin and needs someone to walk with them through repentance and the start of a new life? What about the person who is excited about learning more about God’s Word and wants to start a Bible study?
Would you advocate that these people stay in a parish where their needs are clearly not being met - or even supported - and just tough it out hoping for better days, or do you have other advice?
David,
Let’s see. Build your case. But I’ll say this, my first inclination, were I to consider leaving, would be to go the the Roman Catholic Church.
Hi Warren,
I will try to be ‘concise’!
“What about the parent who wants to raise their children in the nuture and admonition of the Lord?”
The primary responsibility here is with the parent. I know 8 year olds who can out theologize most Sunday school teachers. Why? Their parents taught them to read, write, reason, distinguish.
“What about the person who had found themselves in a meaningful discussion about Christianity with their neighbour and would like to ask them to join them in church so that they can hear Christ, and Him crucified, preached without apology?” I’d bring them to my church and start a bible study with them. It’s worked well for those with whom I have done this.
“How about the person who has a heart for the lost and would like to see their parish become more missional and outward focused (and by missional I don’t mean helping in a soup kitchen)?” Start a Bible study in a coffee shop. I planted a church this summer and started a Bible study in a coffee shop to which 15 people ended up coming from a whole variety of backgrounds some churched, some unchurched.
“What about the sinner who feels deeply convicted of their sin and needs someone to walk with them through repentance and the start of a new life?” Start a Bible study, fellowship group, offer catechesis (plenty of good solid material out there).
“What about the person who is excited about learning more about God’s Word and wants to start a Bible study?” Go for it! This is where it’s at. Studying the Word of God and how it has been interpreted in the history of the Church. I’ve started and been a part of Bible studies in every Church I’ve been in.
“Would you advocate that these people stay in a parish where their needs are clearly not being met - or even supported - and just tough it out hoping for better days, or do you have other advice?” If someone is smart enough to know their needs are not being met, then they will find ways of seeking further edification and then bringing that back into the church of which they are a part and building up that community. That is precisely what I did … and it seems to be the path that most of the people my age I know have taken. We’ve got information at our fingertips and we’re suspicious of things to begin with so we do our research.
Warren,
One other question. Why did you find some of the arguments difficult to follow?
Katie;
(Track: your 106 - my 118 - your 126top)
you said
Then why do we still sin? Why does Scripture say Christ will come again, why does Scripture say that Christ is gathering, why were we commissioned to proclaim the gospel? Then why do we have a Church at all?”
1. The Son did not come to eliminate sin but to “re-align” us with the father that we might be complete in His love and forgiveness, no longer under the law.
We pray “O Lamb of God, that takest away the sin of the world” He was the sacrifice, the great love gift of God to His creation. We wisely finish the prayer - “Have mercy on us” (Goodness Katie I know you know this.) What I am trying to say is Our Lord made straight a path, we have to walk it.
2.. I don’t think our Lord is returning to teach, or to save. I believe His coming again will be to judge.
3… I think scripture says He WILL gather, that in fact the tares and wheat grow equally.
4….The Commission? First to the twelve and from them, to the world through the Packers, the Lewis’ the Benedicts the Augustines, and so many others and from them to whom they touched right down to the Warrens, the Katies, and finally somewere near the bottom…..me
5…..We have a church (ideally) so that our grasp will always exceed our reach. To understand “church” is to understand “that they all may be one”. Personally, I think its waay past time for our preachers to start throwing their bibles at those asleep in the pew. I pray daily that the executive of this new N.A. Anglicanism will recognise that there should not be any more comfortable pews. With the exception of some of our dear old ones who should be adored with their own Lazy-boys - up front and center. Our Priests who measure their success by the numbers and comfort level of their congregation need to recognise that something is very wrong. For their church is more country club than battle ground and any Christian who doesn’t recognise that they are individually and collectively at war is BLIND. Jesus Said ” Think YE I bring Peace? Nay I bring a sword. AMEN
Katie I left out the why answer for Commission it’s John 3:16
Should the new Anglicanism in N.A. be involved in the courts?
Are they playing in the devils sand-box so to speak?
In the last AniC news letter which I hold dear and to wit I am in awe. (Marilyn Jacobson for Nobel prize or Knight-hood) We are asked for prayer in support of these endeavours, than further down in “A word from our Sponsor” Psalm 84 is quoted.
Is there a contradiction?
David [#102], I can’t comment on whether Michael Ingham is happy to hire conservatives, but he has certainly hired them in the past. One (who did not last long, and whose name I can’t remember at the moment) famously called him the spawn of Satan from the pulpit.
Whether he would hire conservatives now is another matter, but I doubt many conservatives would be willing to take an oath of canonical obedience to him anyway.
***STEREOTYPE AND GROSS GENERALIZATION WARNING***
Katie (#143), the primary reason I find some of your arguments difficult to follow is that they are often circuitous and constructed that avoid dealing with the heart of the matter. Another cause is that we both bring to the table presuppositions that are diametrically opposed (more on this to follow). More practically speaking, some of your writing has an “ivory tower” flavour that I would suggest is more suitable to communicating with other academics that for blog posts. I’m not denigrating the need for academic discourse (well maybe I am a little), but it has its time and place. I also think certain academic communities have an “alpha male” problem which causes their members to try and outdo each other in terms of vocabulary choice, arcane logic structures, and phraseology. From what I’ve observed, Anglican academics are especially prone to this “disease. I work in an organization where most of the people are university educated, and many have advanced degrees. None of them write in a style that even remotely resembles what comes out of seminaries.
Now, on to the fundamental differences in our presuppositions. First off, I want to stress that I am speaking for myself only. That said, I sense a kinship with most of the regular posters on this blog (even though I know that we would likely differ over many details) that I don’t sense with you. To put it bluntly, I see you as a member of the “other team”. You hold a basically Catholic view in terms of the authority of the church, whereas I believe in sola scriptura and hold with Luther and the reformers. I believe the Bible is both infallible and inerrant whereas you take a much more open view – one, that I would argue, is in line with liberal Anglicanism. Even though I’m not an Anglican, I think my view of the Bible is much more in line with historic Anglicanism than is yours. Your view of theology is liberal and mine is conservative (given how you would likely define fundamental, I don’t mind wearing the fundamentalist label either). You argue that there can never be justification for a split within Anglicanism, and I say you can only take such a stance if you ignore large swaths of Scripture.
Concerning your response in #142, I don’t think any of your answers are practical for the “average Joe”, and some do not comport with reality. I have taught Sunday School for many years (typically grades three to six) and have worked in other church-based children’s’ programs and have yet to come across an eight year old who could “out theologize” any adult who has even a basic understanding of Christianity. My advice to parents who are concerned about what might be happening (or not happening) in the Sunday School classroom of their church is to head for the door as quickly as possible and somewhere were they have confidence that there is sound teaching. Christ had some very harsh words about leading children astray.
If you bring your neighbour to church with the knowledge that they will never hear the gospel or, worse yet, will be told something that contradicts God’s Word, you are probably doing more damage than good. Better to send your neighbour to another church – and to follow him there.
I applaud you for starting a Bible study and helping to plant a church, but what if your pastor and other spiritual leaders in your church view you with suspicion for doing so, or want to ensure you only teach doctrine and an understanding of the Bible that is in line with theirs before sanctioning the activity? Why bother belonging to such a church?
How tragic if the sinner who wants to repent turn from his wicked ways hears from the pulpit that his sin is acceptable and he just needs to change his attitude in order for everything to be okay?
What if your pastor obviously views the Bible with scepticism and teaches it in a way that you believe is unfaithful? If you can’t change him, does the Bible not oblige you to separate yourself from him (this is a rhetorical question)?
My lunch hour is over and I don’t have time to properly conclude or proofread the above. My apologies for the inevitable errors. Hopefully there aren’t too many.
Warren,
It would seem settled then. My writing is perhaps academic, but part of that is because I am bringing complex subjects to bear that involve 2000 years of history, theology and Church order. I’m not going to dispute how Anglicans have read Scripture, nor the theology of the Reformers (which you make a claim to without seemingly knowing the extent of their theology) because your response will simply be that I am making too intellectual of an argument. There is only so much one can reduce and simplify in an argument before it becomes devoid of meaning. Your anti-intellectualism stance seems to cloud your judgment of the fruitfulness of any theological engagement. If you think my Scriptural exegesis is liberal, perhaps you should tell that to the Roman Catholic and Anglican conservatives with whom I gather to exegete the Greek Scriptures and to learn how the early Church fathers interpreted Scripture … I’m not so sure they’d agree with you.
By the way, narrow confessional exegesis/fundamentalism is simply liberalism (that is, individual interpretation that precipitates autonomous action … hence the rather constant evangelical divisions) with a different end result … its only authority is in the particular individual making the proclamation and so it allows for Scripture to be interpreted according to ideologies rather than common discernment.
You’re right we don’t share a lot in common; to suggest that I am on ‘another team’ seems rather uncharitable … but I suppose that is the flavor of the season for Anglicans today. But whatever. If you want to label me a liberal, a non-Christian, go for it. I can see the fruit of these conversations is at an end. I thought there might be others on here but it would appear to be an ANiC blog.
No - that is why we are part of a community of faith, and why scripture must be interpreted so that it doesn’t contradict other parts of scripture, and why we have the 39 Articles… I know Warren in real life, and he is certainly not anti intellectual. I’ll leave him to answer the rest of your comment.
Katie (#149), there is much about Anglicanism, and church history in general, that I don’t know a lot about and I would be a fool to claim otherwise. I hold certain beliefs about my faith that have long been settled and I have no qualms about being labelled anti-intellectual if that is what you think certainty is. In other areas, my views and beliefs have evolved considerably over the course of my adult life and I probably am more open to considering new ideas than most people in the main stream of evangelicalism (I’m sure that’s a scary thought for you). There are some things I’m willing to dissect, and others I judge by their fruit. The ACoC is bearing bad fruit and I think the branch is almost disconnected from the vine.
Kate (#150), I’ve been accused (in a gentle way) by one of the leaders in my church for being too intellectual. Overall, we must be a bunch of total dunderheads down this way in the boondocks.
Anybody want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
Katie, after my last post, I spent some time on the treadmill - a place where I often spend time thinking - and contemplated the charitableness of my “other team” comment. I don’t feel compelled to withdraw the comment, but I do want to emphasize that, in making it, I am not calling into question your salvation. That is entirely between you and God and not for me to judge. I’m also not suggesting that I am a better or less sinful person than you. I suspect you have me beat hands down in both of those departments.
If you could crack the door open to the possibility, however much you might have to hold your nose in doing so, that things may have deteriorated in the ACoC to the point where groups of people have legitimate reason for breaking fellowship with the ACoC without giving up any claim to being Anglican, then the “other team” comment would not be warranted. You seem unwilling, however, to make any such concession.
I cringe whenever I hear the word charitable (or any of its derivatives) come from the mouth of an Anglican - especially one with liberal leanings. I think it is one of the most abused and misused words in the Anglican lexicon and it is often just a code word for “you turn a blind eye to my sin and heresy and I’ll turn a blind eye to yours”. The Anglican form of “charity” and related unwillingness to engage in any form of Biblical discipline is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons for the sad decline of the ACoC and TEC.
I do not post here as an advocate for any denomination, including the ANiC form of Anglicanism, but rather as an advocate for orthodox Christianity (Lord forgive my pride). If Kate and I really wanted to get into it over women’s ordination, we could probably come to fisticuffs, but I know that she loves the Lord and holds His Word in high regard, and I see her as my sister in Christ. I do get cranky sometimes, but I generally reserve my more vigorous comments for cases where I believe that God’s Word is being subordinated to other agendas. I respect the moderators of this blog and, if my comments become more trouble than they are worth, I will willingly honour any request to cease and desist.
149: Katie: It is sad that you have taken offense from Warren’s post in 148. There is no doubt that over your many posts he listened carefully to you and in his replies he spoke to you with great patience. This I say gently: You would do well to accept his rebuke as from a brother.
I think Warren meant “giving up”?
LOL Quite possibly - or at least an intense discussion.
Kate (#155), yup, that’s what I meant. Hopefully not a Freudian slip. It’s nice to know you’re out there watching for my blunders.
I shall edit it,then.
Katie
“I thought there might be others on here but it would appear to be an ANiC blog.”
I believe you may have been referring to me. If that’s the case you err…again. Re-read my blogs and I am confident that you will find that I have issues with AniC as well. If you cannot see that, than make no mistake, I speak only for myself. If you are gone from this arena than I shall pray that our exchange was not in vain.
Dear Warren (and perhaps Kate)
I know you meant it as a side-bar but I am against woman’s ordination. Not because of the clandestine manner in which it was accomplished. Nor because of any scriptural reference. Especially not because I feel strongly that the ACoC & TEC would not be were we are today save for that grave error.
My reasons are as most of my thinking, quite simplistic. looking at the very broad picture (the perspective of distance) I feel that God Created woman for a vital, equal, but very different purpose than her counterpart. The sociological and philosophical changes that have taken place with woman in the past 100 years or so, has for the most part come about through the ignorance, egotism, and disobedience both to logic and scripture BY men. There is certain emerging evidence that this new direction or freedom is having very dire consequences. As more and more woman are culturally and even charted to think in this direction, two things are happening. The greater is that we are moving further away from God’s creation and the lesser is the hole that is being created in the basic fabric of civilzation. Woman’s ordination gives credence to this great error. The major argument that of Jesus’s words to Mary M. about choosing the better way is I confess a nose bleed for me save for these two facts. Mary was just listening and Jesus chose 12 men. Comments Warren? Anyone?
If there is feeling that I have not been following “the thread” in my jumping around its because it was never mine in the first place.
Stuck (#159), women’s ordination has been discussed frequently on this blog since its inception and I don’t much feel like opening up the subject here. Doubtlessly it will be discussed again on other threads in the future. Although I certainly don’t consider it unimportant, I don’t believe it is as important as challenges to the authority of Scripture or false teaching. It isn’t one of the windmills I normally choose to tilt at.
Lazarus here again from wayback at post 48.
I believe that the people Jesus has raised from the “dead”, like us on this blog, are part of one family; His. I believe that every post that I remember reading here comes from someone who is in love with Jesus because of His immense mercy revealed from the cross, recorded in scripture and administered by the Holy Spirit to the Father’s great glory. We may be on different lines, (as in hockey), but we are on the same team. Your faith (in Him) has saved you. Please don’t fall prey to how our real enemy wants to divide and hurt us. We know that His blood was not shed in vain. As we explore the mystery, let us bear witness to His victory amongst us. Can there be a “communion in the Spirit” without “ecclesiastical communion” or is that just a loose federation of sorts? Where 2 or 3 are gathered in His Name, He is there; and I think that that would be real “communion” !
“Divide”. Are ACoC conservatives divided from ANiC members in the same way or differently than they (ACoC Con.) would be from a new North American Province not under The Southern Cone?
The heart of my concern: Warren 153, 2nd paragraph, (to Katie , Kate and others still following all this). My #48 post was only slightly refered to in subsequent posts. Its heart was “calling”. Kate said something like ACoC conservatives were being used by ACoC leaders which if that was a response to “calling” seemed to miss the point.
My point:
Katie, is there a point of ACoC devolution and error beyond which you could or would not stay in the ACoC on the basis of principle or conceivably “calling”? Or do you believe that it is God’s will (”calling”) (for all the good reasons that you have shared with us) for YOU and probably, at least, some others, to stay in ACoC no matter how false/disobedient things get there? (Jeremiah 43).
Kate and Warren: were you telling Katie, another servant of our Master, that she ought to do things the way you believe you are “called” to do them. Can God not call Katie to a path of response different from your path of response? Back to my #48 thought. The BIBLE does not speak with one voice on the matter of “call” to RESPOND to error like the one in the ACoC? ( John Bowen’s piece on Elijah and Obediah). If that is true of the bible’s diverse approach to RESPONSE then does anyone think that the HOLY SPIRIT is presently and sovereignly requiring an absolutely singular response to ACoC error in terms of “staying in or leaving” ACoC? If so, has the rational been revealed as well?
Kate: do you believe that you are called out of ACoC by God or was it your free choice given the impact of scripture and principle on you? Kate, do you believe that every faithful person in the ACoC IS being CALLED out of ACoC by God or do you allow for the Living God to allow for and even CALL for a variety of faithful responses to ACoC error?
Irena, 154 and to Warren and Katie: Warren did not rebuke Katie for her writing style. He criticized it as being not helpful to most readers. In fact , I found his comments on writing in seminary/theological circles in general rather entertaining, insightful and humorous. Iam sure that God will add to Katie’s considerable list of gifts, the increase of ability to write complex things in a followable form for more folk, ( I often wonder if someone might help Radner on this score!) But this is not a rebuke but an addmission of my and many others limits and the rarity of the gift of clarity and accessability of complex thought in theological writers. I want those truths more accessable to the ones that need the help the most!
No, Warren’s rebuke was for being on “the other team”. Astounding and so saddening! Irena, did you mean that Katie should accept THIS rebuke as from a BROTHER! If I read Warren’s statement accurately, he senses a KINSHIP with other bloggers that he does NOT sense with Katie. And Jesus wept! Irena, brothers know who their sisters are. I know Warren explained his reasons for the remark, (Warren, if you can not confidently celebrate that Katie has Salvation, then we are really in trouble) but the issue is not about rebuke but about “breaking fellowship with ACoC without giving up the claim to be Anglican”.
By all means, carry on that exploration please Katie and Warren. Katie, I am sorry that you agree with Warren that you 2 don’t share much in common! You both hold Jesus and are held by Him! That reality must overpower any difference of “school of thought” or else we in the Kingdom are actually missing the Kingdom! JESUS is OUR LORD! Is “communion” the same as “kingdom”?
I do not think that the fruit of these conversations has come to an end, (katie 149) and while this is an ANiC blog, there are many Iam sure who read this who share non ANiC callings, like myself, and are greatly helped by reading both sides of the rational for being called out or called to stay in. Many Anglicans in many Dioceses would be helped to clear their own thoughts and furthered in their own discernments if the core of the writings here on this issue of staying or leaving and its related theologies, could be compiled and published. This is a window into what is happening in parishes all across this land. And for that reason, let alone the public witness to Christ’s headship and reconciling power on this blog, I pray and hope that the unity that Katie and Warren have in Christ’s headship will be demonstrated on this blogsite. Don’t let it end this way. In Christ, Lazarus.
I have spent so long on this site that I forgot that it was an AEC blog and not an ANiC blog. I responded to Katie’s comment at the end of her 149 in my 161 LAST paragraph the way I did because of this tired oversight. My correction would therefore go like this. “and while this AEC blog does have a majority of ANiC minded comments in this topic of ‘Concerned Anglicans Respond to Toronto Bishops’, there are many Iam sure……”.
Kate, if you care to correct this , if it is clear, please do so. Therefore, you don’t need to post this correction piece if you make the change in the 161 piece, if that makes sense. Thankyou Kate. Lazarus
#159 Let’s not open that topic here, please. This thread is hard enough to follow as it is.
I participated in a group discernment process with my parish. Had the parish voted to stay, I would have (reluctantly) stayed with them, and tried to convince folks that it was time to go. If it became obvious that the parish wasn’t going to join ANiC, I would have had a very difficult (after 22 years at St. Alban’s) decision to make. I hope I would have left for an ANiC parish.
Discerning a call is very difficult, and I am suspicious of people who throw the words “God called me” around too easily. It too often can become an excuse to do what is comfortable, or what one wanted to do anyway. That having been said, and speaking in general terms: I believe that the Anglican Church of Canada is a spiritually dangerous place to be, and that it is foolish to stay if you have an alternative. I think that people who stay and encourage others to do so are in fact doing the Anglican communion harm. Do I think God would call people to that? No.
It is very hard to follow! Maybe some of our new posters could try and make several short posts rather than huge awkward ones. Separate paragraghs are also less intimidating than vast swathes of text.
Katie, I think Warren is right about the Reformers. They did have a strong sense of what makes for a true Church and what does not. In fact, in the Westminster Confession the Bishop of Rome is called the Antichrist! The general sense that I have from the Reformers is that they viewed correct teaching and church discipline as integral parts of the Church catholic, two areas in which the ACoC fails miserably.
He is?? I didn’t know that.
Lazarus (#161), I’m glad that at least a little of what I wrote was entertaining. We all could probably do with a bit more levity around here (the problem is my humour tends towards sarcasm). I did not have “rebuke” in mind in my exchanges with Katie; I was just debating.
I plead guilty to being critical of people remaining in the ACoC, but I don’t deny that God may be calling some to stay - especially in parishes where God’s Word is still being faithfully proclaimed. I just hope their calling is sure and that they are looking to the Bereans for inspiration. For parents in parishes where children are being exposed to false teaching, my recommendation is still to get out as fast as possible. For the majority in the pews, however, I don’t think it is a matter of calling. What is keeping them stuck to their pew is the inertia of history, family, location, aesthetic preference, resistance to change, etc. People who do not have a proper foundation in Scripture, or who do not have spiritual eyes to see the truth in God’s Word, are just being carried with the tide.
I think that since the Bible clearly condemns the sort of false teaching going on in the ACoC and since there are many great dangers involved in staying, that no one is called to stay in the ACoC. Some may resist God’s call out of the structure, but that would be in spite of the commands of his Word and the exhortation of the saints.
Like Kate, I am very suspicious of all this talk of “God called me”. I remember, when I was a child, reading about a man who murdered his family, claiming that God was calling him to do it. It is also problematic since the “other side” likes to say “God is calling us … to sweep away the Bible/ feel the winds of change/ chart a new course/ make a prophetic motion/ bless a few same-sex unions, etc. I do not mean to denigrate those who God has actually called to particular purposes, in whose ranks I would put myself, but in my mind the path of thought followed is often “this is what I want to do, ergo: God is calling me to do this.” In my own limitted experience, unless God calls you physically (i.e. like the voice that called Samuel in the Temple, or through the words of someone else who doesn’t know you [a word of knowledge]), it is very easy to mistake God’s call for “what I want to do”.
I recently made a bad mistake in this area of my faith, when I thought that God was calling me to date a certain person when he was not. Since I thought that it was God’s call, I blinded myself to the other person’s failings, and it wasn’t until 7 months had passed before I realized my mistake. It turned out that the girl I was dating had never been born again, and had never felt that she was in a relationship with God. Now, would God really call someone to marry a non-Christian? –Not if the Bible means anything! I think that this could be a good analogy for God’s call in the ACoC, since the Bible does speak clearly about what renders the ACoC a false church.
#167 I know what you mean. I ran into a friend the other day, and told (jokingly) told him that he should enlarge his musical horizons and come to the modern music service once in a while. His response was “Is it strictly prayerbook?” I said “No” and he replied “That’s my religion”. He was smiling, but I don’t think he was joking.
Sorry, I forgot to double space the paragraphs!
—Fixed. –admin.
This post is the most cogent explanation of why I have chosen to stay. It is long and perhaps too academic for some, so for that I apologize … I guess it is a disease of theologians (and once a disease of good preachers … have any of you ever read a 10 page sermon by the Church fathers or the Reformers?!) But the modernist notion that things concerning faith should be short, to the point, and directed at propositional statements of ‘what must I do’ fails to account for the complexity of what it means to be in constant discernment of God’s words and deeds through his people. I borrow very liberally from the words of Professor Ephraim Radner. But I think the case he makes would align with the one I have been trying to lay out. Here we go:
The history of the Church is filled with examples of groups who have thought themselves to be the bearer of God’s blessing into the future who have been proved right (just a few); and other groups (far more numerous) who have been proved wrong. Only God knows in this case. I do not place bets on churches.
However, for “Anglicanism”, I think this break-up— that can be avoided only through the miracle of prayer, fasting, and a change of hearts, or by a disciplined limiting of the losses – will prove a fatal disaster. I disagree with those, for instance, who see Anglicanism as equivalent with “Christianity” or “Mere Christianity”, the simple and “straightforward” faith of Christ, Scripture, Creeds, and … bishops or whatever. There is no genuine “mere Christianity” any longer in a world where Christians are divided and in fact engage in moral and physical murder of each other. There are, rather, truncated Christian groups, whose vocations (whether they perceive them or not) must be oriented to the healing of the Church in various ways. The notion that “ecclesiology” and “Gospel” are distinct realities is (in my mind) purely and simply wrong.
If Anglicanism is a reality and has been one, it is not only because of its doctrinal (in a broad sense) identity, but even more so because of its “historical” vocation. I believe that a major part of this vocation – for the sake of the larger Church’s healing – has been revealed in its development of and as “communion”, in a way that might teach and offer gifts to other churches. The demise or severance of that history will simply mean the loss and contradiction of that vocation. In this, all of us bear responsibility and accountability, and we will continue to make our political decisions and strategic manipulations now within the shadow of God’s judgment.
Some here think that I intend simply to “go down with the ship”, as some kind of virtue. That is not the case: there is no “intention” involved. I am bound to a ship – the Anglican Communion – that is currently “going down”. That is what a vow consists of. Barring the mercy of God – and I still trust in that! – that might keep this Communion afloat for the faithful furtherance of her mission, I will need to join with those who pronounce Anglicanism itself drowned as a whole, myself released from my particular vows, and my vocation reoriented towards another portion of Christ’s struggling Body. But because I trust in the mercy of God, and in the fact that He equips those whom He calls to fulfill their vocations, I have neither yet “gone down”, nor am I prepared to pronounce a eulogy. I pray daily for the leaders of our Church - all of them. And in this, I find great joy.
I cite a few passages of Scripture that have guided my discernment: 2 Tim. 4:1-8: “preaching the word, being urgent in season and out of season, convincing, rebuking, exhorting, being unfailing in patience and in teaching”, all things that he links to “steadiness, endurance of suffering, evangelizing, and service”, which finally give way, in his own life, to “being poured out as a sacrifice”, and thereby inheriting the “crown”. What more is there to do than this? When Paul uses the image of “pressure” (i.e. 2 Cor. 11:28), it is in terms of the “anxiety” he “bears for all the churches”, an anxiety that is part of his service of suffering as he has just enumerates it – a service that proves his apostleship more than anything else! As all this touches the shape of the church, it does so according to God’s will, not our own (2 Tim. 2:25; 3:9), even as we ourselves maintain a posture of “kindliness to everyone” and “forbearance” and “correction of opponents with gentleness”, “without quarreling” (2:24f.).
None of this need preclude some of the choices people have made – for ANiC – as long as they are made and carried out in this posture and with this hope and faith. My own concern, as I have repeatedly voiced it, is that we are all losing grasp of the shape of this calling, and instead of a good harvest, we shall reap the wind. Returning to the very points concerning the letter about which this long thread came about, I really don’t think the issue here is the contrast between “action” vs. “passivity” or “deeds” vs. “words”: it is the character of both our actions and words that is at issue, and the way each reflects the other with integrity. Because it is the character, the way, the daily living out of our calling not the final end goal that will be judged on the Last Day. It is the journey, not simply the destination for which we must account.
If you are not completely exhausted by now … this article will provide yet more good insight.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3436
It seems to me you are again operating under the assumption that ANiC is not part of the Anglican communion. This assumption is incorrect.
Actually Kate, what this statement refers to is the fact that people often accuse those who stay within the ACoC or TEC of ‘going down’ with the ‘other team’ or with the ship (as has been intimated on this thread). This statement makes absolutely no comment on ANiC’s status at all.
As I have said, according to the Communion (not my own judgment) the status of ACNA as a ‘new province’ is unclear. There have also been expressed concerns by some of the African Provinces about how relationships such as that between ANiC and the Southern Cone, with respect to the ACoC would fit into the governing structure should the Covenant become indicative of what it means to be part of the Anglican Communion. I point this out not to challenge ANiC’s status, but simply as the concerns brought forward by members of this Communion. I have no answers, nor would I care to speculate about how this might play itself out.
The point I was trying to make is that a vow to stay with the Anglican Communion does not preclude one from joining an ANiC church. We are part of the communion.
Katie,
You appear to think that the North American expression of Anglicanism is something worthy of allegiance even if it has become sub-Christian. Why?
Who are you to judge it sub Christian? That is God’s alone to sort out. Furthermore, even were we to be able to guarantee it to be subChristian 1. what do you do with those inside who are trying to remain faithful … what does Scripture say about this … better yet, what does Christ do even when ‘no one, no not one’ is faithful? 2. Scripture, figured in the OT and fulfilled in the New is about taking on the shape of the suffering servant, the one who stays even amidst sin, apostasy, heresy, for the sake of God’s work through these servants to show His work to the world. This is how God shapes his people into the image of his Son. Have a look at both the exilic literature of the OT and the Gospels. We cannot pick the pieces of Scripture out to support our various claims to truth; the truth must come from the constant communal discernment in which God, through his Spirit, shapes our living of that discernment, into the image of his Son. That is the testimony Scripture provides us with and calls us to. It has given us a shape to live out our faith and we are to conform our hearts and mind to it.
that final statement should be “… conform our hearts, minds and actions accordingly”
Katie [#176],
I’m no-one in particular, but I was under the impression that I am entitled to have an opinion about the organisation to which I belonged for 30 years. Were I alone in that assessment, I suppose I would question it more. I agree it is God’s to sort out; perhaps he is doing that by having people leave it.
I would have to ask what they wish to remain faithful to. Jesus asks us to be faithful to him, not an organisation, let alone an organisation that appears to have abandoned his teaching.
I think that the truth is contained in the Bible and it is our job to read it. Phrases like constant communal discernment can mean almost anything and, I fear, have contributed to the current muddle in the ACoC.
Maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t think you have answered my question as to why you believe the ACoC merits allegiance.
Katie (#171),
I have no beef with the academic treatment of a subject per se. I know that some subject matter can only be simplifed to a certain point, after which it starts to lose meaning. That said, I believe that much academic writing is unnecessarily dense and complex and serves only to confuse the reader rather than bring clarity. Just because one is an academic does not mean that one knows how to write well. I’m sure many editors would attest to this. There are doubtlessly times when you have read a lengthy treatise, perhaps several times over to ensure you understood author’s intent, only to realize that the author didn’t really have anything worthwhile to say that couldn’t have been summarized in a page or two. I am speaking now in general terms and am not pointing at you.
I don’t claim to be a good writer, but I work in an organization whose primary task is to write doctrine (military, not religious). We are very constrained as to the length of our publications which means we must continually strive to communicate our message in as concise a manner as possible. As our audience ranges from those with PhDs to those who only have a grade 10 education, we work hard to write in as simple and straightforward a manner as possible; even if the subject matter is complex (we also have three full-time editors to keep us on the straight and narrow, which is helpful).
I read George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” years ago, and it often comes to mind when I write. The military typically gives ground to no one when it comes to confusing and overly complex writing, and the use of confusing terminology.
Katie (#176), I know you are not an inerrantist (and I’m not sure you subscribe to the infallibility of Scripture), but how do you handle the many warnings in the Bible concerning false teaching? You seem willing to stand on some portions of Scripture while ignoring others (which, I would suggest, is now a defining characteristic of the ACoC).
David: “Maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t think you have answered my question as to why you believe the ACoC merits allegiance.” Because it is a Church that has its being in Jesus Christ. You cannot simply separate yourself from being judged as a part of this Church (again, read the exilic literature of the OT).
It is God’s to sort out indeed. But our actions are to take on a particular character and that is constant communal discernment … that is a Biblical and historical account of what it means to be faithful to God. Constant communal discernment has a particular character to it that has been broken by both TEC and the ACoC; I do not, nor have I ever denied this. The question that faces us right now, is what form and shape, what witness our actions take on as we try to figure out how we can move forward by girding up our structures to enable constant communal discernment with limit to autonomous action (which I assume is what you are referring to). You may believe that your witness of leaving for the truth is the action we all should take on, but how does leaving the ACoC (in the full context of Scripture - again, the Gospel account of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, and the exilic literature) fit into the biblical (and historical) shape of Christiformity? If you have left, fine; but ensure that your witness still retains this shape of life as I refer to in my original post.
“I would have to ask what they wish to remain faithful to. Jesus asks us to be faithful to him, not an organisation, let alone an organisation that appears to have abandoned his teaching.” What does it mean to be faithful to him according to you? What actions are faithful actions and what are not faithful actions? What criteria shall we use to judge these things? Scripture … yes, that’s a great answer. But how do we discern Scripture? Individually? As a Church?
Warren,
I understand your point re academics. I will endeavor to keep your point in mind as I move through the PhD.
I would have to examine the particular points of Scripture in order to provide an explanation of how they fit or challenge other points of Scripture. I cannot simply make a generalized reply. One concern within the divided Church that I can point to in more general terms, is that false teaching is often in the eye of the beholder. And this is precisely my point about ecclesial division. We have no common way of discerning what is not. Is the interpretation of Scripture concerning the assumption of Mary false teaching? Many Protestants think so, but Roman Catholics sure don’t. What about various fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture? Both Catholics and many Protestants believe much of what is said to be false teaching. And herein lies a key problem: Scripture has simply become an issue of personal interpretation for a given group wherein an authority of Scripture (and so also false teaching) is depended upon the claimants own opinion (see again the quote from Pelikan I made way up there somewhere). If this were not the case, we’d be moving, not in cognitive recognition, but in actual action and structure, toward unity, not toward further division … but this is obviously not the case. Churches are dividing constantly because they believe that one part of them is proclaiming false teaching.
The church universal has its being in Jesus Christ. It is a huge stretch to make that apply to the ACoC in this way. Are you suggesting that people who leave the ACoC for ANiC or another denomination are separating themselves as being judged as a part of a church?
Katie [181],
Let’s try this a little differently: do you think there is anything that the leaders of the ACoC could say and do that would lead you to the conclusion that, as an institution, without doing violence to the language, it can no longer be called a “Church”?
That appears to be an obfuscation: if the ACoC is still a Christian Church there is no reason to leave; if it isn’t, there is no reason to stay.
In the interest of brevity, it would not include remaining loyal to an organisation that denies Jesus’ teaching.
Kate,
“Are you suggesting that people who leave the ACoC for ANiC or another denomination are separating themselves as being judged as a part of a church?”
Could you clarify this? I’m not entirely sure what you mean.
“Let’s try this a little differently: do you think there is anything that the leaders of the ACoC could say and do that would lead you to the conclusion that, as an institution, without doing violence to the language, it can no longer be called a “Church”?”
Yes. But I don’t feel as though every single individual within the ACoC, nor within its leadership have done this. I would, if the ACoC does not sign onto the Covenant Agreement, choose to remain a part of the Communion and so give up my ministry in the ACoC … but that is because the decision about what constitutes ‘being Anglican’ would have been made by the whole (or greater or sounder part) of the Church … not by one group of it.
“That appears to be an obfuscation: if the ACoC is still a Christian Church there is no reason to leave; if it isn’t, there is no reason to stay.”
David, I do not believe that leaving the ACoC is necessary as it is still a Christian Church. Unless you can clearly define what a Christian Church is with God’s authority in your discernment (which for me is something only the whole Church, not individual groups within that Church) can together discern, then I don’t think one’s action to leave aligns one with Scripture’s call to us. If you’ve left … fine you’ve left … then witness faithfully according to the witness given to us in Jesus Christ.
“In the interest of brevity, it would not include remaining loyal to an organisation that denies Jesus’ teaching.” I don’t find self proclaimed autonomous action to be compatible with Jesus’ teaching … regardless of whether that is about SSB or about breaking apart from a Church that the majority of the rest of the Communion still considers a member of the Communion.
What I mean is, you gave as your reason for staying in the ACoC that one should not separate oneself from the church. This seems to me to imply that you don’t think other churches are real churches. Is that what you meant to say?
There has been no self proclaimed autonomous action. ANiC has chosen to stay aligned with the majority of Anglicans around the world. In addition, judging from the complete lack of discipline levied against +Ingham and +Chapman for allowing SSB’s (or for declaring intent to allow them), why would you have any confidence that the leadership of the ACoC would honour their signatures on the covenant?
Lazarus 161: Look at Warren’s post in 153. He is not calling into question Katie’s salvation.
Katie [#185],
I imagine there are some Christians in the Mormon church, too; your reasoning would prevent them from leaving. What if the ACoC “signed on” to the Covenant but didn’t adhere to it?
You seem to be saying that a person cannot – while staying true to Jesus’ teaching - decide for himself whether to stay in a specific church or not. Are you?
Katie (#182),
Belief in the assumption of Mary has no basis in Scripture and is simply a tradition of the Catholic Church. Because I’m a Protestant, I don’t accord tradtion the same status as the Bible (although I do respect it) and, if there is contradiction between the two, I believe that God’s Word trumps the Church’s authority. I have no qualms about calling anyone who teaches that Mary’s assumption is biblical a false teacher. From what I can see, you’re not so much challenging the ANiC as you are challenging mainstream Protestant teaching for the past 400+ years. Your respect for tradition doesn’t appear to include Reformation tradition.
Communal discernment definitely has merit, but the ACoC has proven that it can lead to communal blindness.
Katie: Can you define ‘communal discernment’? And can you tell me why you don’t consider ANiC to have exhibited it?
I’m thinking that you are confusing what we have done (carefully, prayerfully, patiently, Biblically and with the support of the wider Anglican Communion) with the undisciplined individualism that is sometimes the source of schism in North America.
Bla, bla, blah, blah, blauh, blaug, blaug!!!
There are fourteen Christian people who have addressed a unique problem in our diocese. These are sincere and frightened but very generous and gifted officers of our church. They are in my estimation priests who sit in council with our High Priest. Do not take lightly the “thread” as you are want to say.
This is not about the ACoC, ANiC, or AE. all of whom have many members of the Body of Christ. This is not about staying or leaving, It’s not about any high faluting, intellectual, theological reasoning. (with apologies to any high faluting intellectuals in the mix) It’s not about choices that individuals have made. It’s about a problem.
These fourteen need either your unqualified support or your prayful studied critique. So do those of us who are on the fence, or just lack sufficient understanding or have left Anglicanism for nether regions.
I thank God for his grace that I have not acted upon the temptations of my ignorance or my anger. I am an Anglican no one can tell me which kind. Jesus did that when he imprinted my forehead at my baptism. But there you go see, I’m equally guilty
It’s not about me either.
Love in Christ Jesus
Stuck (#192),
As an engineer, I know that, unless the root cause(s) are identified and eliminated, a problem cannot really be solved. Temporary relief can be obtained by applying band-aids, but, as the root causes continue to fester, the problem typically re-emerges at a later date in an even worse form.
How would you describe the unique problem of which you speak? Do you believe the “proposed pastoral response” is a root cause, or do you see it as the symptom of a deeper and more serious problem?
Warren
You demonstrate depth in not speaking to my sarcasm. Of which in retrospect I’m sorry for. The root cause as you correctly put is not clearly defined by the 14. That is why I identified them as “frightened”. The “problem” they speak to (the recent anouncement by Toronto Bishops of their unique plan to introduce SSB’s ) is the core message of their brave letter. I believe it is a dropping of the gauntlet in a most intelligent manner. The root cause is seen differently by different folks. One might say it’s SSB another the Prayer book issue, yet another, Woman’s Ordination. The root cause is the successful incursion of the enemy. Of that I have no doubt. Can I label our Bishop’s Anti Christ, God forbid. Do I dare point a finger at anyone praise God NO!
I will sum up with a Colloquel paraphrase. “United we stand divided we weaken” I do not believe that at various synod votes people were not aware of this. What was so shocking is that no one acted on it.
194 entries, eh? I’m not going to read though them all, just enquire as to whether we at last have an answer to the long running theological conundrum, how many angels can dance on a head of a pin? I am sure you must have got to that one.
If not, I’m sure it can be a new topic born from my facetious thread-wrecking attempt.
Peter (#195), you’re just trying to ensure we make it past 200, aren’t you?
Stuck(#194), I’m hardly one to criticize anyone for sarcasm. I think that many in the ANiC camp would point to a low view of Scripture as the root cause for much of what is currently happening in the ACoC. By low view, I mean questioning whether it is, in its entirety, truly the inspired Word of God, and also subordinating it to man-made agendas rather than humbling one’s self in obedience before it - no matter the cost. How do you view this perspective?
Warren;
I cannot for the life of me understand how any Christian person could question the validity of scripture. Without it we have no reference point. To try to select portions or turn one passage as contrary to another is to court disaster. “All scripture is given by God for reproof, study etc.” to contradict this statement is a basic faith issue not an intellectual one. “Reason” as a leg of the stool is a vain thing, save it is preceded by faith. “test all things” is a statement that applies to those who journey forward, in faith, in Christ. It is not a challenge to the Atheist or the non-believer.
“subordinating it to man-made agendas rather than humbling one’s self in obedience before it”
This one is obvious I’m sure.
Jesus made it abundantly clear “live in the world but be not a part of it”. In other words we can have compassion and love for sinners. Jesus sure did! But we must not condone, support or ignore the sin. Jesus sure didn’t.
For those in our community
oops pushed the wrong button!
… community who fit into these two scenarios. I can only think that they have been caught up in the web of the deceit of who is full of wrath. Is this a judgement call? I pray not. for I believe the lost of our tribe has become part of the great commission and I feel that Anglican Essentials and the 14 see it that way. ANiC correctly so (still in association) has moved in another direction to prepare a new house for us all. the old one is crumbling. Warren I hope your questions were sincere and not a ploy to draw me into the very thing I criticized about this blog or blaug as I put it. If so you have been successful and I see your point.
However the 14 are still Hanging (should I include here) out or on or just leave it blank. The response to their public witness is for God’s contemplation not ours. the questioning of their motives is senseless. I think there should have been at least one parade by now with bands, pretty girls, and fireworks and crowds along the way full of righteous Joy. Don’t you Warren?
#196 - absolutely and categorically not, such a baseless motive would be beneath me….oh wait, look, here we are at 200. How did that happen?
Stuck (#199), no problem with the “oops”. I think it has allowed me to lay claim to comment #200.
I may not have a lot of patience with people who drop by to make snide comments (usually annonymously) and then are never heard from again, but I enjoy interacting with people who are genuinely interested in discussion - even if I disagree with them. I may hold strong opinions, but I’m smart enough to realize that I don’t have it all figured out and I can learn from people with whom I disagree. In many cases I also try to convince people that my opinion is correct, and sometimes use leading questions in doing so.
It may be hard to understand, but it happens all the time. Of course, those who claim to be Christians, may not actually be so - although it is not normally for us to judge. I hold to a view of both the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Although this view is line with much of historic Christianity, it is one that would be rejected by many ACoC clergy and academics. It would also likely be poo-pooed in ACoC-approved seminaries as being old fashioned and uninformed, and some would even consider it to be dangerously fundamental.
If you aren’t familiar with the term inerrancy, the best summary of it (that I am aware of) can be found in the Chicago Statement of 1978:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
The statement was signed by many evangelical leaders at the time, including J.I. Packer (I don’t know if any other Anglican leaders were signatories). I suspect that any member of the clergy within the ACoC holding unashamedly to this statement would likely be viewed with derision by many of his peers.
I understand your feeling that the Toronto 14 should be fully supported. I can also understand those who feel it is too little, too late. It is not as though a sudden problem has arisen within the ACoC. Although many may not have had eyes to see it, the “problem” (which I define as the rejection of the authority of Scripture) has been developing for decades. In my opinion, it likely goes back over 100 years to when liberal theology began seriously challenging the authority of God’s Word.
Although some of your comments have been hard to decipher, I sense that you are orthodox in your perspective, hold God’s Word in high regard, and desire to be obedient to Him. To use an expression from my past, stay in the Word. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. May God bless you as you seek to follow Him.
Rats, Peter beat me to #200 while I was busy typing.
Warren - I am familiar with the chicago statement. I have always held that there was a lot of high priced help that ended up declaring things I learned in Sunday school. For instance the infallability (Warren, that’s a Roman Catholic word usually ascribed to the Pope) of scripture was described as “Jesus loves me this I know. For the Bible tells me so.” Do not think for one second that I do not hold these persons in very high esteem Dr. Packer especially who I have been blessed to hear speak several times now. We all have different schools. I believe the Chicago Statement was directed at those who missed Sunday School but did all their homework - got degrees believed in free love supported by their drugs and came to the “inspired” conclusion, that it wasn’t Father but they who new best.
“I can also understand those who feel it is too little, too late. It is not as though a sudden problem has arisen within the ACoC. Although many may not have had eyes to see it, the “problem” (which I define as the rejection of the authority of Scripture) has been”
Hey Warren; are you pulling my leg. In the world it’s the squeaky wheel that get’s the grease. In the Kingdom we find that patience is not just a virtue but a delicious fruit of the Spirit. I am sorry you have trouble deciphering. Here read it again.
“I believe the lost of our tribe has become part of the great commission and I feel that Anglican Essentials and the 14 see it that way. ANiC, correctly so (still in association) has moved in another direction to prepare a new house for us all. the old one is crumbling.”
As I said earlier hmm much earlier I am concerned at this moment more about Anglicans than the ism.
Brother mine, consider yourself admonished…this is a word usually found in scripture to descri………….
With LOVE in Christ
Stuck (#203),
Apart from upholding the Toronto 14 in prayer, which I hope all who have commented here could agree on, what other presecriptions do you have for helping Anglicans? No leading questions - I think you likely have some worthwhile things to say.
I don’t mind being admonished, but would you care to share a little more? I can probably take a reasonable guess at where you are going, but Paul was never cryptic. You might even persuade me to mend my ways.
Warren; I am the least of all to to think myself qualified as an admonisher. However I don’t think that should stop anyone from stepping up so long as the motivation is love alone. Admonishment to put it another way is holding each other accountable in the spirit of Christian Relationship. This is were unity gets its beginnings. The success of human relationship joined with the Christ Has to be unconditionalism or unconditionality. “Unconditional” happens to Christians when they are dead to self, this supernaturally morphs love and trust into a fear destroying power that allows the breakdown of restrictions to relationship that has been built up by the Evil one since, well….day one I guess.
In recent posts I have not intended to be cryptic If that is so it is either in the way words are sent or they are received. (no sarcasm here) I suspect knowing me that it is in my choice of words and their placement. In my defence I can only say that I have not, as Paul was, interrupted on a Damascus road with a Holy 2×4 upside my head. (I pray for this daily)
Consider “Holy Relationship” in comparison with typical Anglican Parish life I believe you will find it wanting.
Stuck (#205), I’m heading off on a work-related trip for a few days and won’t be connected to the Internet. Nor will I be making any further posts to this thread.
I wanted to say, however, that I’ve enjoyed interacting with you and have found your posts to be the most thought provoking of any on this thread (even though I didn’t fully understand everything you said). Hopefully you’ve had opportunity to thank your Sunday School teachers - it sounds like you had some great ones. God bless, and perhaps we will bump into each other on another thread.
Amen. Now to try and collect from this thread all the excellent relevant material for lay readership as they try to sort through the matter of ACoC, ANiC or another option when the decision comes to their parish doorstep! Oh for a secretary!! Peace
Spent over an hour last night trying to read through all the submissions. The one thing that struck me most was how we each try to rationalize why I stay/go, but more than that, why the other person should do as I have done. And it seems to me that as long as other people, who seem to be likeminded, do not do as I have done, then that must cast doubt on my decision, and something I was so sure about gets a little muddied.
Is it not possible that we cut each other a little slack? I can understand and empathize with those who have made the move to ANIC. Can you allow me equal integrity if I say that I must stay?
Warren Just in case you take another look -Thanks
ML greetings!
In my humble opinion it is not whether you stay or go. But why you stay or Go. Care to share?
My thinking follows (to save your scrolling finger)
In the world it’s the squeaky wheel that get’s the grease. In the Kingdom we find that patience is not just a virtue but a delicious fruit of the Spirit. “I believe the lost of our tribe have become part of the great commission and I feel that Anglican Essentials and the 14 see it that way. ANiC, correctly so (still in association) has moved in another direction to prepare a new house for us all. the old one is crumbling.”
Three more unassociated senior students have joined the fray with their own parallel letter. Imagine if the Bishop’s received several hundred? I’m sending one right now!
“Dear Bishop’s
I am in complete agreement with the two letters sent to you that have recently been made public regarding your decisions about implementing SSB’s. Cease and desist, or resign. Repent and reform or destroy, at your peril.
In the Name and Spirit that is our Lord Jesus.
A too small voice who has decided to wait no longer for the pastoral ministry promised - so long ago.
Consider this. When one’s computer has a serious virus that none of the conventional programs can erase, one either gets a new computer or erases the hard drive and starts all over. In either case it is essential to insure that no traces of the original virus exist. Therefore any programs that were infected or created by this virus must be removed. And not reused.
I fear that ANiC and her sister organizations in common cause i.e.; those who are working diligently in the necessary creation of a new N.A. province might fail to completely eradicate those elements in the old and corrupted Anglicanism and consequently and unintentionally infect the New.
I have opinions as to some of those “elements” but my opinions are not verified. However there is a very clear and present clue in identifying these elements. This is where our original state has failed. If a policy or practice creates division than there must be a moratorium applied until consensus is reached and division ceases. To paraphrase; Some of the people can be wrong all the time and all of the people can be wrong some of the time but not all the people can be wrong all the time. Politically it is wrong to consider ourselves “Democratic”. We are monarchists loyal to the Kingship of Jesus, and in subjection to the will of our Father. Democracy cannot measure up to the self governance (the rod of Iron) that we are called to. As the “laws of the land” require enforcement to be effective, the law that Jesus completed has no enforcement save voluntary compliance.
#209
My husband and I have always said we will stay until we are thrown out in keeping with John 16:2 and keep the trumpet sounding true (Ezekiel 33:6). Not too difficult at present since we worship in a “true” church and diocese. But there was a time a few years ago when we were put out of another church and another diocese. A move can sometimes solve such a problem. The heartbreaking part is the people who are left behind without biblical leadership. But even there we must trust our Lord’s assurance in John 10:27-29.
#211
Had all the people who are presently so vocal for truth in our church been as vocal ten to twenty years ago we probably wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now. And quite frankly, I feel somewhat abandoned. If the Essentials situation is hopeless (and only God can decide that) then it has certainly been impacted by the departure of these same people who now no longer attend our synods to vote for what is right.
(And I agree with what you are saying about consensus and viruses.)
ML I have come to believe that in my diocese many Synod Rep’s were stacked. I confess, I have no proof (there put your lawyers away now HOB). I agree that the departure of so many (and I just don’t mean to ANiC) has weakened the orthodox cause in our church. My question - is there an orthodox cause left? Yes, in your Diocese and thank God in your worshipping community. Perhaps yours will be the first diocese in Canada to weigh anchor for the New Province in N/A.
When I hitch my star it will be to the one I think Jesus is on.
Essentials was being vocal ten years ago. (Founded in 1994).
Part of what makes this discussion difficult is that the situation is not uniform across the country. There is no future for a priest in the diocese of Ottawa who is orthodox - and the selection process for candidates for ordination selects for “progressive” views, not necessarily calling. Maybe if I lived where you do, ML, I would not feel so strongly about joining ANiC being the right choice. I do believe, though, that it will only be a matter of time before folks who live in other areas of the country will be faced with the same decision I was.
ML & Kate; Kate you seem to have brought us back to whether or not we should leave the ACoC versus why we should leave. First off none have left their first estate (the Body of Christ.) Secondly, members of AniC have not left their second estate the Anglican Church catholic. Thirdly depending on the “why” many, including members of Anglican Essentials, ML, and many others Have also not left their “second estate”. There is evidence that the ACoC is in fact departing from its “first estate” As God’s people within the ACoC reach their INDIVIDUAL point of no return. They to will abandon the sinking ship or as I put it earlier the collapsing house. The inevitable result will be a “leaner meaner” Anglican church in North America. or as I am want to describe “the AciNA.” and unless it repents, the ACiC will become a dysfunctional, non Christian Canadian institution to serve the
world and its needs.
ML since I currently have no church to attend I included your passages as part of my morning prayer. One of my current daily devotionals required the study of Acts 20, imagine my joy on reading St. Paul’s (departure) message specifically Acts 20:27-31
“There is evidence that the ACoC is in fact departing from its “first estate” As God’s people within the ACoC reach their INDIVIDUAL ”
Please forgive my sloppiness the above line quoted from the my previous input should have read “There is evidence that the ACoC is in fact departing from its “first estate”. As God’s people within the ACoC reach their INDIVIDUAL point of no return, they to
(not a day goes by that I don’t regret my lack of education.)
Dear Stuck, Re #210, Your letter to the bishops was probably either a joke or what you would want to write if the Holy Spirit wasn’t constraining you. Since I understand and share,generally speaking, your real frustration, I would say that you/we are being tested, not on our willingness to speak out to those in authority, but on our humility in relationship to those in authority. This is a huge topic in scripture and we can miss it because of the “rightness” of our cause. Speak we must! Silence is not an option unless commanded by the Holy Spirit. However, Satan is sifting those who will stray outside of the Spirit of Christ and take on attitudinal weapons not found in Phil. 2:5-11. Again, please forgive me for taking your letter seriously if it was not intended that way. On the off chance that you meant every word of it; to me it sounds NOT like the Spirit that is our Lord Jesus Christ that inspired Galatians 6:1, (granted the context is different, but the spirit of it isn’t). Perhaps we really need Esther’s fasting and wisdom when approaching our bishops’ whom we see being highjacked on this issue of what real pastoral generousity is all about! PS. Have you seen the now old movie “The Mission” with Rob DeNiro and Jeremy Irons, re the Jesuit missions in South America. (Gabriel’s Oboe). There is a scene worth reviewing when Deniro stridently speaks out against those in authority and his jesuit leader Irons has to pick up the pieces of DeNiro’s passionate diatribe, which incidentaly gave those in authority a convenient distraction from facing the real issue! Our message is too important to be dismissed because its delivery is wanting! Am I suggesting that our bishops would look for a convenient diversion? No, but our delivery still must be above reproach! Risen Blessings, Lazarus
Lazarus;
Thank you for your council. I read it as loving instruction, and in general recognize the need to re-think my approach. I confess it was my intention to send that letter verbatum to the HOB. Thank the Lord I have not yet done so.
I think you have brought this thread to a place of importance akin to “Words of Wisdom”.. the questions that follow are not intended as debate, but rather that the answers might enlighten me and others perhaps.
My letter repeated
I am in complete agreement with the two letters sent to you that have recently been made public regarding your decisions about implementing SSB’s. Cease and desist, or resign. Repent and reform or destroy, at your peril.
In the Name and Spirit that is our Lord Jesus.
A too small voice who has decided to wait no longer for the pastoral ministry promised - so long ago.
Should I have ended with; this letter does not necessarly reflect the opinions of my Lord and Saviour? Which is obviously true. (or left it out altogether?)
Should I re-write my demands to sound like a request similar to the other two letters. for instance; dear Bishops please reconsider your actions for I fear they may lead to dis-unity.
Or, I pray that the Holy Spirit might lead you to repentence that the church of my Baptism may be saved from further harm.
Or a completely new approach: Dear Bishops I have listened and read, travelled to forums and talked with my Priest and my Bishop. I have yet in the past 10 years to hear one yes, just one, reason for the logic of SSB’s. For Christ’s sake Bishops ….just one.
OK Brother now that I’ve Got that off my chest let’s shift to the other hand. I spoke earlier of patience. Should I do nothing? You know I would feel like Nero. Should I just let things happen? Can I not question my Bishops and if questions fail, can I not make demands? Should I fold up shop, get off this blog, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide me in the will of the Father, in a whole new direction? Believe me that’s in every prayer.
Do I sound angry? If so it is like the disciple who cut off the ear of the soldier who would dare touch his Master, Yes he was wrong. But the time was not complete it was not yet finished, but when our Lord said “It is finished” It was. The gift is complete. There is NOTHING MORE TO ADD. We either stand firm from that moment with all the attendent teachings given or we WILL be lured away. Lazarus I thank God for His Grace that I know the wrongness of my anger. I am incomplete and desire any help from my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, whom I declare as Lord of All.
PS - including my Bishops
Stuck re 218: It is late so I’ll be brief and comment further at a later date. What strikes me besides your hurt/sense of betrayal is this idea; Jesus does not need you to defend Him or His gospel. He calls you to obey His ways. I know that I need Grace for that. May you find the grace to obey His ways when you speak sincerely, from the heart to those who need to hear what Christ is saying through you. We are held accountable for our imput, not the outcome, as much as we need His wisdom to guide our imput! I know this doesn’t do justice to your inner circumstance. More later. Peace in the midst!
Laz
“Jesus does not need you to defend Him or His gospel”
I agree, but I believe he wants us to. “Galations Chap 2″. I do not mean to detract from the “how” of our actions. But if the truth is that we are not to defend I need more concrete evidence of that.
Please consider that my limited purpose (ministry) is in defence of the Church. Oh I know “the gates of hell will not prevail against her”. But that does not change the fact that “even the very elect of God would fail, save the time would be shortened.” Oh my Lord help me. It has just now occured to me (for the first time) that this might refer to the Jews. (His chosen) If that is the case than one of the “legs” of my paradygm is cracked and therefore suspect. Again can you (or anyone help me). You are right about accountability. I think I must stop writing for awhile. I will be listening.
Dear Stuck, re #220, “But if the truth is that we are not to defend, i need more evidence of that” I said that Jesus doesn’t NEED us to, not that we are not to. We are to (Gal. 2), in obedience and Grace. My point is to obey Him in the “how” as well as the “what” and to follow not lead, to serve Him as our focus not challenge others as our focus. This avoids SELF being in the centre of the issue and keeps Jesus there, in our hearts, so that it is not about ME having to confront , but JESUS leading me to represent Him when HE wants. We need to be free of what I think is a trap that our nature can fall for re what is driving us on the inside. I can not comment right now re the “cracked leg”. Peace in the midst and “listening” would be a good action for me too.
Lazarus (221):
I don’t know about you, but my opposition to the ACoC does not come from ‘what is driving me inside’ but from the very Word of God itself, objectively and eternally true.
Though the Lord himself was perfect in attending to the Father’s voice, he was quick to say when necessary: “Get thee behind me, Satan!” Sometimes, peace and ‘listening’ is not the appropriate ‘action’.
Irena(222), Sometimes our “flesh” is using the Word. How (attitudinally) we oppose the ACoC was the focus of my statement, not that we use the word to oppose it. God examines our hearts to see if there is any wickedness in us. Listening is a good way to get our HEARTS right with God before we go about taking logs out of ACoC eyes. “This then is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason, {or with a wrong attitude}” That may not be 100% biblical, but it says in a way, one of the things I’m saying to Stuck. Speak the Truth in Love. Risen Blessings.
Hey Laz I’m not sure that I don’t “Speak the truth in Love”. In any event consider that this is not about you or me or any one else participating. This is about the Body of Christ and our place in it.
Risen Greetings! Have any of you heard that The Bishop of Toronto asked the Toronto Anglican to not publish the letter from K. Sider-Hamilton, to keep things from getting more conflicted in the Diocese!!! Is This true? Is this censorship? Selfserving? Worthy of a story in the Toronto Star? A separate entry on this blog? On the Federation site too!