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
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?