From the Times:
Liberals in the Church of England declared war on conservatives including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams tonight.
Condemning as “flawed” Dr Williams’s recent declaration that the way forward lay in a “twin-track” Anglican Communion, liberals revealed plans to bring in same-sex blessings and gay ordination in England, as has happened in the Episcopal Church in the US.
Their strategy will be to attempt to win the General Synod, the Church’s governing body currently dominated by evangelicals, over to the liberal cause. The opportunity will come next year when the quinquennial elections for a new synod are due.
Liberals from organisations such as Inclusive Church, set up and led by Giles Fraser, the new canon chancellor of St Paul’s, and the long-established Modern Churchpeople’s Union, will attempt to win key seats throughout the Church’s 44 dioceses in what look likely to be the hardest fought elections since the synod came into being in 1970 and which could turn into a battle for the soul of the established Church.
If they take enough of the 400-plus seats in the houses of clergy and laity, the liberals will attempt to bring in total acceptance of homosexuals, overturning all restrictions on their ministry and approving same-sex blessings for civil partnerships and gay ordinations and consecrations.
Perhaps and it is with tongue in cheek that I say it, the Archbishop of Canterbury will take a stand here ~ If he doesn’t, then He will have waffled and fudged deep into overtime.
NOW IS THE TIME to take the stand that the Conservative Orthodox Anglican Communion should have taken a long time ago. The outcome of this will be the quickening of the new Anglican Communion, one without those who need not be greeted or fed (See 1 John). It appears obvious that the liberal faction in the
C of E have likely done their homework again and will come up with the numbers they need. They must be studying under the tuterage of another major religion about doing things only when the percentages are in place to allow them to move on to the next step of their agenda.
There is a real danger here. Some dioceses have difficulty finding enough people to fill their seats for General Synod. If the liberals target these dioceses and there are not enough Evangelicals to oppose them, their plans might work. However, the announcement may also focus minds on recognising ACNA in February.
I continually find it surprising that most people expect Rowan to take a stand against the liberal faction in the Church as some point in time. IMHO he never will. His writings before he became ABC attest to the fact that his personal convictions are far more liberal than they are orthodox. His inaction over the current crisis in North America has been widely taken to represent a lack of leadership but I don’t think that this is really the case. Rather, I believe that he holds the position of ABC to be one of great responsibility and trust. Accordingly he tries to keep his liberal side in check as a means to provide a perspective of “balance” in the situations he has had to deal with over here. Like someone standing by and watching a crime unfold and doing nothing about it, Rowan’s inaction is not really passive but is in fact abetting the situation. It will be interesting to watch and see if his liberal side becomes more evident now that he has to deal with the same issues on his home turf. I’ll bet it does. In any case, the liberal initiative in the UK will provide further clarity to all biblically faithful Anglicans across the Anglican communion that the time to come together should not be put off much longer.
Winter Traveler (#3), I agree.
Why wouln’t The gay lobby go to the attack with the example of TEC’s sucess in defeating the Traditional believers. To defeat the enemy in battle you need strong leadership and a concrete strategy to win. You can’t sit on the fence. If the ABC would take up the Cross of Jesus with no if ands or buts, we would see God move in wonderous ways and stop the hemmoraging of the Church. Until such a time we have to do our share by battling in the spiritual realm through our intercessary prayers.
Winter Traveler (#3) I disagree
and I accept your Bet!
You said “I believe that he holds the position of ABC to be one of great responsibility and trust.” -this I agree with and it is precisely why I believe now that his focus has been forced away from the larger communion and into his own backyard he will be forced to choose. I’m betting that He will shift his thinking in favour of Christ.
If I am wrong coffee and donuts are on me! Want in Warren? Anybody?
Be careful Stuck. Warren’s judgement is impecable.
Considering the bishop of Durham’s more outspoken comments of late, my money is with the traveler. Can Anglican priests gamble? Considering all the troubles we have, I guess just this once.
There is something dark and sinister about this “war on conservatives in the church” For the first time the word war is used by these people (some would call liberals) and clarifies what it really is and has been all along.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
As I have stated in prior messages, it is long time past for orthodox Anglicans to dispense with the polite terminology of “conservatives” and “liberals”. As orthodox believers we must understand we are dealing with apostates, NOT liberals. The apostates have abandoned the truth and seem to believe God and His word is subject to their approval. There are many issues in which we could refer to persons as being liberal or conservative but when one crosses the line of God’s word and the uniqueness of Christ he/she is no longer ‘liberal” but “apostate”.
Winter Traveler (#7), I suspect that about 3000 kms separate us, but you might still hear my wife laughing.
For #6 and #3
Considering the failure on the part of ABC to act with respect to what has and continues to happen in North America, I firmly agree with #3. The best prediction of future behaviour is past behaviour and that would suggest that the ABC will simply do what our Canadian Primate and his colleagues have done and are continuing to do – that is to sit on the fence and smile while the church continues in its rapid descent into apostasy, unbelief and irrelevance. #6 is obviously a priest and I would ask if he respects and honours his bishop if that bishop is among those that simply sit on the fence and smile.
This is shaping up grreaat.
Warren and winter, obviously (I think) one of you is on an Island in the carib. whichever one it is (and heaven help us if you are up in the arctic somewhere) whichever way the “Bet” (don’t worry padre I have it on good authority that our Lord wants us to enjoy ourselves) goes can we collect at your place say in about february?
Frank technically your right, liberals who have acted in apostacy are apostates but there are some who remember clearly “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me”. even as the broad brush title of this thread indicates (carelessly) that all liberal Anglicans are involved I don’t believe that! As I am hoping my senior Bishop will prove (I love donuts) so……are you in. But in answer to your question it depends on which bishop. BTW friend I’m an old soldier fading away, but aren’t we all called to a Royal Priesthood?
Sandra #9 were have you been sister – we have been at war since prince ugly arrived (that would be shortly after the ascension) Sorry I’m sure you know that but let me try and calm the waters. There has been no “Declaration of War” per-say I believe this is just eye-catching headline. Having said that I’m hoping that this advance warning of liberal intent (unprecedented) will be very detrimental to the “agenda”. This will surely shake the fence and when the dust settles there will be far fewer sitters. Including my Arched Bishop of Cantelope Which side do you think he’ll fall? I could use some allies, not that I’m worried about the cost of donuts or anything. (; besides we already know how this war ends – so everybody …go to your window open it up and shout PRAISE GOD – unless you’re in the arctic, than wait for the general confession absolution at your next communion and let er rip.
Stuck (#13), you’re not even close. I now have a beautiful, unobstructed view of Pike’s Peak from my deck (although a dark thundercloud is covering it at the moment). At the speed things move in Anglican land, I think the doughnuts will have petrified long-before the ABC says something sufficiently clear to know what “side” he is really on. I don’t know where ABCs get buried, but his epitaph will probably be as obtuse as his recent pronouncements.
For #13
You have not indicated your Diocese and I have no idea as to the position of your Bishop. The only question I have is why does he/she not stand up and take a strong position for orthodoxy. Failure to do so only places him on the sidelines, maybe not with a smile, but at best a dead head floating on the water. The only truly liberal Anglicans would stand up against apostasy and this is not happening. To clarify my definition of “liberal” I would refer to issues such as the appropriate age of baptism, confirmation, attendance at the Lord’s supper, and, yes, perhaps women ordination (which incidentally I support and believe is supported by Scripture). The term “liberal” cannot appropriately be applied to apostasy and this is precisely why I have made a point of “calling a spade a spade and not a shovel”. I am sure you understand my meaning.
Again, might I say you have my sympathy being “Stuck in Toronto”
Frank #15; There is definite evidence to assume the ABC is liberal but so far nothing to indicate HIS OFFICE will go the way of aposticy. that takes care of the head guy. Now a little history I was fortunate to attend the very first discussions on the formation of Essentials. I found the principals talking way over my head so I discontinued participation but not membership. When ANiC formed as an offshoot I joined, however I was taken to task on the issue of serving two masters ie; remaining in my ACoC dio of TO parish and being a member of ANiC. I left my ACoC parish when I became convinced that I alone was concerned and therefore had no voice. (this might still prove to be a mistake) I am still not reconciled to having membership in only one branch of the Anglican Communion. I see myself as a baptised Anglican with very strong ties and loyalty to the Communion. I interpret this to mean all Anglicans. This spiritually includes those like TAC and the Ang. Cath. church in Canada etc. etc. I recognize this perhaps goes against the grain. However when I first heard the term “Common Cause” my heart jumped, the only time since was when I heard Metro Jonah speak at the first ACNA convention. In my defence the issue of SSBs has brought clearly to me that all differences down through the ages that have led to separation have as there root cause the influence of principalities and powers. Perhaps I put too much store in our Lord’s call to “oneness” and “unity” but I grew up praying every Sunday “for the unity of the Church militant here on earth”. I believe that looseafur puts far more attention to this than we frail and sometimes silly humans. So for me any Bishop that does not “speak with forked tongue” has my obediance. The rest are misguided incorrect anti-Christs who might still yet be saved.
You said – “To clarify my definition of “liberal” I would refer to issues such as the appropriate age of baptism, confirmation, attendance at the Lord’s supper, and, yes, perhaps women ordination” You (as should all of us) are quite right in being concerned about these issues they are (along with miriad others) little chinks that have been removed from the foundation. relatively harmless in some cases but all serve to weaken us. Unless we place all of our motive on love and oneness through Christ we will continue to remove little chunks of our Church. Praise God once again for the surety that Hell cannot prevail. But its rightful #1 resident will continue to damage us but PRAISE GOD AGAIN that he knows “He has but a short time” and in his impatience often lately has been showing his hand. For this reason we should shift our thinking away from our troubles and toward the purity of our new/old province ACNA. (Staff of this blog I hope you agree). In other words we should continue to be aware inwardly but should focus more outwardly at this time.
On a more personal note Frank can I assume/guess that you are CANMILEXCH? a bit of a longshot but then so is Pike’s peak.
To all: if forgiveness is needed for the overly long comment or any perception of pontification I beg it. Obviously I am somewhat lonely and definately Stuck.
I goofed my second last paragraph should read Warren not Frank
Stuck (#16 & 17), you’re very close. I’m doing a “hardship” posting with NORAD.
As a protestant, when I think of Christian unity, I think in terms of the fellowship of saints or the family of true believers. To be biblically faithful, it may be more important for me to be in unity with someone who attends a church a mile down the road than with the person sitting next to me in the pew. To think of unity in terms of a particular denomination or a group of people who gather together in a building each week is too limiting.
With respect to liberalism, you failed to mention the real defining issue – the faithfulness and trustworthiness of God’s Word. As a protestant, this is what determines whether or not I am orthodox. If a person’s starting point is anything other than that the Bible, in its entirety, is the inspired and infallible Word of God, then that person is liberal. The issues you listed are secondary. If a person has a right view of God’s word, I would not call them liberal even though their view on baptism, the Lord’s supper and women’s ordination is different than my own. If, on the other hand, someone places themself above God’s Word and chooses or rejects passages as they see fit to satisfy their personal view and agenda, I am not in communion with that person. This is what the ACoC and TEC have come to and why people like myself believe it is necessary to “come out from among them”.
Warren – Only one thing I disagree with – Hardship???? Yeah RRiggghht.
You said “If a person’s starting point is anything other than that the Bible, in its entirety, is the inspired and infallible Word of God, then that person is liberal” I see were this conclusion is correct but two things first don’t you think that if the terms had applied back then that Jesus would have been labeled a liberal? and second I would name any so called Christian who fits your description as being un-orthodox, heretical and or apostate but not necessarly Liberal (although I’ve never personally met one) – any of you out there? love to hear from you. – I’ll share my winnings
Unity is directed to the whole body of Christ I believe churches are made up of many waters and I also believe that Jesus does not define the branches of the vine in denominational terms Just for argument, nothing personal I assumed you were Anglican. I have always been taught that Anglicanism wasn’t Protestant.
“To think of unity in terms of a particular denomination or a group of people who gather together in a building each week is too limiting.” Absolutely, but to paraphrase “were two or three are gathered together in unity – There I will be in the midst” – Jesus Christ, this and only this is were it (oneness) begins.
Stuck (#19),
I don’t follow you. Although the Scriptures that Jesus referred to did not include what we know as the New Testament, he certainly affirmed that what we know as the Old Testament was from God and not man. Do your research and you’ll find that the growth of liberal theology, which started some 200 years ago, coincided with an increasing questioning of the trustworthiness and truthfulness of the Bible. The following quote from Wikipedia, although it puts too positive a spin on things for me, is still a reasonable summary:
I suppose that the word “liberal” could be applied in a more restrictive way, but, really, everything drives back to the regard in which the Bible is held. There are lots of liberals in Christian churches these days – even churches that consider themselves conservative and/or fundamental.
Although some Anglicans might like to place themselves at the same level as the three main branches of Christianity (RC, EO and Protestant), I don’t think that many people on the outside of Anglicanism see it that way. The 39 Articles look very similar to other statements that came out of the reformation and orthodox Anglican theology is undeniably Protestant (even though some traditions and liturgical practices are carried over from the RCC). If it quacks like a duck . . .
I spent two wonderful (and formative) years in an Anglican church that is now part of ANIC/ACNA, but I’m not really Anglican. Although I did grow up in a particular denomination, that is far behind me and I haven’t worn a denominational label for many years. Eventually someone will chase me off from this blog, but, in the meantime, I enjoy spending time here.
Warren
1. I would defend your right to be here …to the death – well maybe a bad headache
2. Sounds to me like your ready to jump into somebuddies boat I hope.
3. Brotherhood is the relationship of choice. but if and when you do, make sure the boat has leaks and the pews are uncomfortable. You are most welcome into the Anglican family it has two major things going for it. 1. Its under attack by the bad guys. 2. It has by far the easiest enrollment procedure.
4. Is protestantism catholic ? check your wikeepeedia
Warren [#19], Jesus was certainly a radical.
He affirmed the Old Testament, but he also substantially reinterpreted it. Isaiah 52-53, for example, can be seen as Messianic, but it could also be applied well to Israel. Jesus’s idea of Messiah was also far from traditional.
I take your point that liberal theology since Schleiermacher has arisen more from doubt than conviction, but radicals are still known as liberals in political circles today.
Stuck (#21), my wife and I are still “church shopping” but we hope to make a decision soon.
Gordon (#22), when I wrote my earlier comment, I had no idea what I would be discussing a few hours later. My wife and I started a Survey of the Old Testament course at a local Bible Institute this evening, and the prof spent the first two hours discussing New Testament use of the Old Testament. He made a very compelling case for why we are not entitled to use the NT to reinterpret the OT in the same way that the inspired writers of the NT did. Rather, we should look first to the plain meaning. When I signed up, I didn’t appreciate that I would be required to read 200-300 pages a week, from three text books, and prepare summary notes on each chapter. I hope my old brain can handle it.
Warren
At risk of making this into a personal blog which is not my intent, we could sure use you and the Boss in our church. I hope there is an ACNA church near you that you can visit. Militant Anglicans are sorely needed as a matter of fact before the advent of “Orthodox Anglicanism” which in my estimation took root as a result of threat presented by largely liberal misconception, I would have said that Anglican militancy was an oxy-moron. Having said that, there is strong evidence of the “Hand of God” at work in the new Anglican church. As for you, I and others? Well I hate the term “agree to disagree” It means nothing and gains nothing. I prefer let us agree to agree on agreed things (of which there are far more) and the things we disagree with we can debate, pray about, and wait with together. hence communion the way our Lord wants it I think.
Stuck (#24), the sentiment is appreciated, but I don’t think we are going to end up in an Anglican church this time (there is an Anglican church I want to check out in the place we plan to retire in, however). I suppose I do sound “militant” in some of what I write on this blog, but I hope I don’t come across that way to my brothers and sisters in Christ with whom I interact in real life. If I do, I have some repenting to do.
What? You aren’t coming back to Ottawa? Sigh.
Kate (#26), where’ve you been? Ottawa could still be a possiblity for a year or two between C Springs and when I retire. Our intended retirement destination, however, is Vancouver Island.
Welcome back Kate!
Warren; Ahh Vancouver Island one of the Canadian Hot spots for Anglican militantism. “militant” (combative warfare) as in prayer, love worship etc.) I and the church use this term in the Spiritual sense. As I observed in later threads I am concerned about the lack of militancy.
Warren at #20: Anglicanism (per the 39 Articles) is clearly reformed. TEC was founded as the “Protestant Episcopal …”. But since at least the late 19th century (Oxford Movement), most of Anglicanism identifies as small “c” catholic. I’d argue that the view of the sacraments in the 39 Articles is catholic in intent. I’d redefine the first of your branches as C: RC and Anglican, myself.
Henry (#29), I don’t really know, so I’ll certainly defer to your knowledge. As an interesting aside, if everyone worldwide who identifies as an Anglican was asked to self-categorize themselves as RC, Protestant or neither (i.e. a separate branch of Christianity), what do you think the statistics would look like? Where does the African branch of the Church primarily see itself?
Henry (#30), here is a nice irenic perspective that makes sense to me:
http://anglicancleric.blogspot.com/2007/08/anglicanism-catholic-or-protestant-last.html
Well, let’s see. We spent a week being rained and fogged on in Maine, I tried my family’s patience trying out spinning wheels at Halcyon Yarn in Bath. The awning on our camper collapsed in the middle of the night from the weight of the water, with a Very Loud Boom (the metal support was literally twisted). We went to Moncton to visit the inlaws, then on to Nova Scotia. Spent lots of time in the campground pool, went to church with Scott, visited my dad’s home town (Mahone Bay), had two people in NS ask me “are you so and so’s sister” or “are you related to so and so”? (I’m a Mader, which is one of about ten or so common South Shore NS names, I guess I look like a Mader, lol). Marvelled at the ocean’s power at Peggy’s Cove, and marvelled at how stupid some people can be around the ocean (and kept a hawk eye on my kids to make sure they didn’t take dumb risks – teenage boys and all that). Went back to Moncton, spent a couple of hours damaging my hearing at Crystal Palace, visited the inlaws some more, and then drove back to Ottawa (in one day!).
Aren’t you glad you asked?
Kate (#32), it sounds like you could write a booK! I’m glad everyone made it home in one piece. When we lived in NS we heard occasional derogatory reference to the Golers, but nothing about the Maders. I suspect that is a good thing.
So when are you going to take your vacation?
I don’t know! I need one.
#31 Warren – and to me. It’s about as concise a treatment as the complexity of the issue permits.
(Some latter-day C.S. Lewis needs to write a new Screwtape-style letter where the senior devil advocates the creation of sets of checkboxes as a technique for be-devilment!)