From the Niagara Falls Review.
The Niagara Falls Review reported recently that Anglican priests can start blessing same-sex marriages effective Sept. 1.
Why wait?
As long as we’re throwing away 4,600 years of Judeo-Christian theology and teaching, why not get right to it? Perhaps “throwing away” is a little strong, but radically reworking it is not far from the mark. Rev. Charlie Masters, the national director of the Anglican Network of Canada (an organization formed by Anglicans unwilling to follow the denomination’s gay marriage position), says that the Anglican church is reinterpreting the Bible to reflect current societal trends.
The Christian church -regardless of denomination -must, to some degree, reflect the society that it is in. Otherwise, its relevance is compromised. This has been a hard lesson learned to varying degrees of the main denominations and expressions of Western Christianity, mainly evident in shrinking congregations. But reflecting culture and society is one thing: Being shaped, and fundamentally redesigned in light of societal trend and pressure is something all together different.
While change is necessary and essential for all organic structures -of which Christianity is surely one -the reasons for change must be long considered and well thought out before implementation. It is here that the presentation by Bishop Michael Bird of the same-sex blessings change begins to show its weakness. The reasons that the bishop presented to Review reporter Corey Larocque just don’t add up.
During the interview with Larocque, Bird said that welcoming homosexuals is a social justice issue. In that he is correct. Welcoming all people -regardless of their situations, be they sexual, financial, criminal or personal is the job of the church. Sexual orientation is only one of the many struggles people bring with them into our halls of faith. All should be welcomed with the same openness and attitude of Christ himself.
However, the leap from providing acceptance to affirming a lifestyle that our guiding principles -Scripture itself -condemns is flawed logic. If Christ remains the head and example of the Anglican church, it should follow Jesus’ example. And Bird points out areas where Anglicanism attempts to do just that -fighting poverty and environmental responsibility. Bird also points out the mission of Christ to reach out to all people. And it’s true, Jesus did. But in his outreach and instruction, he often encouraged people “to go and sin no more.”
But that’s the trouble word, isn’t it? Sin. We don’t like to use that word, even in many faith circles. But if we in the larger Church fail to identify what Scripture defines as sin, we risk losing the ability and position to identify what Scripture reveals as good. If we can no longer proclaim what is good, how can we continue to share Christ with those who need him -regardless of their sexual orientation.
The bishop says people need to be free to experience the presence of God in their own way. Perhaps that’s true. My experience of God is likely to be different than yours because of the uniqueness of the nature of relationship. However, before one can experience that presence of God, Scripture teaches us that one must be free of sin. Unable to reach that state on our own, we rely on the atoning sacrifice of Christ to provide passage, access to God. Is homosexuality any different or worse than other human sin? Of course not.
But the church should be helping to reduce sin in the lives of its members, not institutionalizing it and blessing it.
There are many within the umbrella of Christianity that disagree with same-sex marriages and the church blessing of them. That doesn’t make us homophobic, or some frothing-at-the-mouth Fred Phelps clones. Far from it. It’s one more step in our journey to be as Christ-like as we can be this side of heaven.
As one who counts himself a follower of Christ, my intent is not to try to belittle or tear down those who claim the same goal and allegiance, but rather to challenge my brothers and sisters to rethink their current position on this issue. Regardless of denomination, we must hold fast to the unalterable truths of God … especially in turbulent times, with quickly changing social mores and moral sacrifices.
Brad Peters is The Review’s news editor. He also serves as student pastor at Facer Street Baptist Church in St. Catharines.
Well what do you know. A mainstream media reporter, albeit from a local paper, tells the unvarnished truth about the heresey taking place in the Diocese of Niagra. Of course he can expect to receive mucho criticism from his editor after Mr. Bird calls the paper and complains. But somehow I think Mr. Peters knew that would happen before he published the piece and went ahead and published it anyway. Boy, I feel great when I see a Chrisitian put himself on the line for his faith. If only more of us pew sitters had the fortitude to do likewise. God bless you Brad Peters for your honesty and courage.
“Being shaped, and fundamentally redesigned in light of societal trend and pressure is something all together different.” In truth is this not how WO came about?
Hey winter I hope you left that in comments with the Niagara Falls review.
Sorry Winter tried myself and had no end of trouble!
The following article was posted in the Niagara Falls Review just over 2 hours ago. It was written by Fr. Derek Pederson, RC Church
Anglican Church, Network now have common ground
COMING FROM A HOUSE. HOLD where my mother was Catholic and my father was Anglican, I read with much interest The Review’s July 30 article: “Anglican priests to bless same-sex marriages.” I understand and acknowledge that this is a highly charged theological issue which is rooted in doctrinal differences relating to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. There is no question that this issue has not only resulted in much fierce debate, but has also caused much pain and division.
With deep respect for my Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ, as a Catholic expressing my personal opinion and looking in, what I find particularly interesting about The Review’s article is that it appears that both the Anglican Church and the Anglican Network have become so entrenched in their positions that they have (perhaps unknowingly or unconsciously) adopted a similar position of acceptance and tolerance with the difference being in whom they wish to exclude or fall by the wayside. For instance, the Anglican Church claims that the church’s doctrinal change is a matter of inclusiveness, but they are willing to lose the memberships of many Anglicans who find the church’s position untenable. Similarly, a member of the Anglican Network claims that God loves everyone and everyone needs forgiveness, but people (and the inference is very clear) need to change the way they live to receive God’s salvation.
Despite the doctrinal differences and please forgive me if I have oversimplified the issue, I cannot help but wonder what efforts are being made on both sides of the issue to preserve the unity of the Spirit? While St. Paul, (the great Apostle to the excluded gentile community) was a prisoner for the Lord, he exhorted the community at Ephesus to make every effort to preserve the unity which has the Spirit as its origin and peace as its binding force.
Given the legal arguments over the division of assets, property, jurisdiction, authority, rights and powers; given the fact that leaders can sometimes listen more to their lawyers than to the Gospel; given the fact that legalists can sometimes become so entrenched in canon law that they forget the spirit behind the law; given the punitive actions that have been taken; and given the fact that this is a very complex issue that requires much prayer, reflection, study and discernment, perhaps there can be some healing and understanding when the rhetoric is toned down, when people begin to listen and engage in fruitful discussion, when mistakes are acknowledged with courage and humility and forgiveness is extended.
The Gospel can sometimes be very challenging for members of the Body of Christ and the effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit and the peace that binds is a responsibility that falls upon each member, so that each member can live in faith, hope and love within the same household and become a light and a credible sign of God’s love for his people.
Rev. Derek Pedersen Niagara Falls
As a footnote to Rev. (Fr) Pedersen’s article, I would add that perhaps He should have made note of other teachings from that Great Apostle, St. Paul.
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New King James Version)
8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
This is exactly what those in the ACoC, TEC, CoE and now it appears, some in the RC Church seem to be missing. Inclusiveness goes against the clear teachings of the Holy Bible.
Similarly, a member of the Anglican Network claims that God loves everyone and everyone needs forgiveness, but people (and the inference is very clear) need to change the way they live to receive God’s salvation.
Well, no….. Salvation isn’t earned, and I don’t think any of the ANiC leaders have implied that it is.
The fact that we should be united is reflected in the Nicene Creed, when we say “We belive in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”, these being the four Marks of Faith. Hopefully, someday, all Christians will be reunited in one/One Church. What that Church will be is impossible for me to say. Perhaps as we, and others, strive to remain true to what God has taught us through His Holy Word we shall be drawn together. Witness the decades long effort of the Traditional Anglican Communion (in Canada the Anglican Catholic Church in Canada) and its efforts to achieve full corporate Cummunion with the See of Rome. Obviously any reunion will take a very very long time. In the meantime, we must make every effort to be true to our Faith in God.
The scriptural references to unity do not refer to physical unity as in institutions and church denominations. It does refer to the Church, the Body of Christ it will be united pure without blemish. It is a reference to spiritual unity in thought word and deed. As I said in an earlier blog this unity begins at our Lord’s teaching that “where two or three are gathered together of the same accord [Or in Unity]there I will be in the midst” This and only this is were true unity begins. It is insufficient and misleading to say lets agree to disagree. I much prefer lets have complete understanding on what agree about (lets agree about agreed things) and leave that which we disagree to prayer, dialogue, appraisal in the Holy Spirit, and if neccessary to wait upon the Lord. This is why I fear for ACNA in that She appears to be heading in similar fashion to past anglicanism and she is not aware of past mistakes.
The big one is this, We are not a democracy. As high as we might place this form of government in terms of our appreciation it falls nearly out of sight compared to the Church of the Apostles. We are a monarchy pure and simple. In fact take that simplicity place it upside faith and we really shouldn’t have anything to vote on. But that can be argued to be out of the purvue of current mankind. I won’t contest that yet but I will say that in our synods any vote requirement that garners less than 100% acceptance should be tabled, discussed, prayed over, and brought up at the next synod.
until it is dismissed with 100% approval or passed the same way.
Perhaps you say nothing would get done. I say, would that nothing ever had got done save by acclamation ( or same accordness)…… were would we be? As one, as our Lord had prayed?
Kate – words are such tricky little elvids I agree that “salvation isn’t earned” it is free and available to all. However we must get our selves unstuck from the couch and open the door. We must believe. We must be born again by water and fire. We must when we are called, repent of our sins. I believe these things are natural occurances of Christian desire and do not fall into the category of “works”
As for our RC friend (and brother) he refers to Household as both family and church this is incorrect. The head of the household is clearly defined in scripture. As is the Head of the Body of Christ (the Church), they are not the same personages. Nor is the Head of the RC church. Archbishop Bob if asked who is the head of ACNA should answer as should any orthodox Anglican Primate including the first one, Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Glorious Lord of Lords Praise God.
Ephesians 4:2-4 (New King James Version)
2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
I fail to understand how anyone could possibly think about unity. The current situation within the ACoC is quite clear – the leadership clearly refuses to address apostasy within its rank and are quite prepared to sit back and allow the church to sink into the abyss of apostasy and irrelevance. We do indeed have the promise in Scripture that “the gates of Hell will not prevail” but when the church through its leadership openly defies the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ it can no longer claim that promise. It can no longer be considered as a Christian church.
What is needed is laity and clergy (at all levels) to step up to the plate and demand action against the apostates. What amazes me is the failure of retired bishops and clergy to speak up to the situation. I can only wonder if those who remain spectators on the sidelines are more concerned with their pensions than defending the faith. I am fully confident that there would be a mass exodus from the ACoC and the ECUSA if clergy would educate their parishioners. It is time we took a serious look at the old hymns in the blue book, “Christian dost thou see them on the Holy ground, how the hosts of darkness compass thee around?” (#121) and “Who is on the Lord’s side? Who will serve the King? . . . Who will leave the world’s side? Who will face the foe?” (#410) We are indeed in a war and it is time for true Anglicans to stand up. You are not an Anglican if you are not a committed Christian. The colour of your shirt and your collar is NOT sufficient.
I think that is what agree to disagree means. It was my underlying assumption when I was talking about women’s ordination, anyway. (I had a high school history teacher who had “ass-u-me” written on the board on the first day of class. He had to explain it, of course…)
Stuck (#7), what would you do in practical terms before the unity you are seeking is achieved? Would you deny the Lord’s Supper or baptism to those who are not in complete theological agreement with you as to the proper mode and true spriritual significance of the sacraments (or deny yourself)? As much as it would desireable to have 100% unity at synods and the like, the idea is wholly unworkable and could lead to more error creeping into the church as ways are sought to appease everyone. Had your criteria of 100% approval been applied (which I don’t believe can be supported biblically), I suspect that the great creeds of the faith never would have been written.
How do you handle Acts 15:36-41. Should Paul and Barnabas have ceased their ministries until they achieved 100% unity? I think it is quite possible that they agreed to disagree.
#10 Kate – I prophesy that agreeing to disagree (moving forward in spite of our differences particularly about WO) will bring about separation in our beautiful new ACNA. She is Currently beautiful because of common cause, will She stay that way?
If one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” (Ecclesiastes 4:12)
The Unity of Spirit is that were two or three are gathered together of the same accord, there I will be in the midst.
I agree with all, that disagreement does not necessarly lead to dis-unity. However in agreement is unity.
The Church’s history has far more evidence of schism, re-alignment, separation etc. Dare I say; and no evidence of the opposite.
Frank #9 if you were able to see dis-unity as apostacy you would have your answer. As to the old Hymn book (I thought it was Black) you forgot to mention the standard “Onward Christian Soldiers” you are quite correct but consider that had this book not been changed and we still had all those militant hymns how could we have come this far. – chalk another one up to principalities and powers.
Warren#11 I feel strongly that dis-unity and our failure to hear our Lord’s prayer “That they all may be one” and our inability to recognize its importance in the Body of Christ has been responsible for my statement in #13.
About Paul and Barnabas this disagreement led to the continuation of the will of God it did not lead to disunity. As far as “as much as it would desireable to have 100% unity at synods” you read me wrong I don’t advocate 100% unity what I said was nothing should be changed, added or subtracted – without it. Just because you say its “wholly unworkable” doesn’t make it so. If we had faith there is nothing unworkable. You also said “what would you do in practical terms before the unity you are seeking is achieved? Would you deny the Lord’s Supper or baptism to those who are not in complete theological agreement” First off – get with the program I seek unity because it was first desired by God and because my brothers and sisters are idiots OK KATE I RETRACT THAT. because most of my brothers and sisters in Christ are being led around by the nose by prince ugly. I would deny nothing to anybody, Baptism is the beginning and Eucharist is the continuation. Finally the Great creeds were written because of dis-unity and in spite of it.
Praise God. Selah.
Stuck (#14),
I seem to do this regularly. Is it me, or you, or the combination?
I don’t think anyone on this blog discounts the importance of Christian unity. To do so would fly in the face of clear bibilical teaching. I suspect that the body of Christ, since the time of Apostles, has much to repent of in terms of its failings concerning unity. Where I (and likely others here) have difficulty with what you are saying pertains to balance. You regularly stress certain biblical doctrines, such as love and unity, and largely ignore others such as church discipline and the appropriate response to false teaching and heresy. I take 2 Tim 3:16-17 at face value when it talks about “all Scripture”, and Scripture certainly speaks of the dangers of false teaching the the appropriate response to it.
You believe that the creeds were written simply because of disunity within the early Christian church. I, on the other hand, believe that they were a unified response to false teaching and heresies that stood outside of the true Christian faith. Perhaps one of the church historians who frequent this blog could weigh in with a more educated opinion?
Warren; I admit to little historical knowledge about the creation of our creeds. I believe that if we had maintained the unity taught by Jesus and found in the one-accordness of the apostles in the upper room on the day of Pentecost, the Creeds would never have been written or necessary.
You said I “regularly stress certain biblical doctrines, such as love and unity, and largely ignore others such as church discipline and the appropriate response to false teaching and heresy. I take 2 Tim 3:16-17 at face value when it talks about “all Scripture”, and Scripture certainly speaks of the dangers of false teaching the the appropriate response to it.”
I seldom respond to false teaching and heresy especially when it is so obvious, also I feel there is plenty of others speaking about it. Instead I speak of the why, and the causes. When I first became aware of the changes taking place in my church I became quite sick. Not because of what was happening but because of the how and why. Have you ever considered how such highly educated and such a numerous amount of our church leaders both in the ACoC and TEC could have gotten it so, so obviously wrong? What evidence and faith do you have that ACNA will not slip into the same malaise, God Forbid! This saying about the Church has been quoted several times in these blogs “the gates of hell will not prevail against her”. I assure you this would be far less a comforting mantra and much more a gut wrenching, fear inspiring statement of prophecy if you would see and understand the why and the who, of it.
Frank said “We are indeed in a war and it is time for true Anglicans to stand up. You are not an Anglican if you are not a committed Christian.”
I ask what are we at war about, and what should we be committed to?
I too would welcome educated historical and theological reasoning any-one got the ear of our beloved Dr. Packer.
Often in anglican and protestant circles we hear of the invisible church. Anglicans like to use the Branch Theory to explain divisions. I liked to use that theory too, to explain the unhapy divisions of the Church. However, after learning about the ramifications of rationalism, and the development of protestantism (which has its nationalistic expressions – Anglicanism) I am not convinced that the Branch theory, or the theological “invisible Church” idea can hold up to the witness of the early Church, nor the witness of the New Testament Scriptures. I was wondering if you might be able to listen to a couple of podcasts for me And comment on whether the man is making any sense.
http://audio.ancientfaith.com/gallatin/pfp_2008-11-13_pc.mp3
http://audio.ancientfaith.com/gallatin/pfp_2008-11-20_pc.mp3
Thanks
Dear Brian; Thank you, I was blessed this morning with the time to listen to your references.
I have spent countless hours during the past 15 years in my cave struggling unknowingly with my Anglicanism. Slowly I began to see a pattern emerge which my contributions to this blog will attest. With the coming out of new age thinking of my ACoC two things became excitingly parallel through ANiC, Common Cause and Orthodoxy.
I don’t think it is any accident that Metropoiltan Jonah was a guest speaker at ACNA’s first convention. I literally cried when I heard him speak of advancing unity between this “new Anglicanism” and his East Orthodox church. I to have considered jumping ship to explore Eastern Orthodoxy. I cannot ignore the availability of “turning around, going back down, back the way we came {G.Lightfoot] that is being presented to Orthodox thinking Anglicans. I have argued here that unity plays a far more important role than we have ever imagined.
For this reason I beg you to consider staying put, Standing fast, in the hope of complete regeneration of the Anglican Communion through ACNA. Further I would ask you to consider joining with me in the belief that this is the Will of our Father and actively pursue this. Perhaps together as Anglicans.
I am sure you will meet with resistance to this on this thread that is all the more reason for militancy.
Anyone in agreement and wanting to explore this may telephone me Admin – phone # removed for privacy reasons
Thanks Stuck for your comments. I do struggle with the historical drama of protestant fragmentation. I fear that the ACNA is inheriting the genetic flaw, so well articulated by Mr Gallatin, that is destroying the Anglican Communion. I believe Warren is correct on his statement the the Creeds were developed in response to heresy rather than to preserve unity. I find it difficult to refute the theological, philosophical, and historical, soundness of Mr. Gallatin’s statement regarding the united church of the New Testament and history.
Listen to the following and let me know if he articulates the flaw of protestantism, and especially if I should see his point as a reason for not being part of ACNA as you graciously desire for me.
http://audio.ancientfaith.com/gallatin/pfp_2009-07-17_pc.mp3
I have been an Anglican all of my life (50+). Have we (The Anglican Church) missed the boat?
In Prayer, Brian
OOOOPPPPPSS
I think this podcast from Mr. Gallatin was the one I meant….
http://audio.ancientfaith.com/gallatin/pfp_2009-07-24_pc.mp3
Brian
Brian (#17), I listened to Mr Gallatin’s podcasts and found them through provoking and worthy of consideration. However, despite all its warts and flaws, I’m not ready to abandon evangelicalism.
Here are a few observations:
- Mr Gallatins compares evangelicalism at its worst to an idealized view of the EO Church. My inlaws, who were both born in the Ukraine into families that had converted from eastern orthodoxy to evangelicasm in the early part of the last century, were alive today, I suspect they would take issue with Mr Gallatin’s rosy portrayal of the EO church and would use words like dark and oppressive rather than unity. While many evangelicals were willing to die for their faith and the gospel during the dark days of Soviet tyranny, the EO Church was collaborating with the Communists in their efforts to stamp out Christianity.
- The concept of the “invisible church” was not invented by modern evangelicals. It goes back to Augustine. I know little about EO doctrine, but, based on some of Mr Gallatin’s comments, I have to assume that the EO Church is generally hostile to Augustinian thought.
- The EO Church was born out of one of the great schisms in Christian history. I would like to know how Mr Gallatin squares this with his glorification of the EO Church as the defender of Christian unity?
- I heard little in the podcasts about Jesus and the importance of the gospel? Despite its flaws, evangelicalism has done much to spread the good news of the gospel to those dying in their sins. Is this important to the EO Church, or is the focus primarily on those born into the Church?
Unity is certainly important. Is it so important that all other biblical doctrines must take a back seat? I don’t believe so.
“. . . through provoking . . .”? I think I meant to say thought provoking. Sorry.
#22 I agree Warren that Mr. Gallatin is a bit ‘black and white’ on the ideals of EO and the flaws of protestantism. As regards the dark history of the EO in Russia, it was an intensely persecuted church. Many hundreds of thousands, if not millions died for their faith. We’ll be careful not to be too Donatist towards that dark period of their history.
Re: St. Augustine – It seems many in the EO vilify the Saint, but those of a more balanced opinion of him see a dominant goodness in his theolgy but view his courtroom justification with caution. It is important to note that he is a Saint in their Church.
Re: EO born out of schism – If I understand correctly, the EO and the roman Church were one up to the Great Schism. I believe a fair reading of the history would see the Roman Church as leaving the other churches, not the other way around. The fact that the Christian West use the Filioque (a Roman Church innovation) and not those of the EO supports this.
Re: other doctrines – I think further exploration is needed by us all.
It is interesting to see what is happening in the Orthodox Church of America. I would recommend Ancient Faith Radio to all
http://ancientfaith.com/
In Prayer, Brian
Brian (#24),
Doubtlessly many EO believers died for their faith and their sacrifice should not be minimized. The communist regime was not very discriminating in its enthusiam to eliminate all religion. I was referring primarily to the institutional church – which is what Mr Gallatin seems mostly concerned with.
Doubtlessly RCC apologists and historians see things differently. The following quote is taken from the Wikipedia article on the history of the east-west schism: “The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this sequence of events took place. However, these events only triggered the beginning of the schism but the schism was not actually consummated by the seemingly mutual excommunications. The New Catholic Encyclopedia reports that the legates had been careful not to intimate that the Bull of Excommunication implied a general excommunication of the Byzantine Church. The bull excommunicated only Caerularius, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents. Thus, the New Catholic Encyclopedia argues that the dispute need not have produced a permanent schism any more than excommunication of any “contumacious bishop”. The schism began to develop when all the other Easter patriarchs supported Caerularius. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, it was the support of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos that impelled them to support Caerularius.[36] Some have questioned the validity of the bull on the grounds that Pope Leo IX had died at that time and so the authority of the legates to issue such a bull is unclear.
At the time of the reformation, I suspect the socio-political situation in those regions under the influence of the EO church were such that a popular movement like that led by Luther was not possible and would have been stamped out mercilessly.
When people leave the EO church they don’t set up new churches that still claim to be EO – they join others churches. In such a scenario, it is rather easy (and disingenous) to claim that the “unity” of the church has always been preserved when comparing oneself to protestantism (and especially evangelicalism).
I am not an apologist for evangelicalism and believe it deserves much criticism. However, it is branch of Christianity that is at least willing to hold itself up to scrutiny and to continue reforming. You may find the article on The Denominational Church (see link) interesting. Alistair Roberts is a very thoughtful writer, and Michael Spencer is a big critic of evangelicalism, but remains within “the evangelical tent”.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-101-alastair-roberts-on-the-denominational-church#more-4022
Dear Brothers; Both of you are quite capable and clearly speaking from a more knowledgeable position than mine. I will enjoy learning from your debate.
Warren; How do you do the large quotation?
Gentlemen both of your themes speak of the unity of the churches, which isn’t a bad thing. My main interest is in Spiritual Unity with the God Head and with each other. I honestly don’t think you can have one without the other. It is the latter (2b1) that I find wanting, perhaps across the whole spectrum of Christianity.
Warren you said, “Unity is certainly important. Is it so important that all other biblical doctrines must take a back seat? I don’t believe so.” Christians must see the overwhelming importance of unity as never before. Our Lord will enter the marriage feast and his Bride will be without blemish this includes perfect oneness. It is this profound thought along with my belief that Church Unification must start at the bottom with oneness.
Please don’t let this go – ACNA IS LISTENING!!!!
Perhaps we are a bit of the topic regarding the Niagara Rite. Never the less!! Part of my struggle in staying within Anglicanism is the shattering and fragmenting of our fellowships. The witness of history speaks to an increasingly divided Christianity. If the Desire is for greater unity then how do we as orthodox Anglicans promote further unity by going further out on the allegorical limb (Branch Theory). Might I use another ‘green’ illustration and say if the Church began as an icecap and splintered around the edges, wouldn’t I be safer, so to speak, to get off of the broker pieces of ice and return to the Icecap? It is only coincidental that the broken pieces of ice from an iceberg are called growlers. Seems that is alot of what we in the Church have been up to lately!
Despite the flaws of the EO (fraught with sinners! Mt 7.1) is it not closer to the trunk of the tree, or a more substantial piece of ice?
Brian (#27), you’re right – we’re way off topic! But it is an interesting discussion nonetheless. Because I’m not uncomfortable with the idea of the invisible church, the ice cap analogy doesn’t work for me (unless the ice cap is the body of true believers without consideration for denominations and/or institutional churches). So, what is the body of Christ or the true church? Does God’s Word really teach that it is made up of those who have been baptized into the “right” institutional church regardless of the condition of their hearts? Or is it made up of those who have been born again as Jesus taught in Matt 3; even if they haven’t had opportunity to be baptized yet? As an evangelical, I believe the latter.
Now, “body life”, of which the Bible has much to say, can only work its way out in practical terms through the institution of the church – and this is where things get messy and where there are often failings with respect to unity. If the body of Christ truly is made up of those who are born again – who have new life from above – then this body will hunger after God and His Word as revealed to them in the Bible. Members will want to study it, individually and collectively, and desire to submit to it in all matters of faith and practice – regardless of personal cost. Love will be apparent and people will seek to serve rather than be served. The Word will be faithfully preached, the gospel will be regularly presented, and the sacraments will be observed.
Where a hunger for God’s Word is absent, I question whether the body of Christ truly exists; regardless of the religious trappings that may be externally evident and the hierarchy that governs the church. If there is unity, is it the unity spoken of in the Bible or possibly unity around something unchristian? If a believer finds themself in such a “church”, then I believe they are commanded to “come out from among them” (2 Cor 6:17).
All man-made churches, however, are composed of both those who have and have not been born again (believers and unbelievers); some obvious in their unbelief and others disguising it well. Only by being regularly washed by Word, and through the leading of the Holy Spirit, can the individual believer discern when it may be appropriate to leave a church that is no longer bears the marks of a true church. When the spirit of antichrist is evident (as I believe it now is in at least some Anglican churches), the decision should be obvious. I appreciate, however, the current state of things is such that it is not easy for some Anglicans to discern whether or not they should leave. Some may even be called to remain in an unhealthy environment so that they can reach out to the lost (although I would hope that they would also have some other source of spiritual nourishment and community).
My heart goes out to those Anglicans who are prayerfully seeking God’s guidance and diligently studying His Word so that they may discern His will. For those in positions of sprititual leadership (husbands and parents), however, I would hope that they would not be exposing those for whom they have spiritual responsibility to anti-Christian teachings (the millstone passage comes to mind).
I’m definitely starting to ramble, so I ought to wrap this up. My prayer is that you would seek the whole council of God as revealed in His Word and that the Holy Spirit would reveal to you the relative importance of unity in relation to all of the great doctrines of the faith so that you can make the right decision for whatever circumstance you are in.
Stuck (#26), for quotations, put < blockquote > at the start of the passage you want to quote and < / blockquote > at the end (include the less than and greater than symbols). The forward slash indicates that you want the action to end. Do a Google search for “HTML tags” if you want more information and other options.
–I added some extra spaces so that Stuck would be able to see what to do. For it to work there should be no spaces between < and the word "blockquote" -- Kate
Stuck, I forgot that by typing the symbology for quotes, I would end up making a quote rather than showing you what to do. I’ll try it this way: at the start of your quote type “blockquote” with the less-than sign at the start and the greater-than sign at the end (don’t include the quotation marks or any spaces). At the end of your quote, place a forward slash symbol immediately in front of the b in blockquote. Better yet, do a Google search for HTML tags for quotes.
–Fixed – admin.
Warren, you must be a touch-typist. I have a seek-and-peck disorder. I thought “you might be interested in a paragraph from Timothy Ware’s book, “The Orthodox Church.”
“From the Orthodox point of view, the main obstacle to closer relations with the Anglican Communion is the comprehensiveness of Anglicanism, the extreme ambiguity of Anglican formularies, the wide variety of interpretations which these formularies permit. There are individual Anglicans whose faith is virtually indistinguishable from that of an Orthodox; but there are others within the Anglican communion on the extreme liberal wing, who openly repudiate fundamental elements in the doctrinal and moral teaching of Christianity.”
Remember the good old days when the via media of Anglicanism was considered its strength (even though the concept of via media was John Henry Newman’s last desperate attempt at holding divergent, if not incompatible, theological formularies together, before his ‘going to Rome.” I have long thought that via media was a strength, but I now see it as pie-in-the sky optimism validating diversity, and simply precursory to separation and division. I feel the Covenant is our last hope for solidifying the best of Anglicanism in as wide a Communion as possible (large ice-pan theory. Ha Ha) In the meantime I hope and pray that my bishop keeps to the true faith.
Brian
Via media is a strenght when viewed correctly. It was not supposed to encompass non-Christian beliefs!
Brian (#30), although I may come at things from a different perspective, I think the Bishop makes a valid point.
Kate (#31), thank you for fixing my boo boo. I agree that balance and the avoiding of extremes can be a strength, but the problem seems to be in reaching agreement on where the via media lies. One person’s via media may be another’s extreme. I’m reminded of something a youth pastor told me many years ago – the person you think is a a religious fanatic may just love Jesus more than you do (or something to that effect).
If all in leadership within the Anglican Church believed that the Bible, in its entirety, was God’s inspired Word, then it might be reasonable to try and achieve a via media – at least in some areas. When some see the Bible as inerrant (my view) and others see it as fairy tales, the task is hopeless.
Well, exactly. Via media is the middle way between Reformed Protstantism and Roman Catholicism, not between seeing the bible as inerrant and fairy tales. The definition that modern liberal Anglicans are using for via media is simply innacurate.
I’m not convinced there is a theological and doctrinal continuum between Roman Catholicism and reformed protestantism, but, if there was, I don’t think modern liberal Anglicans would be on it. They would be on a completely different graph.
High and Low church people sometimes live uneasily together, it is true.
http://blip.tv/file/2292852
This is the press conference at the ACNA inagural convention. Please listen to ++Duncans words on unity ACNA X EO also his words on the via media and other related things. To this thread.
I’m not convinced there is a theological and doctrinal continuum between Roman Catholicism and reformed protestantism,
Warren – would not Our Lord Jesus be considered a sufficient contiuum?
Stuck (#36), now you are misreading me. I’m heading off on a work-related trip shortly and won’t be making any further comments this week.