On its “Dream the Church, Vision 2019″ site, the ACoC is soliciting opinions on what its members think God wants the church to be in 2019. Here is one interesting response:
There exist in the Anglican Church, at least in North American, some very deep, fundamental problems that have been pervasive for some time. Among them are:
1. Anglicans in the pew do not know their Bible. They rarely read their Bibles or take them to church services. I know, as I was one of them for years, until I began studying with Bible Study Fellowship International. It is shameful that very few Anglicans can even find their way around the Bible or know what it says exactly. The leaders and shepherds of the church have failed in this regard to teach the Scriptures to the congregants; therefore, they need to encourage Biblical knowledge and study.
2. Anglicans do not hear the Gospel message; they are just served up cute homilies by their rectors. It wasn’t until I went to an evangelical camp one summer as a youth that I heard the gospel message that I was a sinner, that Jesus died for those sins, and that I could have eternal life through Him. I had never heard that truthful but simple message before from my Anglican church or camp experiences, yet that message opened to me a personal relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, the gospel message needs to be proclaimed in Anglican churches on Sundays throughout our nation, as this has eternal consequences.
3. The Anglican church is too worried and too focused on being politically correct instead of being concerned about being Biblically and Spiritually correct. Culture changes, swinging from left to right, but the Word of God does not change. We are to please God and not society, listen to God and not other voices, and be open to the movement of the Spirit and not the movement of others’ agendas. God’s wisdom is far superior to our wisdom, and we do not have the right to rewrite His commands as we so please or as is convenient for us. The church, then, needs to focus on following God and preaching the gospel message instead of following cultural and social philosophies.
Haven’t been here much at Essentials, but have been over at Dream 2019 a bit, reading the entries, and would encourage you all to submit posts and comments there. Currently, I estimate the weight of conservative items is about even with liberal notes, but many liberal notes are uninformed ones, and just a line or two. Please submit a cogent paragraph- that will go a long way toward influencing the final report when this project is wrapped up in October, for submission to synod next year.
Editor’s note: This is not the same Brian who is pastor of Kanata Lakes Christian Fellowship.
Have you all seen the picture on the left side of the Vision 2019 site? It is a baby in a mitre– doubtless representing the spiritual maturity of those members of the House of Bishops who are in fact saved.
For Brian #51
As I have stated many times previously, there is a vast difference between “liberals” and “apostates” and we need to make that difference clear. In the ACoC we are dealing with apostasy and we must dispense with the polite terminology. Any attempt to address apostasy on Vision 2019 will not be allowed. The time has long since past for action on the part of claimed orthodox clergy and lay persons to address this matter. Indeed we need to pray for repentance on the part of apostate clergy but in doing so we should not simply sit back and wait hope matters will change. It is true we have the promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail but when the church has made a decision to turn its face against God and the authority of His word it can no longer claim to be a “Church” but is nothing more than a social club dedicated to what one might call “political correctness”. As Christians we are called to “Stand up, Stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross” and it is time we forced our bishops to follow this call.
Kate there should be no such term as orphans and I think we are on the right track to eliminating such unfortunates with our new “orphans Blog”
Gerry #44 -when I use the term unity I am referring to the unity that is first and foremost in Christ Jesus and then and only then with each other. Consequently your concern with “unity with the wrong spirit”, by faith, is not possible!
Stuck in TO #55 –
I’ve been thinking, perhaps Kate should start a “Blog Dictionary” just so we can house the interpretations that show up on it….what say kate? Huh?
Stuck – What was the big word of the ACoC for a few years after mikey in New West did his thing……UNITY – is that right….. now go back to #44 and redefine for me….pleaaaaaase! LOL
I already spend too much time on the internet….
I hear ya.
Gerry – One of Hitler’s big drawing cards was Unity – “The unification of all of the Fatherland”
ACoC’s call for unity was their response to apostacy.
Neither of these meets the criteria as laid out in my #55 therefore Christian unity with the wrong spirit is impossible. Note. A Nov. 11 1945 Note B. see ACoC in 10 years.
Kate: I really think we need a Dictionary And an online professor of English as a reference for us. Nuff said.
Gerry (#60), in some cases I think people just need to be referred to existing dictionaries; or a good theological text book. Mind you, in my last job I chaired a terminology standardization committee for the Air Force and I know how painfully hard it can be to reach consensus on a definition.
Stuck [#59], I’m a little puzzled by your note A. Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945.
Gordon: # 62
A quite a bit of what my friend “Stuck in Toronto” puts on this site is somewhat “puzzling”, but then, so is what I write. That’s why I would like to see a third party interpreting for us…..LOL
Gentlemen I do apologize, please let me run you through the threads
#40 I Said “I have a great passion for spiritual unity”
#44 Gerry Said “I too would prefer to see spiritual unity, however I have no time for unity with the wrong spirit ”
# 55 I said “when I use the term unity I am referring to the unity that is first and foremost in Christ Jesus and then and only then with each other. Consequently your concern with “unity with the wrong spirit”, by faith, is not possible!
#56 Gerry said “What was the big word of the ACoC for a few years after mikey in New West did his thing……UNITY – is that right….. now go back to #44 and redefine for me….pleaaaaaase!”
#59 I said “Gerry – One of Hitler’s big drawing cards was Unity – “The unification of all of the Fatherland”
ACoC’s call for unity was their response to apostacy.
Neither of these meets the criteria as laid out in my #55 therefore Christian unity with the wrong spirit is impossible. Note. A Nov. 11 1945 Note B. see ACoC in 10 years.
# 61 Warren suggestions that I use a dictionary which I conclude means that the dictionary def. of unity is the same across the board. However it is not the definition that is in question IT IS THE PURPOSE, AS IN “UNITY IN THE WRONG SPIRIT”. Hitler’s use was to gain political power, ACoC’s purpose was to lessen the impact of the negativity of New Westminister. Jesus? look it up yourself.
# 62 I said “Note. A Nov. 11 1945 Note B. see ACoC in 10 years.”
Note a is the date that the war ended and PARTITION OF GERMANY TOOK PLACE. Thus showing the call to unity of Hitler to be “in the wrong spirit” Note B should be by now self expanatory.
This, for the last time, I Hope!! Jesus calls us to unity. Has been for 2,000 years. We have thumbed our noses. Evidence suggests that we may be close to His return. HIS CHURCH WILL BE PERFECT “WITHOUT SPOT OR WRINLE” And that means UNIFIED.
I should have ended with and if you think He (meaning Jesus, for those easily puzzled) is going to do it, (meaning unify) you are out to lunch.
My theology comes through the Holy Spirit, from Holy Scripture. I need no other reference. However that does not mean that Lewis, Packer, Muggeridge, and countless others have not been enjoyable.
Stuck (#65), I find your concluding comment quite fascinating:
In the bibliology and hermeneutics course I took earlier this year, five primary views of authority were presented: Sola Ecclesia (RCC); Prima Scriptura (EO); Regula Fidei (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.); Sola Scriptura (Baptists and many evangelical denominations); and Solo Scriptura (Church of Christ and some very fundamental bible churches). If I take your comment at face value, you would be in the Solo Scriptura camp, which is fairly far removed from orthodox Anglicanism. Without making any value judgements on your position, I’m just curious as to how you arrived at it while still remaining within the ACoC?
Re: #64 Stuck in Toronto
This, for the last time, I Hope!! Jesus calls us to unity. Has been for 2,000 years. We have thumbed our noses. Evidence suggests that we may be close to His return. HIS CHURCH WILL BE PERFECT “WITHOUT SPOT OR WRINLE” And that means UNIFIED.
Dear Stuck: I’ve no doubt whatsoever that when Our Lord returns that His Church WILL be UNIFIED!! The key words here are of course His Church…….Tell me, do you think that anyone outside of His Church will be allowed to be part of that unified church? Of course not…….Apostates will not be part of it….and If that is the case, why then would the Corporate Body of the ACoC be included in the Unified church? They wouldn’t, Of course there may be some in the ACoC who are like the lost sheep and who still don’t know what has been done to their ACoC and who are wonderful Christians. These will not be kept out, but the leadership in the ACoC will not allowed in……
That is the Unity that I am talking about “Stuck”…..I hope I have clarified it for you…….
Blessings,
Gerry
Warren,
As a Latin student, I would question the distinction you make between “sola scriptura” and “solo scriptura.” The adjective “solus -a -um” means “only, single; lonely; alone, having no companion/friend/protector; unique” and since “scriptura” is a singular feminine noun, the only correct form of the phrase is “sola scriptura” (since the adjective must agree with the noun). Even if it didn’t have to agree, then the meaning would be the same in both instances; namely, “scripture alone”.
Also, why should Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Presbyterianism be in the “Regula Fidei” camp when they have a Reformation history? “Sola Scriptura” was one of the five ‘solas’ of the Reformation.
Charles (#68), I just recapitulated a few things from my notes. I’m not nearly smart enough to defend it, nor am I certain of the source. The instructors are Dallas Seminary graduates if that is any help.
I guess that should more properly be Dallas Theological Seminary graduates.
Charles (#68), to put it in simple layman’s terms, the Solo Scriptura position basically means that the Christian needs nothing other than the Bible as his source of authority. Scripture interprets Scripture and the Biblical understanding and interpretation of those who have gone before need not be considered because God will sufficiently illumine the mind of the believer every time he opens the Bible. Sola Scriptura places more respect on how great men of the past have interpreted and understood God’s Word.
With respect to Sola Scriptura, I’ll throw the question out to anyone else who may be reading this. Is it a position that Anglicans have historically held to or rallied around?
Stuck [#64], November 11, 1918 was the end of World War I.
World War II ended in Europe with the German surrender on May 8, 1945, and in Japan on August 15, 1945, six days after the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The formal surrender of Japan was accepted on September 2, 1945.
I take your point, but it’s well concealed.
#53 Frank – thanks for that- hadn’t really considered ‘liberal’ / ‘apostate’ differences. Will have to ponder that.
#72 Gordon; You are correct in your history dates and once again I apologize for being obtuse. I have always celebrated the end of both WWs on Nov. 11 and I was just moving to fast. I am pleased that someone has been able to see my point.
#67 Gerry; Looks to me like you have joined Kate and I in the assumption game. Nothing I have said indicates that I think ACoC will take part in the Wedding feast. As I have said in the past Scripture indicates that NO ONE would enter, that includes ANiC, AcNA, GAFCON, etc, etc., “except the time be shortened”. Here is a question for you, If that be the case, what are we missing?
#66, Warren; All of your solas are vain human attempts to put our God in a box. Without the Holy Spirit doing the interpretation, well, you know what’s happened what is happening and if my understanding (see above to Gerry) is correct what will happen. Misinterpretation has a long history and I fear a short future. “Trust not in your own understanding” Does this answer your #71.
His Blessings and my love to all of you.
Stuck (#74), I agree that the Holy Spirit must illumine the mind and hearts of the reader for there to be full understanding of God’s Word. The problem is that you can claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and come to a very different conclusion than someone else who is also claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit (I see lots of references to the Holy Spirit in stuff coming out of the ACoC). I’m apt to be suspicious that both claims are specious and that a spirit other than the Holy Spirit may be at work.
I believe that I can benefit from the illumination that God granted to someone hundreds of years ago and that I do not have to rely solely on my own reading and interpretation of the Bible. I know you have a very different view of teaching than I do (we’ve had that conversation), but I believe the Bible clearly states that some are given the gift of teaching which, through the guiding of the Holy Spirit, enables them to illuminate God’s Word to others. I don’t think you need any special revelation from the Holy Spirit to reach that conclusion in reading the Bible.
No, you didn’t answer my question in #71.
Warren; of course two can have divergent views and any interpretation can be false. In your 61 it seems very clear that you are suggesting that I may need a good theological text-book. My retort was #65 I did not name you because I wanted to avoid being falsely labelled paranoid, which would have unnecessary shifted the stream.
“The problem is that you can claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and come to a very different conclusion than someone else who is also claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit (I see lots of references to the Holy Spirit in stuff coming out of the ACoC). I’m apt to be suspicious that both claims are specious and that a spirit other than the Holy Spirit may be at work.” – Here you are speaking about interpretation not theology.
I was clearly speaking about my theology. If you have any problem with my interpretation please be more specific.
As for your “Sola Scriptura places more respect on how great men of the past have interpreted and understood God’s Word.” I don’t understand this comment, at best it’s backwards, If great men provided great interpretations that stand the test of time than they must be revelations as with the prophets, our Lord and His apostles.
Finally I will try to answer your 71 again – Anglicans stand on three legs the first is Scripture the second is tradition, and the third is reason.
I’m not deep enough to espouse the third one it’s to easily used in the wrong hands. The second one answers your “I’m just curious as to how you arrived at it while still remaining within the ACoC?” I was baptized in it a long time ago as a baby. However don’t be misled when I came of age (actually only a few years ago) I retained the best and left the rest at the foot of the cross, thanks to the first one.
I worship and receive with any “Anglican” congregation I please, currently but unfortunately it is infrequently an ANiC one.
Stuck (#76), I believe I can benefit from the Godly understanding and biblical insight of others. In fact, I believe that Scripture commands me to do so. I got the impression that you believe otherwise. If I am wrong, I apologize.
I’m aware of the three-legged “stool” of scripture, tradition and reason (although I prefer Wesley’s quadilateral). Most Christian churches use some variation of this stool, but, in some, the length of each leg is quite different. In a Sola Scriptura church, the Scripture leg will be distinctly longer than the other two.
Warren; I to have benefitted greatly from the writings of others, so long as they don’t contradict scripture. You see for me it is not “Scripture alone” but rather Scripture first. We are clearly warned uniquivocally against falseness. I have been led down the garden path on several occasions, the world is being dragged down by the nose. Only through prayer and the Holy Spirit do I (by faith) accept MY understanding as He sees fit. It is by faith that I am free and correct in my assesments of what I read. If I don’t understand, which frequently happens, I set it aside. I have often wished Jimmy Jone’s Kool-aid drinkers had done the same.
In a Sola Scriptura church wouldn’t there only be 1 leg? Has TEC an ACoC not placed reason over Scripture? Finally, our history speaks of mighty accomplishments for God’s Glory. So long as our “tradition” speaks to that history I’m OK when it stands on itself it becomes a vain thing.
I said once before, if anyone fails to understand me I bear full responsibility no need for apologies Brother.
Stuck (#78):
No, that’s a Solo Scriptura church.
I adhere to the Sola Scriptura position but also have respect for tradition and reason.
That’s a misquote of Hooker. The metaphor is of a pyramid, with scripture on the bottom, supporting all, then tradition, then reason. So reason is supported by both tradition and scripture. (At least, according to the friend I was talking to who has actually read Hooker {Hi Brian!})
Kate (#80), I’m not familiar with Hooker, but, it this article is correct, his analogy or concept served a somewhat different purpose than the one I had in mind (the relative importance of Scripture, reason, and tradition as sources of authority):
http://pbsusa.org/Articles/Hooker's%20stool.htm
Kate and Warren – thank you both! the pyramid concept makes all three acceptable to me. Once again I am blessed with light in the growing darkness. What do you think of the attempt to create a fourth concept I believe it is called – experience?
Stuck (#82), experience was a major component of the tradition I grew up in. That is a big reason why I am no longer part of it.