New ANiC Project in the Planning Stages in Huron
Jan 10th, 2010 by Kate
From the Peterborough Examiner:
New Anglican churches ‘true to scripture’
Posted By TREVOR TERFLOTH, QMI AGENCYOrthodox Anglicans hoping to create new churches in Chatham and nearby Belle River held a public information session here on Thursday.
Over the years, the Anglican church has seen divisions due to certain issues, such as same-sex marriage.
St. Aidan’s Ministries is affiliated with the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), an orthodox group.
However, Phillip Rutledge, a St. Aidan’s co-ordinator, said the same-sex issue wasn’t the motivation.
Rather, it is about being true to scripture, he said.
“It’s about church planting,” he said. “It’s not a ‘them’ and ‘us’ thing, any more than it would be with any denomination.”
Rutledge has spoke regularly with local Christians on the matter.
A small group attended the afternoon meeting.
However, Rutledge, of Belle River, said attendance wasn’t his primary concern at this point. He just hopes that the word spreads.
“I wasn’t looking for large numbers,” he said. “It’s simply to see what interest there is.
“You build a better structure when you start small.”
Advertisement
Rutledge said there will likely be future meetings. He noted there is no fixed timeline for the creation of any new churches.
In a previous interview, Rev. Keith Nethery, media relations officer for the Anglican Diocese of Huron, said the Anglican Church of Canada hasn’t passed any resolution to bless same-sex marriages.
He noted the division in the Huron diocese “simply is a reflection of what’s going on in the Anglican church in North America and, in fact, the Anglican communion around the world.”
Although the article was carried by the Peterborough Examiner, neither Chatham nor Belle River Ontario are “near” Peterborough (which is located in the Diocese of Toronto), but rather 400+ km southwest of it (in the Diocese of Huron).
More lifeboats set sail in the perilous sea! But they had no choice as the mother ship has been holed and is floundering under the guidance of her officers who have been seen to have a lack of “theological depth” by the review committee. http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/the-reason-for-the-decline-in-the-anglican-church-of-canada-is-finally-revealed/#comment-2843
I wish these small flocks well as small craft are ill equipped to deal with the coming storm of anti Christianity that is pervading Canadian society.
Oops. I’ll go fix that.
#2 Small boats are very well equipped if the Holy Spirit is there.
Hello Kate and a Happy New year to you. Your argument with Obit’s allegory is questionable. I recall in one of St. Paul’s voyages, aboard which the Holy Spirit was definitely in the boat when the boat tipped over. I concur with my brother (or sister) and I think his symbolic narrative wisely speaks to the question “are we truly aware of what we are up against?”
In #2 Obituary said:
So mega-churches are the answer? Or am I misunderstanding?
I’m currently a member of church with an average Sunday attendance of 1400 and I don’t think it is any better equipped to meet the “storm” than other churches I’ve been part of that are much smaller.
I was speaking of spiritual safety, not physical safety.
Sorry Kate I didn’t realize you were talking about safety I know and believe both Obit and I were not.
Warren - You are misunderstanding.
Keith Nethey says that nothing has changed, why then is there a same-sex wedding blessing liturgy available for use on the Huron Diocese website?
Rev. Keith Nethery says that nothing has changed, but yet if you look at the website for the Diocese of Huron, you will see a liturgy for same sex blessings, so obviously the Bishop and the Diocese of Huron must approve of all this same sex blessings.
Also if a couple is already legally married why is there a need to return back to the church to get a same sex blessing? A man and a woman legally married at City Hall would not go to a church for an additional blessing, so what is the purpose of the same sex blessing?
I cannot understand why all of this nonsense is allowed to go on. Whatever happened to trying to save the souls in the pews, and boost the numbers of people in the pews?
Re: Keith Nethery
A month ago, when the information that St. Aidan’s was responding to queries from within the Diocese of Huron for a possible church plant in Chatham, Keith Nethery was quoted in the Chatham paper, saying “as of this moment, there has been no provision for blessing same-sex unions in the Diocese of Huron.”
This was published AFTER the Diocese of Huron had announced the liturgy it would be using for same-sex blessings in the Diocese.
He now seems to have been driven from that position, is falling back on, ‘well the ACoC doesn’t allow it’, and diverting attention from the reality on the ground in Huron.
That would require that he acknowledge that, and explain why, Huron is acting in defiance of the expressed will of General Synod, the Primates of the Communion and Lambeth 1.10.
But experience indicates he’s smooth enough to obfusticate through that too.
David 10 -”I cannot understand why all of this nonsense is allowed to go on. Whatever happened to trying to save the souls in the pews, and boost the numbers of people in the pews?”
Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.
Daniel 10:14
“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.”
(Ephesians 6:12)
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 7:15
I would like to thank Dave and Apricot for questioning my motives without aid of facts! There is NOT a blessing liturgy on the Diocese of Huron website and there never has been. What is there is a liturgy, based on House of Bishops discussions, that provides the most generous pastoral response possible to gay and lesbian couples. The protocols clearly state that there is to be no exchange of vows and no nuptual blessing. This is a pastoral liturgy and a pastoral liturgy only. I took great pains to point this out to those on this blog earlier, but that apparently has meant little. And yes, people (and I’m talking hetrosexual couples)who get married at city hall and on beaches in the south do come to church and ask for a liturgy and I have had the honour of officiating at some of those.
As for the article in the Chatham Daily News (and yes that is where it originated - but in these days of chain ownership stories get passed around. The happenings in London in regards to the Amazing Grace project, ended up in the Belleville paper) there was only one interview that I did, with a different reporter back in December. Reporters (and I used to be one) tend to keep old notes for reference in case a story comes up again and newsrooms will share those notes. So referring to a quote in a December story and saying I changed my tune in January is hardly accurate, when the entire interview was done at one time. My quotes then and now are accurate. The Diocese of Huron does not have a blessing rite and the ACoC has not made an official decision on the blessing of same gender unions.
Perhaps before casting doubt on my credibility, it would be good to do two things. First, you might like to find out who I am and what I believe. (Honesty is something I value very highly and in fact is one of the reasons why I got out of media). It is also wise to check ones facts.
I just took a look at the Huron website, and it seems that the information regarding same sex unions has been taken down.
What is a liturgy for “a generous pastoral response to same sex couples”? It seems to me that there isn’t much difference between a liturgy to recognize a same sex couple’s relationship and a nuptuial blessing. What is the purpose of the liturgy, if not to show the church’s approval of their relationship? Would it not be more honest simply to call the liturgy a same sex blessing?
Apricot said “seems to have”. He or she would have had no way of knowing that the quotes were all from the same interview.
#14 Kate
No the information is on the website: http://www.diohuron.org/bishops_office/samesex.htm
The document in question is here.
The sentence “It is noted that there is to be no exchange of vows, no exchange of rings and no nuptial blessing.” was added after the page was initially put up, possibly in response to this post.
The page does proclaim that the diocese is engaging in a Celebration of a Civil Marriage With same-sex Couples, but Keith Nethery has gone to some pains to assure everyone that this does not constitute a blessing and, thus, is not breaking the rules.
This approach is somewhat akin to the behaviour of a child who, having been told he cannot have another cookie, picks up the cookie jar, puts his hand into it and after his parent scolds him, declares piously “I didn’t take a cookie”.
David #17 - Sorry David, but your comment is wrong. The House of Bishops of ACoC commissioned some of it’s own, representing the varying opinions, and they came forward with a pastoral response in an effort to help find a way through this issue. The work done in Huron follows what was placed before the House of Bishops to the letter. While the Synod of the Diocese voted strongly in favour of asking the Bishop to consider a rite of Blessing, neither Bishop Howe (Bishop at the time of the motion) nor Bishop Bennett, his successor, has ever moved on that motion.
As for your suggestion that Huron changed the rite simply because of a post on this blog, let’s be realistic. The original protocol which was e-mailed to all clergy, contained the direction that no vows were to be exchanged and no nuptual blessing was to be given. In the process of that document being posted to the website, this one sentence was missed. When the error was noticed, it was corrected. You can believe this or not as you choose, but it’s the way it happened.
You seem to want to make this into something it isn’t. Huron is waiting to see what happens at General Synod 2010, which according to another post on this blog, you find worthy of discussion by posting an Anglican Journal story
Obviously my searching skills failed me today, thank you James.
I note the following from the links provided:
If it looks like a duck, etc, it is probably a duck. This is a marriage masquerading as a “celebration of relationship”.
Keith [#18],
The Windsor report called for a moratorium on “public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions”. I stick by my analogy of the naughty child testing the boundaries of his naughtiness before parental wrath descends. I would agree with you, though, that the whole ACoC is behaving like the naughty child; the diocese of Huron is merely following in its footsteps - admittedly, not uniquely guilty, but complicit nevertheless.
Although, as a believer, I find some of its doctrinal and theological positions unacceptable, it is the ACoC’s penchant for doublespeak and posturing that really gets under my skin. Nothing is what it seems and everything is nuanced. Every public statement is carefully crafted due to concern for its potential “political” implications and the effect it might have on how the organization is perceived.
There are some fundamental Christian groups with whose doctrine I also disagree, but at least I know where they stand and that they’ll stick to their convictions. I can respect that.
Rev. Netherly the un-asked question around the central issue of this dialogue is whether same sex union is right or wrong. Your synod seems to think it is right. I am curious how “voted strongly” translates into actual numbers? Your HOB seems in favour but waits for General Synod. Whatever your answer is, I think it only fair for this blog to know. There are only two words one is sufficient. Please.
There is only one clear, valid, scriptually based, and honest pastoral response to SSB’s - Repent!
I have noted the remarks suggesting that the so-called liturgy is a “generous pastoral reponse”. As Christians we MUST be commited to the authority of Scripture and recognize that homosexuality is a SIN and falls into the same category as any other sin - theft, pedophelia, false testimony, etc. Our society and tragically many in various churches have come to believe you can mix our beliefs with modern concepts of tolerance and political acceptance. The result is that we no longer hold to the two primary requirements to be a Christian - the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
The proper response to persons involved in homosexuality is the same as that for persons involved in any sin. We are all sinners and we are called to repentance regardless of the sin. Failure of the church and/or its leaders to call us to repentance has resulted in our watered down Christianity which is really no Christianity at all. I can only ask when are those in the House of Bishops including the Primate going to take their vows seriously and show themselves as “chief shepherds”. Having any liturgy or other form to “bless” or otherwise honour same-sex unions simply misleads all those involved.
“Christian dost thou see them, on the holy ground? How the hosts of darkness compess thee around??” We need to open our eyes and see our calling. We cannot claim to be a Christian or an Anglican if we do not fully accept both the authority of Scripture and the uniquess of Jesus Christ.
Keith Nethery and Bob Bennett seem to believe that as long as there is “no exchange of vows, no exchange of rings and no nuptial blessing” anything else done in a parish in the Diocese of Huron to bless/celebrate a same-sex union is okay
This is the introduction of the liturgy:
“The presider then will begin the prayers with the following.
Presider:
The Scriptures tell the story of God’s enduring covenant with all humankind
and indeed with all of creation. God’s covenant with Israel was the source of
their law and their love for one another. This covenant set them apart to bless
and to be a blessing to all creation.
This covenant took flesh in the person of Jesus and has brought us into a new
community where there is no male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free,
but one people united in Christ, to the Glory of God.
We have gathered today to acknowledge and celebrate a covenant already
made. The public declaration of commitment which binds these two persons in
an enduring relationship is now to be set apart by prayer and by their deep
desire to invite God into the midst of their love for one another.
Our prayer is that this covenant, between N. and N., will reflect the glory of the
One who came not be served, but to serve, and who gave his life as a ransom
for many. By word and example, N. and N. proclaim to us the love which sets
us free to be children of God, inheritors of his kingdom and signs of the new
creation….”
And amongst other things Bennett has stated:
“As with all liturgical celebrations of the church, these events will be entered into the Parish Register (Vestry Book)”.
regarding #18 Keith Nethery:
“The original protocol which was e-mailed to all clergy, contained the direction that no vows were to be exchanged and no nuptual blessing was to be given. In the process of that document being posted to the website, this one sentence was missed. When the error was noticed, it was corrected. You can believe this or not as you choose, but it’s the way it happened.”
this is true - I received that original missal. I’m not sure about the web omission, but the original e-mail is accurate.
re: #23 Stuck -
“I am curious how “voted strongly” translates into actual numbers? ”
I was there - to my shock both houses came in at about 73-75% in favour.
Boy, I’m away from the computer for three or four hours and all these questions to answer.
17 David - I find it interesting you want to talk about the Windsor report, which is not a binding document. The Anglican Church of Canada, as are all provinces of the Communion, is free to set it’s own course. When the General Synod of 2007 left the legislative decisions on SSB’s somewhat murky, the Bishops suggested a pastoral solution might help as an interim measure and as I pointed out, had some of their own work on ideas. What I was pointing out is that Huron has followed what was set down by the ACoC. I would still disagree with your analogy. I’ll suggest another. When a priest presides at liturgy, they are given permission by the Church to give a Blessing. When a lay person officiates, they can offer a prayer asking God’s blessing. Clearly there is a difference and I would suggest the different between a Rite of Blessing and a Eucharist with Prayers would be similarly different
23 Stuck - that is N E T H E R Y - if you think the solution to anything can be found in trying to pigeon hole anyone into a one word answer, then I think you are sadly mistaken. You won’t drag me into something like that. We in Huron don’t have a House of Bishops, we have a Bishop and a Suffragan Bishop. The Rt. Rev. Bob Bennett is the Bishop and he has been clear on our process. The next step is General Synod 2010 and until then Huron’s position will remain unchanged.
25 - Frank - I’m interested if you would like to cite a distinctly Anglican document that requires your two requirements to be a Christian, or are they your own personal opinion. That said, I would at some level agree that those are two very important things in the understanding of being a Christian, but my guess is that our definition of what each means, might well be rather different. It’s one thing to point blank state something as cast in stone (see my response to Stuck), but it is completely another to enter into a discussion even about ground rules of how to try and mediate such a discussion.
26 Apricot - I would certainly thank you for elevating me into some kind of a position of authority, coming before the Bishop. In truth, my opinion and a dollar and 52 cents will get you a large Tim’s anywhere in the Diocese of Huron. I enter these discussions simply as me, having been drawn in to correct inaccuracies in comments made earlier by yourself and Dave.
27 Margo - thank you for your comments. If I’m reading what you wrote correctly, the Huron vote would have been very traumatic for you. It is however important that we work with accurate information which you provided.
Keith,
As a matter of interest, in the Diocese of Huron how many celebrations of same-sex married couples have actually occurred so far? Also, do you have an approximate idea of how many might occur in, say, the next year - less than ten, less than one hundred - more?
. . . and Keith illustrates my point (#22). Good example of ACoC shuck ‘n jive.
Aritcle VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Article XV. Of Christ alone without Sin.
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as Saint John saith) was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Oops. Sorry. I forgot that the 39 Articles ain’t woth nothin’ to the ACoC.
Hello Keith, thanks for dropping by. I’ve re-read the document posted to the Diocesan and Huron website, and I agree with you, within the narrow guidelines given, it is not an official blessing ceremony.
However, I’m pretty much in agreement with Warren (#22). What frustrates me is a Church, or in this case diocese, that does not seem to quite be able to say what we know it believes. In that sense I respect the Diocese of Niagara and New Westminster more.
In this Diocese of Huron, we have Protocols, Guidelines and Evaluation Document for The Celebration of a Civil Marriage With same-sex Couples - that is not a Blessing thereof. You can hopefully excuse those of us who look at that as a bit of a distinction without a difference. It would be better, I think, if you were hot or cold on the issue!
I can accept that you are waiting for the ACoC Synod in June. However, if so, why then did the Diocese not wait until then, rather than creating an everything-but-the-word-blessing liturgy? Or, do what Niagara did and make the point that failing to pass a motion to give dioceses rights in 2007 is not the same as withdrawing existing rights, and going right ahead anyway.
Let your yes be yes, and all that!
Rev. Nethery; I apologize for messing up your name it was careless. As you continue in honest debate my admiration and concern for you increases. I was not trying to pigeon hole you in fact just the opposite. “The truth will set you free”. The bottom line regarding SSB’s rests in it’s authenticity. If you think it is an expression of the Will of God than it can be nothing more than right. If like me you think it is a terrible error, (remember here, we are talking about church authority blessing a sexual union,) than there is no basis for a God blessed expression. It becomes a feeble attempt at authenticating sin in support of the political correctness of inclusionism. This dear brother is far worse than the actions of Ananias and Sapphira they only lied TO God.
As for your “We in Huron don’t have a House of Bishops, we have a Bishop and a Suffragan Bishop”. I was quoting from the third and fourth lines of your #13.
P.S. Blessing or Celebration - political correctness at it’s worse. A rose by any other name, still has a bad odour to me. Please pray (a sweet savor) for enlightenment as I will be doing very shortly. Good night Keith and may God bless you.
30-33 Warren you might be surprised that I am very well acquainted with the 39 Articles and have lead two or three study groups on them. You need remember that the 39 Articles themselves are the result of a process of development, having three or four different incarnations before the final draft, which is what we have today and for the most part are ignored. Don’t forget the Articles also include a direction to preach the Two Books of Homilies, which I doubt you would enjoy, if you could in fact even find a copy. The statement in the Articles about the Canonical Books and there never being any disagreement, well if you know early church history, that wasn’t the case.
David asked about the number of times the Huron liturgy has/will be used, and at this point I don’t know the answer.
One final thought, what you seem to think is double speak I see as trying to be very clear on one’s position. In my mind a Blessing and a celebration are two very different and distinct things as per the analogy I used earlier (although there are places in the Anglican world where the difference between a priest being called to grant a blessing and lay people presiding is being blurred). You probably won’t agree with this, but my experience of this blog is that if you aren’t very careful in what you say and how you say it, you can quickly find people making assumptions - ie what started this conversation that I had changed my position in media stories
Keith (#34), your familiarity with the 39 Articles is not surprising (nor is your implicit disparaging of them), but it makes the question you posed to Frank in #28 appear bizarre. Apparently, in your view, the 39 Articles are not a “distinctly Anglican document” and what they say about the uniqueness of Jesus and the authority of Scripture is of no value. That you asked Frank to cite an “Anglican source” concerning the requirements for being a Christian, vice the Bible, is itself telling and illustrates the movement of the ACoC away from orthodox Christianity. The crux of the matter is the authority of Scripture and, in that regard, I don’t doubt that we are worlds apart. To use Hooker’s three-legged stool analogy, the ACoC has mostly sawn off the Scripture and tradition legs, and is trying to balance precariously on the one remaining leg of reason - a fool’s task given the Biblical injunction to “lean not on your own understanding”.
Although I don’t profess to be an expert, I have taken classes in both church history and textual criticism - and thus have some knowledge of how the canon came into being and how it has been relentlessly attacked by liberal scholars in the last 200 years. Unlike those who question until the cows come home and are always looking for a way to discredit the idea of inspiration, I trust that God has protected and preserved His holy Word, and that Christians in 2010 can still read the Bible with unflagging confidence. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy sums up my position well. I suspect there are few left within the ACoC who would be willing to sign such a statement. We all know how one of the crafters of the Statement, J.I. Packer, has been treated by the ACoC.
I may not enjoy the homilies - I might not even like them - but, to the extent that they faithfully reflect God’s Word, I must subordinate myself to them. There are parts of the Bible that I don’t like either - parts that painfully reveal my sinful nature and idolatry; my tendency to put the praise and approval of man before the approval of God. I know, in my heart, that it is these portions of Scripture that I must pay closest attention to and must diligently seek the leading and power of the Holy Spirit so that they begin to transform me into the person that God would have me be (sanctification). As an aside, it only took about 10 seconds of “Googling” to find the homilies on line. Although I have only scanned a couple briefly, I suspect there is much in them that would be to my liking.
A “Christian” religion that seeks to conform God’s Word to the popular views of culture, rather than calling its adherents to conform themselves to the image of God, no matter how painful and countercultural the conforming process may be, is repugnant to me. Sadly, I believe that this is what the ACoC has been reduced to.
Please note that I don’t presume to speak for anyone else on this blog.
If the gays and lesbians feel the need to get legally married, there are a number of options, such as the United Church of Canada, the MCC Metropolitan Community Church, or going to a wedding officiant, City Hall etc.
Why do the gays and the lesbians have to marry at the Anglican Church when it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of the people in the pews in the local Anglican church do not want any of this?
In London Ontario where Keith Nethery is located, six more United Churches are slated to close, and all through the countryside the United Church in many towns and cities is going to be torn down or closed.
Surely the Anglican Church can learn from this and realize that the United Church has collapsed because it departed from The Bible, holy tradition, and orthodoxy.
Now the Anglican church in America, that is Canada and the United States has collapsed, and yet the powers that be are continuing on with their destrutive course, guaranteed to drive out more parishioners and dissuade potential new members.
More attention has to be paid to preaching The Bible, preaching salvation, and the Ten Commandments, and stop all of this social justice nonsense which is doing nothing but destroying the Anglican Church.
When the United Church travelled in this same direction, it was said that the gays and lesbians would come in to the church and fill up the pews to take the place of all the orthodox and conservative members who left the United Church by the thousands. Clearly this did not happen. The United Church has collapsed and does not even have a presence in many towns in Canada now.
The “three legged stool” is a myth. What Hooker really said was this:
So, according to Hooker we order our lives according to scripture, then reason, then the voice of the church. It is more like a pyramid with scripture as its foundation than a three legged stool comprised of equal length legs, and the rulings of the church are to be based on, and not go against what is said in the scriptures.
Warren [#35] you do speak for at least one other on this blog. However, Kate is right about Hooker.
34 Warren - I enjoy a debate, but we will do better if you don’t try to put words into my mouth. I was in no way disparaging the 39 Articles as I happen to quite like much of them and wish they were still included in our books of worship, and taught (in a scholarly way) to show people today from whence we have come. Nor did I say anything like that what they point to in the Uniqueness of
Christ and the Authority of Scripture is of no value. There are many statements about many things that have been made throughout history that people now seem to think are some clear and final statement about what it is to be Anglican, or Christian. They are not, nor should they be presented as clear and final statements, but rather as the ongoing development and understanding of theology.
Where we disagree I think is not in the authority of scripture and various documents but in the interpretation. I am of the opinion that there is no way that we can take in anything without interpretation. In reading what I had written previously you interpreted me to say things had no value and that I had disparaged something - neither of which was my intent. That is why two people can read the same thing and because of their experience, life, education, bias etc etc etc come up with two different understandings. While I see a celebration with a couple being dramatically different from a blessing, others on this blog see them as being the same thing. The question becomes how do we journey together with these different interpretations. For much of church history we have said we can’t and we split. I believe that Jesus calls us to be one and that dealing with people with whom we disagree is part of the learning process.
Kate (#37), your point is well put. In the course I took in which the the “stool” idea was introduced, the teacher preferred to use a “stage of truth” analogy. He made the point that different denominations and branches of Christianity place the four elements of Scripture, reason, tradition (i.e. the traditional teaching of the church) and emotion, in different places on the stage. Some put Scripture at the very front and push reason far to the back, whereas others place these elements in closer proximity. I fear that the ACoC has pushed Scripture so far back on the stage that it is in danger of falling off completely.
Keith (#39), I fear you read no more carefully than I. I said that you “implicitly” disparaged the 39 Articles, not that you criticized them outright (see #22). I chose these words deliberately and stand by them. The 39 Articles may well have historical interest to you and I don’t doubt that you like them in that sense. Inasmuch as they accurately reflect the truth of God’s Word, are they life giving for you?
You may define “authority of Scripture” differently than I, but we do differ greatly in this regard. There is interpretation, and then there is deliberate and calculated misinterpretation - misinterpretation that breaks from most of historic, orthodox Christianity, but aligns well current cultural values. This is the road that I believe the ACoC has chosen to go down.
Over the course of many moves, I have attended and actively participated in churches from many Protestant denominations (in this respect I have journeyed much further than I ever would have imagined 30-40 years ago) . Even though I rarely (if ever) agreed with 100% of the distinctives and doctrinal positions of these churches, I was always able to find true fellowship. My interpretation of certain Bible passages differed from those around me, but I knew that we agreed on the essentials - especially the person and work of Jesus Christ. I know there are many other denominations, of which I have not been part, where I could also find true fellowship. I cannot say this of the ACoC in general (although I’m sure there are individual parishes where I would not feel out of place).
I know this sounds harsh and is not an inducement to further debate and discussion, and I may be bringing judgement upon myself, but I believe that at least some of those holding the reins of power in the ACoC are not included in the “us” of which you speak.
Being a media relations officer (hopefully the originally quoted article is not incorrect in that regard), I have doubtlessly given you some grist for the mill. I’m sure you could pick and choose several of my statements and connect them in a way that would allow you to paint an “interesting” picture of the ”fanatics” that inhabit the Essentials blog. My challenge to you would be for you to encourage the average person in the pew in your Diocese to check out the blog and investigate the issues for themselves. I, for one, would welcome greater participation. Of course, the blogosphere is generally not for those who fear controversy and have a tender disposition.
For those interested in reading the Homilies (both books) Footstool has them online here:
http://www.footstoolpublications.com/Homilies/Homilies.htm
Some of the homilies in the second book are clearly motivated by Tudor political concerns. That these books were revised and reprinted several times between 1547 and 1623 shows a certain staying power for them through the various swings of the pendulum between the Reformed and Catholic wings of the Anglican Church in its early years.
As more seminarians were trained in homiletics, the homilies were gradually phased out, but echoes of the language of the homilies are seen well into the late 1700s.
I’ve read all of them through and they are marvellously clear in their teaching about their various topics. They will be repugnant to that part of the Church that downplays God’s righteous wrath. Or who believe in unrestricted divorce. Or who believe that Our Lord’s resurrection is a metaphor. Or that the Bible is not divinely inspired. In short, the homilies will be repugnant to John Spong and his fellow travellers. In itself, that would be enough to recommend them to me.
41 Warren - I would repeat again, I did not disparage the 39 Articles either implicitly or explicitly and would suggest that this is again your interpretation of what I was saying, perhaps (and now I’m interpreting and aware that I could be all wet) based on the fact that we are coming at things from a different place. In the 39 Articles I find an historic statement of Anglicanism, a development over many years and the product of many different people in many different situations. In using your the stool or triangle example from Hooker, I would seem them as part of tradition. You asked that insomuch as they accurately reflect the Word of God are they life giving. That to me would elevate them to a higher position. The 39 Articles seek, at least in part, to distance a new Anglican understanding from the previous Roman Catholic influence.
I discuss issues such as this with many many people who are across a wide range of theological understandings and positions on SSB’s, Authority of Scripture, etc. We start from the standpoint that no one but God has complete Truth and as such, we, God’s children can learn from one another as we share thoughts and opinions. Bill #42 mentions John Spong, who for the record I disagree with very much, but I have read some of his stuff, found most of it useless to me, but it did provide another avenue for me to see, to think, to reason. Keeping that in balance by reading people on the other end of the spectrum, (and at various points in the middle - not to mention contemporary and historic) I find that I am able to learn a great deal.
I was told once (and I wish I could remember by who) that you should actively read a book you know you will disagree with a least once every couple of years because it will force you to learn to vocalize why you believe what you believe and you never know, you just might learn something.
Bill 42 - thanks for the posting on the Homilies. I’m several years removed from the last time I read them. There is a much darker side to their writing, which had to do with power grabs, money grabs, keeping people under control, and education away from those in church.
In #43 Keith wrote:
Can I assume, then, that you also do not disparage ACNA’s decision to include the following element in their theological statement:
If you don’t endorse the inclusion of this element, why not? Is there any reason why the ACoC could not make a similar statement?
I understand that the 39 Articles were written as a doctrinal standard to define the beliefs of the Church of England over against those of the Roman Church. The same is true of the other major confessions of that era (Belgic, Westminster, etc.). This, however, in and of itself, does not invalidate the truthfulness or value of the Articles - then or now. I’m currently a member of a Presbyterian Church of America church, and the Westminster Standards are still very much “living and breathing” documents within the denomination. I see this as a very healthy thing.
Your suggestion to occasionally read a book you don’t agree with is valid. I seem to find plenty without looking too hard. I also agree with the suggestion that one’s spiritual and theological reading should regularly include books by “old dead guys.”
The 39 Articles of 1662 were also revised at a time when sectarian tensions in England were at their highest. Aside from the various nefarious purposes quoted above, there was also deliberately vague language so that the majority of the three authentically Christian streams in England could worship together in relative peace. Staunch Roundheads and Roman Catholics both rejected the Church of England, but those who were moderate Reform or Anglo-Catholic, to use a later term, were able to worship together despite some differing interpretations of key phrases in the worship.
This, by the way, is the true via media of the Anglican Church. It is a specific response to the excesses of both the Cavalier and the Roundhead factions; it is not a generalized “middle road”. It is the middle road that allowed the restoration of the monarchy after a civil war. It is a middle road between competing, but authentic, expressions of the Christian faith. The homilies, the 1662 Prayer Book and the slightly revised 39 Articles articulate that middle road both in what is said and what is omitted.
For example, Cranmer’s homily on justification by faith puts the Anglican Church firmly in the Reformed camp. But there is also no official position or doctrine on the Eucharist, although the Prayer Book formula for receiving the bread and wine contains both Reformed and Catholic phrases. There are many more examples that show a certain amount of political compromise to keep the peace in England.
As far as control of people and education goes, the Church was the only source of education for many for centuries. The homilies themselves are meant to educate parishioners about morals, doctrine and duty. The content expresses a certain ideology about the extant political and economic system.
The Ontario public school system is as much about controlling future citizens’ attitudes as it is about educating our young to take part in our economy. The content expresses a certain ideology about the extant political and economic system. The baseline assumptions are somewhat different from England in 1662.
If, as we are taught by the Church Fathers, God’s expectations of us do not change, then the moral and doctrinal teaching from the homilies remains true today.
Warren 44 - we are agreed then that the motivation for the 39 Articles is in a specific time and for a specific set of circumstances. And given that there is an on going development in the content and theology then it would impossible to say that you could not subtract from or add to the text. I have absolutely no problem with what ACNA has adopted and defend your right to do so. I don’t have a problem with a suggestion that the ACoC use the 39 Articles as part of our history, tradition and theology. I do have a problem with a direction that to be authentically Anglican you must receive the 39 Articles in their literal and grammatical sense as expressing the fundamental principals of Anglican belief today. (To be certain, I’m interpreting what the ACNA statement says, is an implication that the 39 Articles should be given such place if we are to be Anglican) The Articles apply to the time they were created and they can inform Anglicanism today, but to close all possibilities of discussion or change is to give to the 39 Articles authority not intended or foreseen.
By the way, look at where we have gotten - from comments on a possible ACNA Church plan in Chatham to the 39 Articles. It’s always interesting to see where a discussion goes
Whoops - that should be Warren 44 fixed - admin
Keith - your #39
I personally dislike being ignored (my32&33). For that reason I decided to withdraw from this stream. A statement you made has forced me for your sake to once again attempt dialogue. You said “I believe that Jesus calls us to be one and that dealing with people with whom we disagree is part of the learning process.”
I first refer you to Rev.22:19 (the Spirit not the letter) Jesus did not just call us to be one, He included “as We are one” I cannot see (for the life of me) my God disagreeing in any way with my God or there being any kind of “learning process, Indaba, or any other bugaboboo. For us it begins and ends with obedience, for our Lord God it is beyond our understanding. As for the paraphrased aged question how many angels or articles or homilies can sit on the head of a pin? I know the answer. Do you?
Stuck 32 and 33 - there was no attempt to ignore you, but give me this much - there are half a dozen or more people on this blog discussing things with me, it’s hard to get around to everyone. I entered this discussion to correct what I felt were comments that were based not on fact but on sticking (forgive the pun) it to the Diocese of Huron which has played by the rules from day one in all of this. It has been suggested that we were not being genuine, not playing fair. I have witnessed first hand the debate at General Synod 2007 and also at the Huron Synod. The debate on both occassions was reasonable, speakers were respectful of each other. People poured out their hearts and souls. In the case of General Synod, the vote was so close that motions that were almost conflicting passed, motions that have been used by all sides in the debate to support their positions. In Huron, it was clear from the outset what the decision would be, yet everyone was welcomed to speak. When the vote was taken Bishop Howe said he would think about it, but that nothing had changed because of the Synod vote. With Bishop Howe’s retirement, Bishop Bennett said he needed time to work things through. As I have pointed out more than once, he followed discussions from the House of Bishops of a pastoral response, and that General Synod 2010 would have to speak before any further action is taken in Huron.
Your request seems to me to violate the spirit of the genuine discussion that has taken place in Huron. I get the feeling you want me to say SSB’s are okay so you can write me off, as a person of faith. I will say that I don’t believe that things are that black and white.
Let me say this, and I can already hear people saying it is doublespeak. I believe that it is possible for two people, two groups of people, two whatever size numbers you want, to read Scripture and come to different interpretations. That said, we fall to tradition and reason to inform differing interpretations of Scripture, neither of which can bring us to an answer that is 100 per cent acceptable to either side. These disagreements have gone on for many centuries and won’t be solved by this blog or any other, nor will they be solved by demands that you be on one side or the other.
I will let my yes be yes on one subject. I believe today and have believed all my life and can thing of nothing that will change my belief that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God - fully human, yet fully God.
In #46 Keith said:
For those elements of the 39 Articles that reflect the opinion of man, I fully agree. For those portions that encapsulate the clear teaching of Scripture, I disagree heartily. Unfortunately, I fear the ACoC has thrown out the baby with the bathwater and is as ready to disregard “inconvenient” passages of Scripture as it is the 39 Articles.
I do not ascribe any special qualities to the 39 Articles and subordinate them to the Bible in all respects. The lack of a clear doctrinal standard, however, and the unwillingness to exercise discipline in doctrinal matters, has badly hurt, if not ruined, the ACoC.
I was not at the 2007 Synod, but your description in #49 of what went on there (presumably as someone who generally supported the ACoC party line) differs significantly from what I recall others saying who were there and tried to stand against the general flow of things. Regardless, the pre-Synod “weeding process” ensured that there wouldn’t be much dissension anyway. This blog started as a means to inform people about the 2007 Synod (see the “About” section), and perhaps some of those involved at its inception will want to weigh in. I admit that my memory is far from perfect.
I appreciate your affirmation that “Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God - fully human, yet fully God.” I hope you can also affirm His uniqueness as the only way to the Father and His substitutionary atonement for sins of mankind.
Warren - 50 - Actually my role in 2007 was in the media centre and so I didn’t support any line, other than the line that wanted me to explain both sides and the middle to media who, with some exceptions, wouldn’t know a cross from a cruet. Two members of the media (who I won’t name but will say stood at opposite ends of the spectrum) impressed me by the breadth of their knowledge of the church. For most, it was just another story.
So taking somewhat of a neutral position and not having any need to spend time thinking about voting, or making public statements, I was free to observe. The speakers, as best I can remember, spread across the range of opinion, but most definitely there was a move to either end of the spectrum. It was frustrating that people said the same thing over and over and over again (on both sides) and it was clear that neither side was swaying the other, if in fact they were even listening. (and yes that cuts both ways)
When you have two groups that are convinced they are each right and will give no ground to the other side, you have very little chance of coming to any agreement. It takes a willingness to listen, to love, to care for those who frustrate you, to have any hope to reaching a reasonable concensus. If anyone says they were not given a chance to make their case, where not given ample opportunity to speak, well, I would have to strongly differ. Did anybody listen? Hmmmmmmm
Pre-Synod weeding? No idea what that might be. Huron’s delegates were elected by the same procedure as has been used for many many years, and, while it wasn’t my business to ask them how they voted, I think it would be fair to say they covered the spectrum.
2010 Synod will likely be different because many chose to discontinue the discussion and go elsewhere, thereby continuing the discussion on a different level. Everyone will be poorer for that
In #51 Keith said:
I mean “weeding” in a few ways - and apologize for not being more clear. First, I suspect that there are few, if any, orthodox, Bible-believing Christians, who hold firm doctrinal positions, remaining in more liberal ACoC parishes. So, there was no one to send from these parishes to advocate for a return to orthodoxy. Second, in many of the other parishes, such people would have been in the minority and not likely to be selected to attend Synod. Third, I suspect that many with orthodox views saw the Synod as having a foregone conclusion and did not want to subject themselves to the pain. Although many who subsequently moved to the ANiC doubtlessly clung to the hope that God would see fit to begin a restoration of the ACoC through Synod 2007, I doubt than any were surprised by the outcome.
Again, I hope the some of those who were closer to the action will weigh in and correct me where I am wrong.
I’m still interested in your response to my last statement in #50.
52 - Warren - I’m more that a bit confused. Folks on this blog say over and over again that they must stand up for orthodoxy, yet I think (and please correct me if I’m wrong) you just said that you think a group of people, rather than take that stand for orthodoxy, chose not to pursue selection to the ACoC Synod of 2007, because they were outnumbered and didn’t think they could prevail. That seems to me to fly in the face of the stated conviction to defend orthodoxy and rescue those from the ACoC. And in doing so they left those who did pursue what they feared was a losing cause, to fend for themselves. That does not sound like the folks I met at GS 2007 who were there to argue their point til somebody told them they had to go home. And yes I am very much talking about those who would have argued against SSB’s with every ounce they had.
As for responding to your last statement in 50, as I said to Stuck in Toronto in 49 above (and I’ll state it more clearly) my experience is that this blog is not a safe space to take up pointed questions that try to put one into black and white spaces. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God, fully human and fully God. For the purposes of this discussion, that will have to be sufficient for you to understand where I stand in faith
Keith (#53), as I have said elsewhere on this thread, I don’t presume to speak for others; and I hope that others will weigh in with a more balance perspective. I’m heading off to a church history class shortly, so others will at least have some breathing room to weigh in.
Had I been in a postion to be selected for Synod 2007 (I was not), I’m pretty sure I would have declined. I had already written off the ACoC by that time. But that’s just me.
Rev. Keith your #49 I will certainly give you that and more. Agreed it must seem like a feeding frenzy at times but the reasons are worth looking at, I speak for myself. You are the first Anglican Clergyman who has presented a continuing argument with out backing up one inch (that I know of)- either with promises not kept, (”We will provide adequate pastoral and ecclesiastical support for those not in agreement”) or out-right lying, that I and many others have experienced over the period that this departure from scripture and tradition (and for me reason) can attest. You and your dioceses’s inability or refusal to provide clarity leaves no choice but to speculate in the negative. This calls out for us to defend as our Lord asked.
You said “I believe that it is possible for two people, two groups of people, two whatever size numbers you want, to read Scripture and come to different interpretations”. Here I attempt once again to lovingly admonish your belief. There is only one interpretation of Scrpture. It is that which is received incarnately, as truth, by the Holy Spirit. Amen?
Really? Why? We work very hard to keep things civil here, actually.
55 - Stuck - As I have said prevously, I enjoy discussion and as long as we debate fairly (doesn’t mean we can’t express ourselves strongly but we do have to respect the other) I’m open to talking. Earlier in the discussion people spoke of the ACoC and doublespeak. With respect, it seems to me what you said about interpretation of Scripture being that which is received incarnately as Truth by the Holy Spirit, sounds good, but what does it mean, when you are also using the term admonish. If you are saying that there is only one way to interpret Scripture and this is the way those from my position interpret it because (pick anyone of a number of reasons) then I’m not going there. God continues to speak to us today through the Spirit, which we will probably agree on, but we won’t agree on how we interpret what the Spirit is saying. Does any one person, group have the only “line” to the Spirit. No, I don’t think so. That means that when we come from the different places of our interpretations, we will clash. I truly believe that God calls us to do the very difficult work of working through that with each other. It’s the only reason that I am still here at post 50 whatever. I have long since accomplished what I wanted to do, probably in the first dozen posts, but others seemed to want to talk, so why not. It seems you find me unique as an ACoC clergy in that I’m willing to stay. My experience of friends in priestly ministry is that they are always willing to talk as long as there is mutuality, and that goes up and down the spectrum.
Kate 56 - When people on this blog are in general agreement, yes I would agree. But my guess is that if I venture into some of the black and white areas that some have wanted to push me into, it might suddenly turn into me against everyone else on the blog. That’s not a safe space. Some very strong, very generalized comments have been made about ACoC clergy on this site. As I just said to Stuck, I’m happy to talk as long as we stay in areas of comfort and exploration. If there are those enjoying the conversation, let’s continue.
Rev. Keith; I can easily and have done so often, read scripture that I did not quite understand. I learned a long time ago from a great teacher to just leave it alone, pray about it and come back to it another time. Other studies from scripture have leapt clearly and entered my heart (received with joy) this I am told is the incarnate work of the Holy Spirit. I believe it so. It is my opinion that to work through a scripture passage not understood and to make any attempt at understanding through personal logic is dangerous and unecessary. That, I believe, is the work of the Comforter.
Having received and digested incarnate truth, we are instructed, to admonish one another in love. I hope this explanation is sufficient for you to recognize more than just “sounds good”. To clarify further, “Interpretation” means to change, make sense of; assign a meaning to, translate from one language to another. So when I say there is only ONE, I mean, one correct translation. This brings me full circle to the simple question of right OR wrong. and it is that simple! Clarity is the essence of ……………..
In #57 Keith said:
And we know who made those generalized comments. I don’t think Christ worried about being in a safe place. I don’t think Paul and the other Apostles worried about being in a safe place. I don’t think the church fathers worried about being in a safe place. I don’t think Luther worried about being in a safe place. I don’t think the other reformers worried about being in a safe place. If you have convictions; speak them with confidence and defend them. If you believe in the direction in which the ACoC is going, defend it with vigour. Surely you aren’t worried about a few verbal lumps that someone like me may try to give in challenging your position? If I (or others) become rude or personal, I would expect the administrators to quickly give me the boot.
I’ve had some great exchanges in the past on this blog with people I’ve strongly disagreed with and, believe it or not, I’ve even learned a few things from them. Such exchanges are part of what keeps me coming back. They cause me to examine my beliefs and presuppositions.
For those who like to debate and mix it up, it is much more fun to do so with those in the Reformed camp. You just better keep your wits about you at all times when dealing with staunch Calvinists, and keep reminding yourself to not take things personally. Compared to many of the exchanges I’ve seen on Reformed blogs, what happens on this blog is a quiet and very civil tea party. Anglicans just don’t seem disposed to theological rumbles. (The last paragraph was, at least in part, tongue in cheek.)
#57 I was going to reply but Warren said it better.
Stuck #58: You’ve got it!
Rev. Netherby #57: You are not alone in finding this interpretation thing quite a challenge. And, as you say, ‘when we come from the different places of our interpretations, we will clash.’ In the midst of contradictory human voices, it becomes evident that no one of us, in himself, can claim a perfectly clear view of the truth. (I guess awareness of our human limitations in this regard is one good thing about all the critical or deconstructionist thinking of the last hundred or so years. It ought to result in general humility, though it doesn’t really.)
Yet, there does remain one voice –the voice of God –which does not succumb to human limitations. We Christians know a God who, unlike the other gods of this world, has actually spoken to us though the Holy Scripture. Within it we receive the undeserved glory of Words breathed by the living God. They are not clouded by limitation of knowledge, or emotion’s blinding or fashion’s sway like ours: So, though some would like to stick a postmodern spin on Scripture, the eternal truth of the Word stands, being interpreted by itself not by us. Amazing! Words breathed by the living God which he himself helps us understand!
This voice, the voice of God, was the one unheard voice at your Diocesan Synod, it appears—though some faithful did try to plead with the assembly. God has spoken clearly about these things which we humans so earnestly ‘work through with each other’ and come to such destructive and devastating conclusions. I plead with you, my Christian brother: submit your thinking to God’s Word at this time of testing in the church. How?: Have another look at Stuck’s post in #58.
Warren - 59 - I make no claim to be a Paul or a Luther or anyone of that magnitude. I’m just a parish priest who likes to discuss things but reserve the right (and give the right in return) to not ask anyone to go into an area that, at that moment, they don’t want to. Sort of like your thoughts on GS 2007 had you the opportunity to stand for election, at that moment, you would have declined. That’s a choice you should be allowed to make
61- Irena - Sorry, but this has been a sticking point for my entire life. I think I have a simple last name, but it seems nobody can spell it N-E-T-H-E-R-Y.
Now, for your heartfelt words, and I truly believe they are heart felt. I understand that God has spoken to us through the Words of Scripture, and I understand that the Spirit is the vessel of understanding. But (and you knew there was a but coming) there still has to be human interpretation. The Scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek, some after a significant period of being passed down in oral traditions. They have been copied and copied and copied. It takes human interpretation to translate from one language to another, and while I have little training in languages, I think it is well know that languages don’t translate from one to another and there is considerable argument amongst scholars as to the exact meaning of various words and phrases (a huge issue when it comes to SSB’s). Beyond that, humans are not capable of taking in anything without passing it through the lens or filter of their experience, education, understanding, life circumstance etc. If you want me to believe that God spoke through Scripture to the Church Fathers and their interpretation is the closed and final understanding, then we will have to agree to disagree. God continues to reveal Godself to us through history and will continue to do so as long as humans walk the earth. God is being revealed in the conversation we are having right now in that two people who are committed believers in Jesus Christ are entering a prayerful dialogue. Interpretation is part of human life and experience. It is the way God created us, and I think it is a brilliant, yet very difficult way, to call us to learn. I have had many conversations with many people about Scripture, about faith, about God that have bent my understandings and forced me into deep thought and prayer. I do not claim to have all the answers, nor do I even claim to have many answers. What I have is the gift of Holy Scripture, which I do believe contains all things necessary to salvation, but I don’t see it as a text book that gives me all the answers so that I can avoid the hard work of thinking things through, of being in relationship with others to learn, to grow, to challenge. I see the Word of God as a living, breathing, life giving entity, which was with God in the beginning, which is God, has always been God and will always be God. But I don’t see it as black and white answers to every question I might have, nor do I think we can be forced into accepting one interpretation or another. If you want to use the buzz words inerrant and infallible, I can apply them to God’s purpose for Holy Scripture, but not to the interpretations of other fallible, errant humans like me. Thus, in this life, we will not know the clear word of Scripture, but rather have it through the lens of interpretation. That calls for a lot of hard work, prayer, humility, discussion, prayer, debate, prayer, relationship, prayer . . .
Keith (#55 & #62), for me, your commentary concerning the interpretation and trustworthiness of Scripture is the most telling and saddest thing you have said on this thread. It has the hallmarks of liberal theology, which I fear conquered Anglican seminaries many decades ago, stamped all over it. This is the single biggest reason why I have no desire to even darken the door of an ACoC parish and why I feel strongly that people should flee the ACoC as quickly as possible (especially those with children). Their eternal souls are in jeopardy.
If you truly believe this:
I don’t understand why you just don’t pack it in altogether; why you didn’t pack it in decades ago. No amount of “nuancing” and flowery language will persuade me of something that my children could have seen as false before they reached the age of 10. The ACoC is reaping the fruit of liberal theology in spades, yet the leadership blindly presses on.
There is much concerning the proper interpretation of Scripture that I enjoy discussing, but our presuppositions are so different that I can’t see any common ground. Many more scholarly and knowledgeable people than I have laid bare the bankruptcy of the liberal position and I will defer to them. J.I. Packer is a good starting point - but I know what his reputation is like in the ACoC.
I’m sorry I didn’t provide a safe place.
The Greek is actually very clear on that score. I remember seeing a series of “back and forth” articles about it - I think one of the writers was JI Packer, and it was on the internet, but I can’t remember where. Does this jog anybody’s memory, and if so could you post a link, please?
I knew it would eventually come to a “we are right and you are wrong” post that would ignore what I posted for earnest discussion. It is blamed on liberal theology, bad clergy, poor seminaries and everything else, without positing reasons supporting your position. I do however want to say that I enjoyed the discussion and as someone earlier said they were surprised that I would stay around and talk, I want to say I was suprised and appreciative that the discussion lasted as long as it did and was intriguing.
So thanks for the chat, I’ll be back again if and when I feel a need to respond to things posted. I pray that our next conversation will again be a good one
Yes, Keith, when dealing with issues of absolute truth, eventually it does come down to the matter of “we are right and you are wrong”. This has been true for the entire history of the Church and, even in our post-modern age where the whole concept of truth is challenged, is still true for many denominations. The Bible is very clear on this and I don’t need “a lot of hard work, prayer, humility, discussion, prayer, debate, prayer, relationship, prayer . . .” to reach this conclusion. The aforementioned items all have a valid place in a believer’s life, but not with respect to the integrity and trustworthiness of Scripture. As you have doubtlessly concluded, I’m unbending on this issue.
Regardless of how the conversation ended, I would be lying if I didn’t say I enjoyed it as well. Thank you for your courtesy and polite tone. In that regard you are certainly a better man than I.
Aw shucks, you dissappoint me Keith. I guess it’s true that when the goin gets tough, the tough get goin. However as a minority dissenter you lasted a lot longer than any others.
A few off the cuff quotes
My words will never pass away
It is finished
I am the way the truth and the Life
Romans 15:3-5 (King James Version)
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus
How dare you suggest that the scriptures given by God can in any way be corrupted when understood through the ever presence of the Holy Spirit. Go your way, and I pray with as much peace as God’s mercy may allow.
Keith [#65],
This whole exchange bears an eerie resemblance to that of the White Spirit and the Episcopal Ghost in C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce. It’s worth a read; here is a little excerpt from the Episcopal Ghost:
I’ll leave to your imagination who played the White Spirit and who the Episcopal Ghost.
Keith (#65), I know I can be rightly criticized for trying to get in a “parting shot”, but I wanted to respond to this comment:
A great deal has already been written on the subject of liberalism, but to little avail. Those critical of the trend are rejected as fundamentalist neanderthals by those pushing it. The Southern Baptists bucked the trend and reversed the liberalization of their seminaries some 20 years ago - but they are the exception. My parting shot is that the onus of proof lies heavily on those pushing liberal agenda to explain why they have rejected basic theology and doctrines that the historical church largely agreed on for many centuries. But then, in my black and white mind, I already know the answer - sin and unbelief. Neither the disease nor the cure are new.
Keith #62: It appears that everyone has left this particular discussion. Nonetheless, I have a couple of things to say, if you’re still there.
Firstly, apologies for spelling ‘Nethery’ wrong. I meant to check it before I posted but it was getting on to 4 am when I finished writing!
Secondly, with regard to your erudite but truncated view of Scripture, I say gently, in the words of Kenneth Taylor, ‘Your God is too small!’ Questions: Do you not think the God you serve capable of ensuring the survival of his own Word over the centuries? You even watch carefully over the spelling of your name. Would he do less over his eternal Word intended to bring salvation to his people? And do you not think that his eternal Word has the power to accomplish what he intended for it? Surely the God who threw countless stars into space with a word will not have finally been thwarted by the stumblings and mistakes of translators and scribes?
We are not talking false God here. We are talking true God, very God, Saviour and Lord. Jesus, the Word of God incarnate, calls himself the Good Shepherd. The sheep, he says, hear his voice and follow him; and he, for his part, saves them from the wolf. There can be no postmodern garbling here. Hearing his voice is a matter of life and death.
From your many postings it is clear you have or are being misled in that you seem to believe:-
1. That the authority of Scripture in any area is subject to a majority vote at various synods. You should know, if you are truly a priest in the church, that this is completely false. The reason for the current state of the ACoC is due to this totally misguided thinking which is further complicated by the apostates ensuring they have the majority of delegates. To add to this mess we have apostate bishops who have and continue to work to promote this concept.
2. Your faith is obviously in the church and not in our Lord and Saviour. If that were not true you would not only endorse the ANiC and the ACNA but would stand up against the apostate leadership that has taken over in the ACoC. Any clergy person - bishop or otherwise - that states openly or believes all religions are the same (Michael Ingham is one of many) can hardly officiate at the Lord’s Supper.
The ACoC is loaded with apostates and nothing is being done to bring them to account. I do pray that your eyes can be opened to see the truth.
39keith nethery
Re: 34 Warren - I enjoy a debate, but we will do better if you don’t try to put words into my mouth.
Doesn’t look to me like anyone can put words in your mouth Keith.
I think Kate says it best…..It looks like duck, it smells like duck ..hm.. it must be duck.
Keith, it is so unfortunate that you let your humaness do the interpreting of God’s Holy scriptures for you… try the Holy Spirit and then be led by the Hand of the Master and no other false doctrine teaching small g god.
That is about as nice as I can be on this one.
My remarks under #71 were to be directed to Keith Nethery.
Until all clergy and so-called bishops in the ACoC repent and seriously perform the duties they have made vows to maintain, the ACoC will continue its freefall into apostasy and irrelevance. The honourable thing for those to whom these remarks apply is to resign their posts until such time that they come to recognize that God’s word is NOT subject to their approval.