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.”
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.