c/p from here
Canon Alan Perry is challenging the accuracy of the briefing paper prepared by Lorna Ashworth for the Church of England’s General Synod next month. The motion is to “express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”.
In his challenge, Canon Perry makes a number of points; among them is this (my emphasis):
Only three former bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada have associated themselves with ACNA:
* Donald Harvey, formerly of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador
* Ronald Ferris, formerly of Algoma
* Malcolm Harding, formerly of BrandonNone of these have been deposed. All were already retired, and all three voluntarily relinquished their ministry pursuant to Canon XIX of the Anglican Church of Canada. This is the equivalent of Canon C1 (2) of the Church of England which makes provision for a cleric “voluntarily [to] relinquish the exercise of his orders and use himself as a layman.”
However, three former presbyters of the Anglican Church of Canada have recently been consecrated as bishops by ACNA: Stephen Leung, Charles Masters and Trevor Walters. This may account for the claim of six. (Also, Silas Ng was consecrated as a bishop by the Church of Rwanda.)
As of March 2009, 52 of the clergy (other than the six bishops) in ACNA were former clergy of the Anglican Church of Canada. The claim of 69 includes the newly ordained and possibly some other transfers.
The total of Anglican Church of Canada clergy as of June 2009 was 3861.
Not a single Canadian priest has been deposed for joining ACNA. The term is almost entirely unheard of in Canada. It is one of the penalties provided for in the Canon on Discipline. However, none of those who have left to join Rwanda or Southern Cone or ACNA have been canonically disciplined.
The phrase “relinquish license for ministry” is canonically meaningless in the Anglican Church of Canada. The correct phrase is “relinquish ministry” pursuant to Canon XIX, on “The Relinquishment or Abandonment of the Ministry” which states that relinquishment:
“removes from the [cleric] the right to exercise that office, including spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination.” (emphasis added)
Relinquishment renders the cleric unlicensable in any Jurisdiction. Relinquishment of ministry is reversible, but only in the jurisdiction in which ministry was relinquished.
The issue of whether a priest or bishop relinquishes his right to minister when he leaves the Anglican Church of Canada has come up before. In December 2008 Alan Perry wrote a letter to the Anglican Journal saying:
Is a bishop still a bishop after he/she leaves denomination?
Anglican Journal, Dec, 2008 by Alan T. Perry
Dear editor,
I am confused as to why you continue to refer to Don Harvey as a bishop, most recently in your news bulletin of Oct. 16 regarding four parishes purporting to put themselves under the “episcopal oversight of Bishop (sic) Don Harvey.”
Nearly a year ago, the Anglican Journal reported that Mr. Harvey had relinquished his ministry. The mechanism for relinquishment of ministry under our canons, to which Mr. Harvey will have repeatedly sworn an oath of obedience, is found in Canon XIX of the General Synod. The relevant section specifies that “relinquishment of the exercise of ordained ministry removes from the [cleric] the right to exercise … spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination.”
Thus, although the ontological effects of ordination remain, the juridical effects are rendered null and void. The perhaps more familiar Roman Catholic term for this is laicization.
Mr. Harvey has relinquished his ministry, and therefore ought no longer to be referred to by a clerical title.
He is, for all practical purposes, a layperson. Or are you implying that Mr. Harvey acted dishonestly, either when he relinquished his ministry or when he repeatedly swore an oath to obey the canons?
Alan T. Perry
The editor responded:
Editor’s response: Consulting with the chancellor, Ronald Stevenson, he writes: “In the relinquishment document prescribed by Canon XIX, the cleric says he or she has voluntarily relinquished the exercise of the ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada to which he or she has been admitted. The cleric does not relinquish his or her orders/ ordination.
“Although Bishops Harvey and Malcolm Harding (retired bishop of the diocese of Brandon) have relinquished the exercise of episcopal ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada, they may well be recognized and accepted as bishops in another church even though they ignore the traditional rule that a bishop does not minister or interfere in another bishop’s jurisdiction.”
Alan Perry is attempting to make out, both in 2008 and now, that the bishops and priests who have joined ACNA have no authority to minister. The response from the ACoC chancellor, Ronald Stevenson, is clear: they have. A priest’s relinquishing his license in the ACoC is not the same as relinquishing his orders, ordination or the right to exercise “spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination”.
Obviously Alan Perry didn’t pay much attention to the ACoC chancellor in 2008; I don’t suppose he will now, either, but it does appear that he has got this all wrong.
WHOOAH! I got #200 and I wasn’t even trying!
Warren gets the prize: a dinner for 2 with Malcolm.
:-O :-O :-O
That’ll teach me to go to church on Sunday morning! Everyone, forgive me for going back to Malcolm’s post in #189 but, Malcolm, I think you skipped past some important points rather too glibly.
The subject on the floor was interpreting Scripture and you had brought up the example of Jesus. You said, “Jesus spent an awful lot of time offering up radical new interpretations of scripture.” (180) As I said in #184, in this area we need to tread carefully, especially as you seem to want to use Jesus to justify “radical new interpretations of Scripture” in our day. Here are some points that I think need a second look:
1. In my post (184), I was trying to focus on the idea that Jesus handled Scripture in a way that never contradicted what was written (not a ‘jot or tittle’) but rather he taught the people by ‘opening the Scriptures to them’. À propos, I’d be much more comfortable with our using the biblical expression ‘opening the Scriptures’ in this discussion as it does not produce the unbiblical thought of theological innovation that the word ‘interpretation’ does.
2. Warren pointed out (185) that when Jesus handled the Scripture he actually ‘raised the bar’ in its understanding, and taught that it “was often more demanding than customarily believed”. For example, Jesus extended the meaning of adultery and murder, past the actual deeds of adultery and murder, to include how we treat our neighbours in our hearts. So, we can conclude that Jesus helps us to discern that the meaning and claim of Scripture extends deeper than we might humanly understand. By contrast, many of today’s Scriptural ‘interpreters’ try to shrink the value of Scripture either by straight out contradiction (which Jesus would not have tolerated) or by redefining words, ‘dumbing them down’ till they have no present day meaning at all. In this they remind me of the New Testament religious establishment of Jesus’ day. Remember the lawyer who sought to justify himself, asking Jesus, “Tell me, teacher, who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:22) The lawyer wanted a limited and manageable definition but Jesus instead gave him a mirror in which to see his sin problem.
3. Finally, and I loved the pithiness of this post, John (188) pointed out that Jesus is God together with the corollary that we are not. Of course, we all affirm this truth: it’s part of our creed. But, this truth is crucial in the present discussion in that it reminds us that we are under God’s word, not over it. We cannot make little gods out of ourselves as we interpret and reinterpret, throwing out this verse and reshaping that one. The Word which comes from God has an authority under which we, as his creatures, need to bow.
So, the example of Jesus gives us the following truths which all need to be honoured in any Christian interpretation of Scripture:
1. Jesus’ example does not allow us to contradict Scripture in any way. Nor does it permit us theological innovation.
2. Jesus’ example does not permit us to diminish the meaning of his Word. On the contrary, he wishes to apply its full value to our hearts in a way which will bring us to repentance.
3. Jesus’ example is a unique one. Because Jesus is God, he is the ultimate authority over his Word. As his creatures, we have no authority over it; rather it must have authority over us.
So, Malcolm, a question for you: Would the ‘radical, new interpretations of Scripture’ you are envisioning satisfy the above conditions which Jesus’ example commands?
Malcolm In keeping with the pithiness (darn lisp) you said ” I don’t believe that there’s a bowl in the sky full of water.” You must have been quite concerned when NASA sent a 60 million dollar rocket into the moon looking for water.
Actually, David. I did answer that question.
“@David (183) – It isn’t about persuading me. It’s about the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determining what to do.”
I’m sure you don’t believe my answer or consider it inadequate. But the fact is, I don’t decide about SSB or anything else. The Church does.
Stuck in TO – NASA wasn’t looking for water in a giant bowl.
Kate et al – abandoning literalism is to abandon inerrancy.
Irena – I think you are rather passing over what Jesus did. Several of you here have pointed to Jesus actions in Acts when (in a revelation to Peter) he set aside much of existing scripture.
I’m not interested in playing silly word games over the term “interpretation.” You can call it “opening the scriptures” if you prefer. It’s still an act of interpretation. As would be the decisions Kate or others may make about what is literal and what is not.
All of us interpret scripture, and to suggest otherwise is beyond childish.
Kate, I’ve answered the question repeatedly. You just don’t like the answer.
But, being a trifle boneheaded, I’ll try again.
You said: “I do believe what the bible says about itself, that all scripture is God breathed and comes from Him; I do believe that I need to allow scripture to form me, and not seek to bend scripture to mean what I want it to mean.”
If one adds one simple proviso, I’m perfectly happy with that definition. Here is my proviso: “I must be open to the possibility that God may correct our understanding of scripture from time to time – as has happened in the past with issues such as usury, slavery and the role of women.”
Well, one other proviso. I’d have probably written that in the first person plural since it isn’t about individual interpretation, but about the community of faith, the Church. It is a tendency to rampant protestantism which has led people to think they should start a new denomination every time there is a disagreement.
Only if your caricature of our position was reality. Did you not read this?
That is not a description of literalism. One doesn’t need to believe in a young earth, or water in a giant bowl, to believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God.
.
No, you neatly avoided his question . You reworded it to produce a question that you wanted to answer. How about answering the question he actually asked. All it takes is a simple cut and paste.
David asked:
What would you do?
When I say that I believe that what the bible says about itself is true, I include inerrancy in that. Here are some examples of scriptures that teach inerrancy:
Matt 7:24-29
Matt 24:35
John 14:15-24
John 17:8-17
2Peter 1:16-21
2Timothy 3:10-17
2Peter 3:14-18
Matthew 7 teaches that Jesus’ words have authority. Matthew 24 teaches that Jesus says that his words are enternal. John 17 teaches that Jesus’ words are God’s words. 2 Peter teaches that scripture is a lamp for us in darkness, and is not the word of man.
So, I do think that we don’t mean the same thing by authority of scripture.
Malcolm [#206},
Umm, let’s see. Question:
Answer:
You answered the question: “who or what is the final authority on whether same sex blessings will take place in the church”. Your answer – in précis – “the church”.
My question was intended to find out what contributes to forming your opinion; you appear to expect us to believe that you don’t have one. A bit of a waste of the last 25,000 words, don’t you think?
Only in your caricatured version of inerrancy.
Did you read what Warren said in #194?
Are you actually reading and understanding what anyone other than you is writing?
This is becoming an increasing waste of everyone’s time since you keep repeating what you have already said with no regard to responses, you dodge inconvenient questions and have a cavalier disregard of scholarship which refutes your position.
Maybe it’s time to give this thread a rest and get back to the real world.
Thank you, David!!
Malcolm;
#206
What actual scriptures did he set aside?
The Holy Spirit helps us understand God’s revelation of Himself to us in the word He has given us, but surely He will not flat out contradict it. If so, what’s the point? We are to be pitied above all men.
I think of the following;
I believe the most important word in this verse is, “but.” God had revealed Himself in the past through the prophets BUT His final revelation of Himself was in His Son, Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus had stated that same-sex sexual activity was now acceptable, there would be no argument from me. But, no, I don’t believe we still receive new revelation from God. This idea of, “progressive revelation” is a liberal innovation to justify whatever new idea becomes fashionable. We may have, “progressive understanding,” but any new understanding cannot contradict the revelation we already have — the revelation of His Word and His Son. That is the problem with this latest issue. It flatly contradicts what God has already told us, and there is absolutely no evidence from Him that He means to overturn it.
As I mentioned before, there are legitimate Biblical arguments for each of changes, and each of them could be accomodated and still be in line with Scripture. There may be others, yet unforeseen, in the future. But what Scriptures can be quoted in favour of same-sex sexual activity that would override the many proscriptions against it? In my opinion, advocates of ssb’s generally ignore Scripture, rather than try to reason from it.
I’m going to close comments on this thread. After 214 comments, we are just going round and round in circles. This one is done.