From the Telegraph-Journal:
A rift in the Anglican Church, whose long history in New Brunswick reaches back to the Loyalists, is fuelling the expansion of a new Anglican movement in the province.
The Anglican Network in Canada, a breakaway group from the Anglican Church of Canada, has established a church in Moncton and is setting up satellite congregations in Sussex, Miramichi and Saint John.
Rev. Don Hamilton, minister at the newly-established Christ the Redeemer Anglican Church, said in an interview Tuesday the network provides a safe haven for worshippers who are uncomfortable with the more worldly direction of modern religion.
“We can no longer follow the Anglican Church of Canada because of their increasingly unbiblical theology which we are witnessing in many ways – the moving away from the authority of scripture,” Hamilton said.
The establishment of the Anglican Network in Canada comes after years of fractious debate in the Anglican Church over the issue of sanctioning homosexual unions.
Although officially the church is still just discussing the thorny issue, several Anglican churches have gone ahead and performed same-sex marriages, infuriating theologically conservative congregations.
Hamilton said the church is playing games by insisting it is still debating the issue even though a number of churches are moving ahead with same-sex unions.
He said that, to him, the church’s stance on homosexuality was a sign that it had lost its direction.
“I am an Anglican, I was ordained as an Anglican priest and I value our Anglican heritage and I want to stay true to historic Anglican teaching and orthodoxy.”
No one from the Anglican Church in New Brunswick was available to comment on the issue Tuesday.
At the most recent General Synod – the national church’s highest governing body – delegates voted to simply keep talking about the same-sex issue.
Most Rev. Fred Hiltz, primate of the Canadian wing of the church, said most of Canada’s 640,000 Anglicans are not ready to take a stand.
“Now is not the time to force the issue,” Hiltz said after the Synod.
“We’re not ready for that kind of a step. We’ve gone down that road before and we’ve always ended up in a state of chaos.”
Bishop Charlie Masters, an Anglican priest for 30 years who now serves as national director of the Anglican Network in Canada, said the breakaway Anglican churches are off to a good start, including in New Brunswick.
He said that so far, the network has 37 churches across the country and several more in development, such as the satellite operations in New Brunswick.
“We attract 3,500 to 4,000 on a Sunday morning across the country,” he said. “It’s a good start.”
Masters said the adherents to the stricter faith don’t call themselves fundamentalists, but prefer the phrase “Biblically faithful.
“It’s a matter of direction,” he said.
“Whereas the Anglican Church has always seen the Bible as the authority and the basis on which we made decisions as to what we believe and how we live, there were signs that was becoming less prominent.
As a result, the direction was worrying for some of us. We felt that as a matter of conscience we couldn’t continue because there were no signs of reversing that trend.”
Both Masters and Hamilton said the Anglican network is reaching out to people of all faiths, not just disillusioned Anglicans.
“We have a job to do,” Masters said. “We’re not really looking back to see where we have come from. Our job is to present the good news of Jesus across Canada.”
Sorry if this is off topic. I saw this in the Journal.
‘Lutheran National Bishop Susan Johnson and Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, jointly announced plans for the synod, and the intention to study the feasibility of together developing a shared national office in Ottawa sometime in the future.’
Does this mean that there will be a bigger entity of like minded revisionist theology?
In like vein – is there thought out there about joining with the Lutheran version of Essentials – if it exists, or inviting them to join us?
Unity is the call of the Son, Why is the will of the Father.
Rev (#1), I’m not a Lutheran, but I don’t think you can draw a direct parallel with Essentials. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada – of which Susan Johnson is the national bishop – is quite liberal, and I can see where there would be commonality with the ACoC. There is, however, another Lutheran demonimantion in Canada, the Lutheran Church-Canada, which is connected with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. It would be more analagous to the ANiC, but has a much longer history.
Now we’re really off topic.
My husband is the office manager at a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church from what I have picked up I think ANiC could very easily develop a communion relationship with them. I do know that although women can be deacons they can not be priests. They are fairly well established and even have their own seminary.
#3 Thanks Warren.
I was wondering if there is a group of the faithful (much like Essentials Federation) within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada with whom we could make connection. There is/was one in the United Church a while ago I don’t know if they are still in existence.
I was thinking on this and offer a possible scenario (probably not new to a lot of people):
Anglicans and Lutherans move in together.
Anglicans and Lutherans share Synod.
Anglicans and Lutherans see declining congregations and merge to bolster numbers in fewer churches, possibly inviting United church congregations to join them.
Would this then be the time for a combined group of the faithful (Ang. Luth. and United) in sufficient numbers to have some clout, to say ‘no thanks’ and remain as a grouping of their own – and possibly join ANiC?
Without the unifying Love based requirement of like-mindedness, Faith becomes a creed and ceases to be an empowerment tool with the Holy Spirit. Unification cannot bring about “clout”. being “of the same accord” on the other hand brings our Lord’s Holy Spirit into the midst…….now that’s clout!
My two cents worth (for what it’s worth)…
First: ACNA must be fully recognized and accepted as the ONLY legitimate Province in Canada and USA within the Worldwide Anglican Communion (WAC).
Second: WAC must create an inter-provincial (international) House of Bishops with sufficient authority to discapline member Provinces, Primates, and Diocesan Bishops.
Third: WAC should enter into ecumenical talks with the Roman Catholic Church. I am not suggesting a “merger”. But at least work towards having the Roman Catholics fully recognize the legitimacy of our Holy Orders.
#7 Your third – is never going to happen. We would have to give up too much.
Re. 5: Sorry I meant ACNA not ANiC.
Re. 7. There are congregations joining ACNA now and there is no full recognition – yet. The scenario I was thinking about is probably some years in the future, so all sorts of things could have happened by then in terms of recognition. Although, if there is a combined synod in three years, the idea of amalgamation could be floated then or soon after. I would suggest that conversations should be started amongst the faithful before then.
Is there an answer to my original question – #1
“In like vein – is there thought out there about joining with the Lutheran version of Essentials – if it exists, or inviting them to join us?”
Anglican historians come to my aid. I’ve been aware of a connection between the ACoC and ELCIC for some time, but I assumed it was because both churches were pursuing a similar liberal agenda and not because of any special theological or doctrinal similarity. Rev’s comments, however, suggest that the affiliation may run deeper than I thought.
In the early days of the Reformation, were the Anglican divines influenced more by Wittenberg than by Geneva? On the surface, I would have thought that evangelical Anglicanism might have leaned more towards evangelical Presbyeriansim than evangelical Lutheranism and that there would be more comfort with the Westminster Confession than the Book of Concord.
Quite the opposite. There were huge rows between the Episcopalians and the Puritans (who were Presbyterian) in the Church of England’s early years. Richard Hooker’s “Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie” was written explicitly as a refutation of Presbyterianism.
Gordon (#11) was it primarily a doctrinal thing (I don’t consider ecclesiastical polity doctrinal) or was it related more to English-Scottish animosity? What would conservative/evangelical Anglicans object to in the Westminster Confession?
I think it was mainly doctrinal. Animosity has largely flowed from Scotland to England, but not the other way around: the English have often seen Scotland as an extension of England, and the Scots have generally not appreciated it.
Calvin insisted that the Presbyterian order was the only Biblical form of Church government, while the BCP Ordination Service begins “It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and all ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” The Puritans tried to defend the first position; the episcopalians (and particularly Hooker) the second.
Neither position is defensible today, which may explain why there has been a degree of rapprochement between the two parties, but it was a serious issue in the 16th and 17th centuries.
There is an AEC equivalent in the ELCIC. It’s called Solid Ground: http://www.solid-ground.ca/
I think the Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations (CALC) – http://www.calc.ca – is the closest equivalent to ANiC since the congregations left the ELCIC in recent years. CALC has 8 congregations – most of which are in the west.
In the past, ANiC has invited Solid Ground and CALC representatives to our gatherings – and a number have come.
Gordon (#13), like I said in #12, I don’t see ecclesiastical polity (i.e., forms of church government) as primarily a doctrinal thing – at least not biblical doctrine. So, I still don’t get it. Is there anything of a biblical doctrinal or theological nature in the Westminster Confession that would be at odds with the 39 Articles?
What say ye Scots about this?
Since both sides were arguing from Scripture, evidently they did.
For the record, my heritage is 100% Scottish, even though I lived in England all my life before moving to Canada, and have always considered myself English.
Evidently. Anyone else?
Hello Kate (8),
I must respectfully disagree. Having the Roman Catholics recognize the legitimacy of the Ordination of our Priest and Bishops, and in turn all of the administration of the Sacraments performed by them, is I believe entirely possible. Just what would we have to “give up” in order achieving this? Perhaps woman ordination? I for one strongly believe that woman ordination is a huge mistake that should be corrected (undone) anyway. Therefore, I see no issue/problem there. But what else would we have to “give up” that would be too much? (Keeping in mind that I am not talking about any type of merger).
Women’s ordination is a big one. Any consideration of getting the RC church to recoginze our orders would be a betrayal of every woman who has been ordained to the diaconate or as presbyter. There would be no compromise from the RC side – all the change would have to come from us. I also expect that we would have to sign on to all sorts of RC doctrine that would go against the 39 Articles. Remember the speach that the Orthodox Metropolitan made at a ACNA gathering a few years ago? That is the attitude we could expect. We are a product of the English Reformation. I have no wish to give up that part of my heritage.
Re: getting together with the RCs. If our ancestors died because of their doctrinal stands at the time of the Reformation, and the RCs have not changed their doctrine since then, the only way we could agree would be for us to accept the things that brought martyrdom to our ancestors! What kind of betrayal is that?
#7 & 8 – Until Rome drops the pretence of a Pope as head of the Church and returns (repents) to an equal ecclesiastical (apostolic)union with the rest of the Church any talk of unification is so much dust in the wind.
#9 as I said earlier in #6, perhaps confusingly, until we are able to recognize the (scripturally) called for necessity of (Holy Spirit empowered) like-mindedness the quest for unity will be a “cart before the horse” scenario. I believe that true unity, as prayed for by our Lord (being one) begins (also) with our Lord’s words “were two or three are gathered together……..”
Rev. this is the best I can come up with in answering your questions in #1.
#19 Kate; while respecting the allegorical understanding of Men are from Mars, Woman from Venus, and applying this to the circumstance of femine emotion (with respect) it is acknowledged that resistance to WO is still an issue. Your comment “We are a product of the English Reformation. I have no wish to give up that part of my heritage”. In reference to the topic of WO, it is not a product of “the English reformation” but rather a latter day happening as a result of the efforts of Archbiship (ACoC primate) Ted Scott and his Quote “Radical Compassion” which instigated so-called inclusion and brought in not only (through the back door) WO but also began discussion on SSB’s. As a respected member of the blog team, (you not me) I ask you once again to initiate a fair and thorough examination of the pro’s and con’s of WO in other words to put it back into this blog as an issue. Not withstanding your’s and ANiC’s (Bishop Don’s) respected but erroneous conclusions that this is a fait de compli, I (and others) feel from the larger perspective of the ACNA that indeed this particular elephant still remains and we ignore it at our peril.
Keeping in mind 1 Timothy 3, the fact the Jesus Christ deliberately chose only men to be His Desciples, and these Desciples followed His president by selecting only men to be their succesors, and that for almost 2000 years of Christianity, and almost 500 years of Anglicanism this is how it has been…
Woman ordination is a new revision within North American Anglicanism, one that is certainly not shared by the overwhelming huge majority of Anglicans in this world at this time, not to mention the past 500 years…
Kate (19) says that the elimination of woman ordination would be “a betrayal of every woman who has been ordained to the diaconate or as presbyter”. I respectfully submit that woman ordination is a betrayal of 2000 years of Christianity, 500 years of Anglicanism, the majority of today’s Anglicans, and most importantly a betrayal of the Holy Word of God Himself.
But perhaps those in favour of woman ordination know better. After all, how can approximately 50 years of doing something be wrong (when compared to not having done it for almost 2000 years)?
I am wondering why my third item in (7) above has somehow been interpreted as “getting together with the RCs”, when I specifically stated:
“Third: WAC should enter into ecumenical talks with the Roman Catholic Church. I am not suggesting a “merger”. But at least work towards having the Roman Catholics fully recognize the legitimacy of our Holy Orders.”
Please allow me to clarify. By Holy Order I was referring to the Ordination of our Priests and Bishops. For first these Ordinations must be accepted as legitimate before any of the Sacraments that they administer are also seen as legitimate.
Considering:
1. That many Anglican Priests (including married ones) have “converted” to Roman Catholicism and been received as Priests by the Romann Catholics, and
2. The “Personal ordinariate” as described in the “apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus” recently established by the Roman Catholic Church does itself give a considerable amount of recognition of Anglican Orders,
I submit that gaining RC recognition of our Anglican Orders may not be as big a hurdle as some may think or suggest.
Considering that Jesus did pray for the unity of His Church, and that we as Anglicans to this day profess to believe in One Church (re the Nicene Creed), I feel it appropriate for us to seek a closer ecumenical relationship with all other Christians, including the Roman Catholics
Given that the “Personal ordinariate” exists, I really don’t see the necessity to seek closer links with Rome.
Not true. Mary, Martha, Mary the mother of Jesus, were all disciples. Pricilla was a deacon, and she is mentioned first, as in “Pricilla and Aquilla’s household”. Re 1 Timothy 3, I’ve also read commentaries that say that v11 “their wives” could also be translated “the women”, ie women deacons.
You realize that that statement has questioned the integrity, intelligence and witness of the majority (maybe even all) of the ANiC bishops, who have come to the conclusion, through study of the word, that WO is not contrary to the Holy Word of God?
The “one church” already exists. Every Christian is my sister or brother in Christ, regardless of demonination.
Brain cramp time, I’ve put two different people together there. It should read:
Hello Kate (24)
Perhaps my use of the word Desciple was ill thought. Desciple, most certainly can mean a lot of people, in fact anyone who is a true believer and acts as a witness of Jesus Christ. In talking about the Episcopate (Bishops) and the Clergy (Priests) I should have used the word Apostle. For as Christians we also profess to believe in an Apostolic Church (again the Nicene Creed), which I take to mean a Church that is led by Bishops who can trace a continuous/unbroken succession of thier authority all the way back to the 12 Apostels. Therefore, in the Apostolic nature of His Church, Mary, Mary the Mother of Jesus, Martha, Pricilla, etc were not ever Apostles. There is no precident set by Jesus Christ that would support woman ordination.
I take exception to your comment:
“You realize that that statement has questioned the integrity, intelligence and witness of the majority (maybe even all) of the ANiC bishops…”
My not agreeing with their decision regarding woman ordination does not in any manner do any of those things. But if it did, than we could also turn it around and say that the ANiC decision to allow woman ordination questions the integrity, intelligence and witness of all Roman Catholics, all Eastern Orthadox, all Anglicans since the time of the English Reformation up until about 50 years ago, and the huge overwhelming majority of today’s Anglicans. If it were simply a matter of counting the number of the World’s Anglicans (never mind all of the other brothers and sisters in Christ who make up the One Church) for and against woman ordination, it would be a no brainer. Woman ordination would not even be a consideration.
The personal ordinariate makes it possible for Anglicans to become part of the Roman Catholic Church, a true “merger” in every sense of the word. Something which I understand most of the Worldwide Anglican Communion to not be interested in (including ACNA). The point I was making is that Rome has obviously made a move that recognizes the legitimacy of Anglican Orders.
Finally, just because some “commentaries that say that v11 “their wives” could also be translated “the women”, ie women deacons” does not make it so. This type of re-interpretation of Holy Scripture comes accross as an attempt to change God into something that we want. Kind of like G. Robinson saying that those passages identifying homosexual behaviour as sinful was written for only the heterosexuals, and that such passages do not apply to those people who are “naturally” homosexual. This excercise of revisionist re-interpretation we all know to be blatantly wrong. It is wrong for the justification of blessing homosexual behaviour. It is equally wrong for the justification of woman ordination.
Hello again Kate (26)
Regarding Phoebe being identified as “deaconess”. This depends greatly on which version of the Holy Bible you read. The King James Version, in Romans 16:1 says:
“I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea”
If the reasoning in favour of woman ordination rests most heavily on this one passage, than it is indeed a very weak position. For this passage does not specifically state that it is the Will of God that women be allowed to be His Priests and Bishops. Whereas 1 Timothy 3:1-2 directly states:
“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach”
And Timoty 3:12 states
“Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well”
Hello Kate yet again.
In response to your post (25), The first Mark of Faith, that being the belief in One Church, as written in the Nicene Creed in the 4th century is reflective of what our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Prayed in John 17:20-23
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”
It seems to me the present day re-interpretation of One Church being everyone who believes in Jesus regardless of seperation by denomination is not compliant with this Prayer of Jesus. I respectfully submit that if we are to be true followers of Jesus Christ that we are obliged by our Faith to work towards a more full and complete Christian unity, one that perhaps someday will result in what is called a “full corporate Communion”. For if the world is to “…know that thou hast sent me…” are we not called to work towards Christian unitiy?
Actually, the Greek word in Romans 16:1 is “diakonon” which means deacon, not deaconess.
Further: “only men can be leaders because Jesus only chose men to be apostles” makes just about as much sense as “only women can be leaders because the resurrected Jesus showed himself to Mary first” Neither is a particularly strong argument.
We had a particularly massive discussion on WO here:
http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2009/02/02/episcopal-theologian-blasts-action-of-toronto-anglican-bishops-proposal-to-affirm-same-sex-relationships/
Maybe you could go back and read that thread again? I’m not particularly interested in recreating it here.
Hello Kate (30)
With all due respect, your comparison is not valid, nor is it strong.
Not valid because:
Jesus Christ choosing the people whom He intended to become the leaders of His Church, and teaching them over a three year period is simply not that same as being seen or observed for only a breif conversation.
Not strong because:
Whereas Jesus Christ chose only men to be His Apostles, and not all at once, Jesus Christ does show himself in Resurrected form to both women and men. Apostles, all men. Witnesses of the Resurrected Christ, both women and men.
stuck and AMP,
Take a close look at the thread Kate refers to in [#31], particularly the comments and references by Dr. Priscilla Turner.
Personally, I think WO is a secondary issue – I see reasonably good arguments both ways.
I would be surprised if, after you have waded through all of Dr. Turner’s material, you remain as adamant as you currently are on this issue.
I agree with David, but I do have one more thing to say.
It doesn’t specifically state that they can’t be, either.
Since you don’t know the book I’m refering to (I haven’t named it yet), assuming that the author is revisionist simply because you don’t hold the same view is a bit of a stretch.
Please go read the thread I referenced – Dr. Turner is anything but a revisionist.
edited to add: The book is The Blue Parakeet by Scott McKnight. Author info here:
http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Authors/Author.htm?ContributorID=McKnightS&QueryStringSite=Zondervan
With that, I’m afraid I’m done here, till you’ve gone back and read the referenced thread.
Kate (34)
So the passage that you like (Romans 16:1) does not specifically state either way the issue of woman ordination. And based on that you support woman ordination?
However 1 Timothy 3 is specific and deliberate. Priests and Bishops are to be “the husband of one wife”. Clearly communicated, Preists and Bishops are to be men.
Hello David (33)
I can appreciate that for you woman ordination is a secondary issue. However, for me it is a primary issue.
Consider this:
If a woman is administering the Holy Sacrament of Baptism, but in truth she is not a Priest, than the Baptism is not real. That Jesus says in John 3:1-5
“There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ”
So it seems to me that in order to enter the Kingdom of God (Heaven) one must be Baptized. How unfortunate for my deceased nephew who’s baptism was administered by a woman. He might not be in Heaven! Also how unfortunate for my brother-in-law and his wife, for their marriage ceremony was officiated by a woman. They might not be truly married and consequently living and adulterous and sinful life! I hope you can understand that this is not simply about “equal rights” or “women’s rights”. It is about the proper and real administration of the Sacraments. And that is why for me it is a primary issue, and the mistake must be corrected.
The majority of Christian churches do not ordain women to the priesthood. Mind you the majority may not be right.
AMP [#22], yes, Jesus chose only men to be Apostles, but He also chose only Jews. Does this mean we have no right to ordain Gentiles?
I know I’m not helping to keep this thread on topic, but I’m still hoping that someone can explain why conservative Anglicans (some at least) may lean more towards an association with Lutherans than evangelicals for some other long standing denomination (e.g. Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.)?
Female deacons in the early centuries assisted in the baptisms of women. Baptisms were done by immersion without clothes on. In different countries and cultures today (even in North America), it is not permissible for men to minister to women. We need more men and women in church for the good news of the Word of God is for the world. I respect the right of anyone who cannot accept the ministry of a woman to receive the Sacraments and/or pastoral care from a male presbyter. The human presence is that of an instrument or vessel, God is the true Minister.
No, I base my opinion on a wide variety of things I have read, plus my trust in ANiC’s leadership, who also believe that WO is not contrary to scripture.
That’s just nonsense. A layperson can baptise in an emergency. By your logic my stillborn daughter isn’t in heaven because she couldn’t be baptised. Do you really believe our Lord is so petty as to refuse admission to heaven to someone who wasn’t properly baptised? I don’t, and I am quite looking forward to meeting my daughter. All the bible says about baptism is that we are to do it. It says nothing about who may and who may not.
Have you read the thread I linked to yet?
39 Gordon – neat but not a valid argument. Jesus chose Saul (a Jew) to minister to the Gentiles. the original 12 were all Jews because Jesus’ personal ministry was initially to (His people) the Jews. He did not choose female apostles because He was true to the original concepts of His Father’s unfolding creation. This is seldom mentioned in the ongoing WO debate.
“WO is not contrary to scripture.” Kate # 42
I would ungraciously like to say this Quote is nonsence, but like Amp’s erroneous but understandable error this statement is simply wrong.
It is my opinion that woman have a much more important role in the overall scheme of creation than the direction they are going in this last 50 or so years.
I will read your provided references and I sincerely hope to find enlightenment. Failing that I will assume that you (and others) will be prepared to join in honest debate for the purpose of achieving like-mindedness. Something ANiC and the ACNA have yet to accomplish.
Here is what N T Wright has to say on the subject of the ordination of women.
It does seem to me, by the way, that one of the points of Christ’s ministry was to try and bring about a society that honoured women as an equal but different, (as a married man of many years let me say very different,
) gender.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
Thank you Greg, that’s very interesting. AMP, have you read it?
Stuck, two books I’ve read recently are The Blue Parakeet (referenced above), and Why Not Women? by Loren Cunningham . If you are only going to read one, The Blue Parakeet’s arguments are stronger, in my view.
As a married woman of many years and mother of four sons….
What he said! lol
Well, I think you are quite wrong about that, considering that the Reformed Episcopal Church is part of ANiC.
ACoC has been on decline since 1966. Many parishes have less than 100 people in church on Sundays. People within the ACoC have different opinions on biblical authority, biblical interpretations, atonement, climate change, female priests and bishops, abortion, Prayer Book revisions, hymn books, remarriages after divorce, gay marriages, heaven and hell, etc. WO may not be a major problem today. We should focus on preaching the Gospel. We should turn God’s enemies into friends.
#48 Kate I am sure you meant to say ACNA and not ANiC. but that to remains to be seen.
It is obvious that I hold the requirement of Spiritual Unity (Like-mindedness) of much greater importance than you and several others on this blog, particularly in light of the current difficulties and last day evidence we seem to be witnessing. My quoted comment in your #48 has to do with the circumstance of agreeing to disagree which is a temporary measure that moves issues to the back burner but does nothing to get them off the stove altogether. It is my contention that before we can successfully present Christ to the world we must have Christ in us, that our faith may be made perfect. In this Church (the body of Christ) I don’t believe the Holy Spirit can work totally save in a spirit of like-mindedness.
I will add however that the majestic rise of the ACNA could easily be described as the “moving of a mountain”……… Now what if we had faith the size of an avocado?