From here. There seems to be quite a pattern of lawlessness developing, doesn’t there?
First published in The Church of England Newspaper.
The Anglican Consultative Council failed to follow its rules in soliciting approval for its new constitution, critics of the London-based ‘instrument of communion’ tell The Church of England Newspaper.
Some provinces were never asked to approve the ACC’s new constitution, while others were asked to approve “in principle” a draft version that differed from the final document lodged with the Registrar of Companies for England and Wales on July 10, 2010, while a third group reported that the draft it approved was substantially similar to the one adopted.
The resulting uncertainty has likely resulted in two Anglican Consultative Councils under law: a limited corporation created under English law on July 12, 2010, and an English charitable trust registered in 1978.
The ACNS reported that ACC legal adviser John Rees told the Standing Committee at its London meeting on July 24 the new Articles of Association had been drawn up between 2002 and 2005, before submission to the Provinces between 2005 and 2009. “In all essentials the content of the new Constitution is as circulated to the provinces between 2005 and 2009” ACC spokesman Jan Butter said.
However, Global South leaders tell CEN the claim of inconsequential revisions advanced by the ACC was misleading. Citing the Anglican Communion Institute’s analysis, they note the new constitution engages in a power grab that makes the delegates subordinate to the Standing Committee, while also encroaching upon the authority and prerogatives of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates Meeting. It is also unclear if all of the provinces were consulted about the changes introduced by the new constitution, including the subordination of the ACC to the European Union’s equality laws.
…
Those would be the laws that designate some groups more equal than others.
Actually, EU law does precisely the opposite. It outlaws any action that could be seen as discrimination, including, shortly before I moved to Canada, requiring Church employees to have sympathy with Christianity. This has caused no end of trouble, but for rather different reasons.
Sorry, that’s just my cynicism concerning any equality laws. They’re always fashioned into a stick to beat those unfavoured by the political elite.
The act of discrimination has been outlawed far beyond its original meaning. The main synonym listed in Webster’s is “discernment.” As we know this particular gift can cut both ways depending on why it’s being used.
In the hands of a Holy Spirit directed Christian it is a Gift from Almighty God (thanks be to Jesus) in the hands of the politically correct it becomes an obvious manipulative tool that leaves no doubt who is directing. Praise God that it is also becoming quite evident that there is panic in the royal halls of the Prince of this world. This can only mean that His time is growing shorter.
Even so…….COME LORD JESUS!!!!!
Peter; you got in before I did, does your statement include truedough’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If so I’m tickled as I have yet to find agreement on that premise.
Yeah, it does. Somebody I knew once said that the introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would end both.
And I’m sure the road to this particular hell is paved with the very best of intentions. But when you start to move from a hard law based on a JudeoChristian code to a soft law based on rights, feelings and the suchlike, then you are opening Pandora’s box for woolly laws to be manipulated to favour particular groups (HRC’s, anybody?).
Not hard to see the progression – you change the belief in the first generation, the morality that stems from the belief in the second generation, and the laws that stem from the morality in the third generation.
Funny, as I watched the Queen sign the Constitution with Mr. Smirk at her side I felt very uncomfortable and said to my friend “well there goes the ball game”. When asked what I met, for the life of me I didn’t know. I will remember that moment forever.
Four Generations Peter, four.
No less and not one more,
From the beginning up to Noah,
and than through Israel’s door.
Salvation is the third thank God,
His gift so Christal clear.
And now the fourth it looms so dark,
Full of pain and death and fear.
And yet the reasons like the seasons
found easily…..in the lore.
6 Peter – The “hard law based on a JudeoChristian code” not “based on rights” would seem to be the Old Testament law?
Recall the Italian crucifix controversy due to the EU’s human rights court?
Recall Kempling, the teacher in B.C., who has fought in Canada for his right to believe the biblical injunction against practicing homosexuality and still have his career as a teacher?
And being a little younger than the rest of you commenting here, I recall my Mum saying to me as we watched the Queen sign the Constitution that she didn’t understand why English Common Law wasn’t good enough for Canada, and that the new Constitution would just be a money maker for lawyers… She was right.
And I remember when we were not allowed to say the Lord’s Prayer at school anymore – all because one parent decided to fight for her son’s right to not be indoctrinated and she didn’t want him singled out by having to stand at the side of the gym and not participate. Her efforts changed the rules re religious instruction in schools all over B.C.
Hello Henry,
I think you know the moral law of the OT and NT which Jesus advocated is what we have in mind here.
Sam # 10 “making money” for the Lawyers is quite correct but pales in comparison to the tons that have gone to La Belly Province.
Gettin back to the thread I would like to make a simplistic observation. Revisionists must proceed with their agenda up to and including lies and illegalities because their “agenda” has no Christian authority. So, simply put, if the message has no authority….change the message.
11 Sam – it’s quite a trick to sort OT law into the two buckets of “moral” and “ritual”; or the three of “moral”, “ritual”, and “hygienic”. What method do you use for this? How do you classify Leviticus 19:13?
It’s actually pretty easy, Henry. Leviticus 19:13 is moral. Ritual laws are the ones that govern the sacrifices in the temple and ritual purity.
Henry (#14), I can see an approximate equivalence to your list, but I’m more familiar with the categories of ceremonial, civil and moral law. Why do you say trick? I think there has been general agreement amongst theologians over many centuries conerning these categories.
So, if Lev 19:13 is moral law-and the first half clearly is- where is the pri ncipled Christian insistance on being paid daily that the second half dictates?
A “hard law” without “rights” sounds to me far more like sharia than anything
I would want to live with.
My challenge is to Peter and Sam-show me where this law you want is found, that it requires no interpretation, and that any people at any time actually lived under it.
I don’t think that the Bible is a law book for today anymore than I think it’s a math or physics book.
Of course, Peter will also need to explain away those awkward verses about
“Do justice” that many of us thing support the concept of “rights”.
Which kind of absolute, “no rights” state does Peter favor?
Isaac Watts went to jail for dissagreeing with established Anglicanism, after all!
Henry (#17), this may not satisfy you, but for me the principle that is being set forth is straight forward – it is wrong to withhold something that has been promised (in this case wages), or to give someone something that he is rightfully due, beyond the the date or time agreed to. At the time that Leviticus was written, I suspect that the custom was to pay workers at the end of each day and that not doing so, in out day, would be equivalent to an employer failing to pay an employee at the prescribed time (e.g., mid month and end month in my case). There are a myriad of examples in Scripture where this sort of approach to interpretation (i.e., hermeneutic) is clearly appropriate and would not be viewed as controversial by biblical scholars or theologians.
The question of whether all, some or none of OT law is applicable today is a different one. I don’t know of anyone or group that claims that all OT law is still in effect (I don’t think that orthodox Jews hold to this position), but I do know people who would agree with you to the extent that they would say that OT law (law under the old covenant) has passed away under the new covenant. They would also point to passages like Jer 31:33 and the earlier chapters of Romans. Others would argue eloquently and persuasively that the moral law is still in effect. It is something I haven’t completely made my mind up on.
For Christians there is no doubt that all the law is completed and to my way of thinking totally encompassed and overruled by our Lord’s two great commandments. This rests in the understanding of two factors the first is that Jesus indeed rules with a “Rod of Iron”. My comprehension of this is that Christian membership ie; “in Christ” is predicated on our obedience and practice, by faith. Moving us “on unto perfection”. In other words Christ has placed responsibility squarely on our shoulders. and the Rod of Iron (unbreakable) is because there is NO ENFORCEMENT.
To quote Kate’s recent quotation “In all things charity”.
The second is then obvious. Not withstanding grace, if we continue to fail to acknowledge these two commandments than we are not only subject to the law, we are condemned by it.
HENRY in your 17 you asked ” Which kind of absolute, “no rights” state does Peter favor?” I don’t presume to answer for Him but I find it intriguing that based on my above it would appear (if I am correct) that Christians have no rights, because they have no need of them.
Stuck (#19), do you believe that the moral law no longer has any role to play or that it still has a purpose in revealing the unrighteousness of man?
I believe that you are infering something that neither one of them implied. Nobody ever said that interpretation wasn’t required.
Warren #20 at the fullness of time mankind was reconciled to God the Father through the grace, love, and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, as promised in John 3:16. To suggest that the Law still has a role to play renders null and void that sacred promise. So I would have to say as I did in my 19 “For Christians” who are obedient and practice by Faith the two great commandments of love the “law” has no role to play.
For non Christians who do not subscribe to John 3:16 as truth it is questionable whether the law is applicable or not. In any case I suspect save for the scriptural tenent that says “God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy” that all who deny Christ will be judged accordingly and found wanting even as we christians would except for the Grace of our Lord.
My goodness, Stuck, you’re breaking with orthodox Christianity. How on earth do you manoeuvre your way around Romans 7? I think I’ll stick with Bunyan and Martyn Lloyd-Jones
My goodness Warren now I am totally confused. My whole premise is based on Romans 7.
perhaps I should clarify this one point; There are two types of people, Orthodox Christians and others. I was speaking of the former I believe St. Paul was speaking to the latter.
I would like you to claify if you will, How you think I am breaking with Orthodox Christianity?
“I think I’ll stick with Bunyan and Martyn Lloyd-Jones” I hope you are saying this in comparison to my writings and (God forbid) not with Holy Writ.
Stuck (#24), it is certainly possible that I misunderstood what you said – or intended – in #22. My understanding is that you said the Law has no purpose; either for believers or unbelievers. And I was comparing the writings of Bunyan and Martyn Lloyd-Jones with your comment. I wouldn’t label the two categories as “orthodox Christians and others”. I would just use saved and unsaved, or believer and unbeliever, or regenerate and unregenerate. Someone who I view as unorthodox, according to my standards and understanding of Scripture, may still be among the redeemed.
Whether the unrepentent could find relevance in the law is questionable
Whether the “saved” need to find relevance in the law is questionable
What definately requires no question is the irrelevance of the law to the saving Grace of Jesus Christ.
Apparently I didn’t misunderstand you at #22.
Kate at #21-i agree Peter never said “no interpretation”.
I’d still like to know what he really meeant about “hard law”-
Usually when the word “hard” is used about law it is a pejorative;
Clearly that’s not the intention.
Much on the current common law in Canada derives from the great
Reform acts of the 1830′s in the UK, which are in turn influenced by
The US Constitution of 1790, which is built on Enlightenment
Philosophy, largely Rousseau via Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson.
These are the people I view as introducing a seroius concern for rights into law.
Possibly Peter means something entirely different. That’s why I asked just how far back he wants to turn the clock.
from me one more point
There are three laws – nature’s (God’s creation)
– Man’s (requires enforcement)
– God’s (no enforcement)