An interesting editorial from the Anglican Planet:
WELL I DON’T KNOW if you have been keeping score, but it would seem that the courts have pretty consistently sided with the provincial churches in the property disputes that have been brought before them. Although we might have hoped and prayed otherwise, perhaps it should not surprise us that a secular judiciary has made its judgment on formal matters of canon law which it understands, rather than on the substantial matters of doctrine which are beyond its grasp. There are of course still some cases before the courts, but as we watched two iconic churches, St. John’s Vancouver (formerly St John’s, Shaughnessy) and Christ Church Savannah, courageously move en masse to new homes this fall, we cannot but think that the matter has been decided. We wish God’s blessing on those churches who have boldly made this decision, and praise God that our fellowship in Christ is not determined by synods or supreme courts. So where does this leave those of us who remain?
As a result of the recent legal decisions, one cannot help but recognise that the threat of property disputes to the ACC is now significantly diminished. These have been a real concern to many dioceses, not just the prospect of losing buildings, but also that lawsuits are simply money pits for everyone involved. Now that that the legal question seems to be settled, we can expect certain prelates to lead their flocks more boldly into a glorious liberal future.
Furthermore, it would seem that the pendulum of theological liberalism has not yet swung to its furthest point. Although, the progressive campaign has been an incremental one, it shows no sign of running out of steam. This fall the progressives in the Diocese of Toronto, who have already been given license to bless same-sex unions set their sights further yet, when they passed motions to memorialize General Synod to reopen the Marriage Canon, and to petition their bishops to remove any barriers to the ordination of actively homosexual men or women. Perhaps most alarming about this, is that they passed these motions against the expressed will of Archbishop Colin Johnson. While, he would not be described as a theological conservative, Archbishop Johnson has been relatively successful at maintaining unity within his diocese. It would seem his tempering influence to the progressive agenda may no longer be effective.We also need to take stock of the losses conservatives have suffered in recent years. We have experienced the loss of formidable long-serving churchmen such as brothers Harry and Tom Robinson and Fr. Robert Crouse. They have entered into their rest in Christ. But we have also been weakened in our witness as we have lost many talented priests and congregations through the fracturing of the Communion. Many of the churches who have left have encouraged numerous vocations, whose ministries will now bear fruit outside of the ACC.
At this time of year, it is much safer and more prudent to look back rather than forward, yet we at The Anglican Planet have never been terribly committed to the safe path. So let us speculate for a moment about what the future holds for conservatives remaining within the Anglican Church of Canada.
If we look south at the example of Mark Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, things do not look great. Despite all of the verbal reassurances that there is room for diversity in the Episcopal Church, the persecution that he has suffered at the hands of TEC has been unconscionable. It remains to be seen if the liberal victors in the Anglican Church of Canada will follow that course of tyranny, or become magnanimous in their ascendancy.
It seems to me that we are heading into some tough years for theological conservatives who choose to remain in the Anglican Church of Canada. Those of us who are committed to reforming from within will not likely see a lot of success. In all likelihood conservative clergy will be passed over for preferment, or out of conscience be prevented from accepting it. It would seem like the political options have been tried. But things are not entirely hopeless because we worship a God whose power is made perfect in our weakness. So, while it might seem that success in ecclesial politics is unavailable to us, what is still available to us is the glorious opportunity to faithfully preach the word of God, and disciple Christians, for this we should give thanks. Let us close the book on 2011 with the encouraging words of Bishop J.C. Ryle:
“Forever let us thank God that the building of the one true Church is laid on the shoulders of One who is mighty. Let us bless God that it does not rest upon man. Let us bless God that it does not depend on missionaries, ministers, or committees. Christ is the almighty Builder. He will carry on His work, though nations and visible Churches do not know their duty. Christ will never fail. That which He has undertaken He will certainly accomplish!”
A Joyous Christmas from your friends at The Anglican Planet
I note this makes reference to “liberal” versus “conservative”. Such reference totally ignores the serious issue that faces the Anglican Communion. The correct terminology is “apostasy” versus “orthodoxy” which is much more serious and needs to be addressed or the Anglican Communion will descend into the pit of irrelevance.
I see the handwritting on the wall. It is not nice, not at all. The revisionists are very much in charge and pushing ahead with their agenda. All the while the Anglican Church of Canada is in such a rate of decline that it might be described as a “free fall”. I have to wonder how many years the ACoC has left until it must unite with another denomination (perhaps the Lutherins)?
Then why do we stay? Obedience to Jesus Christ? A faithful Church, with a faithful Priest of which there are many in Pete Malloy’s Diocese. I doubt if the AC of C can be reformed as it is now, but in the future will God have a place for those faithful who are left? The last Bishop held the line, but if the new Bishop does not, there will a breakup. Already we are in a dire financial situtation which is good and bad, as it does tend to focus the mind and the money towards that which really matters. Anyway, in this world of “image is everything” I cannot imagine new liberal Priests wanting to be in a denomination without any “status” in a worldly sense.
An interesting article that is correct that it will be many tough years ahead in the “wilderness” for the reasserters (conservatives) in the ACoC. AMPisAnglican brings up a good point that doesn’t seem to be in the editorial though – the ACoC, like TEC in the US, is in numerical and financial free-fall. Yes the revisionists (liberals) hold the levers of power in the ACoC and TEC, and yet their position is much like Napoleon’s generals as they began their invasion of Russia in 1812. When looking to the future, we must not assume that the context the ACoC exists in will continue unchanged, just as the French army crossing the border into Russia in 1812 was unwise to assume that the context in which they marched would remain unchanged.
North America, and especially Canada, is fast becoming not just apathetic to Christianity, but downright hostile. And even though the revisionist christians might not be the target of social hostility (which is directed at orthodox Christians), they are nevertheless lumped into the same category of irrelevance and foolishness. It reminds me of when I was in highschool – I was a nerd, no doubt about it, but over the years I stood up for myself, had some good interactions with some of the “cool” group, and became regarded as one of the “okay” nerds. Thus, I wasn’t the target of attacks against nerds, which typically were launched against the more nerdish nerds. But, despite that, I would have been very foolish to think that I was anything other than a nerd. And so it is with revisionist christians – to the liberal social elite, they are just less noxious versions of the ridiculed Christians. Thus, to expand on what Pauline says, there is a very limited growth potential for revisionist christianity – non-committed young people don’t care about the Church and thus there is virtually no demographic that has any desire to join a church that is trying to be acceptable to the liberal social elite. You either believe that Christianity is unique or you just won’t bother with it at all.
Thus, the revisionists within the ACoC can never actually grow the church. Their power is temporally limited and it is only a power of destruction, not construction. Yes, they are in control of the levers of power for now. And it is very true that there will be no reform of either the ACoC or TEC for a long time. I think that the path for orthodox Christians in these bodies for now must be (1) healthy and solid differentiation from the heretical teachings of the diocese or national church; and (2) creating a healthy and very self-aware body that is in it for the long term.
I think that as the BabyBoomer generation dies off (this is the last generation, I think, that was raised in an environment that saw church attendance as a social virtue), the revisionist churches will face catastrophic losses and probably widespread collapse, with the recent declines being a mere presage. It will ONLY be after the complete and utter collapse of the revisionist superstructure that a true, long lasting reform of the ACoC and TEC can begin.
Along the way, conservatives will face a mixture of tolerance and also vitriol from the revisionist leaders. In TEC, the revisionists had long declared that if only they could offer same-sex blessings somewhere, many people would flock back to their churches. That didn’t happen. And so it was declared that it had to be national policy. Still didn’t happen. And so on and so on. Now some revisionists are saying that it is the continued existence of conservatives in TEC that is preventing a happy, unified message, and that if only the remaining conservatives could be either pacified or gotten rid of, the masses would come. It is this group that is flexing its muscles to persecute Bp. Lawrence in South Carolina. Other revisionists have come to terms with their incredibly shrinking church and, now that they are in full control, are perfectly happy to tolerate conservative outposts, so long as they mind their places. Even the most tolerant revisionist, however, will continue to seek to pick off weak conservative parishes when time comes to change rectors, fobbing stealth liberals on such parishes.
Thus conservatives that remain within ACoC or TEC need to understand what they are up against, to be very self-aware and prepared, and to be realistic about what the future holds.
JamesW, it can be difficult to stand up for traditional (orthodox) Biblical teachings on a variety of issues when people of the same age (20-30 in my case) are all gung-ho and for SSM/SSBs and want it to happen. I am beginning to think there is no one in my age bracket who is against the blessings/acknowledgement of such relationships.
It’s not as if I’m against gay people; I’m not. I just don’t believe in same-sex marriages as another alternative to hetero marriage. But I digress.
I remember at General Synod 2010 when we passed/accepted that non-statement about gay marriage, one girl was in tears and wanted to know why we hadn’t recognized same-sex marriages/relationships already and when it was going to happen and blah blah blah. And she was around my age. But I guess some youth of today are all open and accepting of everything, regardless of whether it’s AOK’ed by the Bible or the church.
Anyway, thanks for the warning about having to be prepared for the future. The present seems kind of dire, but hopefully later on something good happens.
The wonderful thing is that through all the discussions about sexuality, new groups and ministries have been formed all over the world to help those with unwanted sexual desires. These groups will continue and sexualities outside the mainstream of heterosexuality will, once again, be on the fringe of society, but there will be better understanding of how people can be helped with these desires. God will heal His Church, but we have to be open to the way He wants it healed and not hold onto the past. We start with the Gospel and solid bible teaching, and the experience of His grace in our lives to redeem all of us, body and soul. Without that experience there is no hope, but we do have hope and we have the Holy Spirit.
Why stay? I remember hearing John Stott say, to those who can, stay to be a witness. To remain faithful to God and minister to the senior orphans (no pensions or security) but to be with the dying, and pray for the sick and the lonely. Christ is our hope, not the human institution.
Jack: A few thoughts and questions. First, we need to remember that young people today (really anyone under 30) have been subject to one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in history by the societal, cultural and media elites over the homosexuality issue. Defenders of orthodox Christianity are portrayed in the same light as Nazi’s, Southern racists, etc. It should not be surprising at all that a majority of young people unthinkingly have bought into the message being propagated. But as we learned in the Proposition 8 fight in California, once an open debate is joined on the issue, and people have to actually deal with arguments on both sides of the issue, you find that support for SSM tends to be “a mile wide but an inch deep.”
Second, I wonder – are you referring to (a) young people generally; (b) young people active in ACoC governance structures; or (c) Christian young people generally. My experience has been that young people generally have certainly been affected by the propaganda campaign to which they have been subjected their entire lives – no surprise there, but their support for SSM is largely emotional and not well thought out. Young people in ACoC or TEC governance structures (e.g. synod delegates, etc.) tend to be overwhelmingly from the revisionist side of things. This is because when liberal parishes want to encourage involvement by young people, they encourage involvement in the governance structures. When conservative parishes want to encourage youth involvement, they encourage bible studies, youth mission trips, etc. Thus whenever I attend an official church governance event, the young people in attendance are always overwhelmingly activist revisionists. Finally, I have found that young people that are committed orthodox Christians are much less viscerally opposed to SSMs, etc., than their elders, but remain strongly opposed to them.
Third, I think we need to know where and when to “fight” the various issues. The revisionists now are in full control of the levers of power in both TEC and ACoC. Those of us who remain in these bodies need to accept this and work within that context. So, while I used to be a delegate to our diocesan convention and fight against SSMs becoming diocesan policy, that fight was lost. There is no point in fighting in over and over again when I know what the result will be. Rather, I realized there is no point in wasting money attending diocesan convention. The revisionists are in full control there – that is not the place nor the battle any more. Rather, the focus for me now is on the congregational level – helping to build up a biblically literate group that can survive the long term as Gospel people.
The way I see it, we have two choices to be Anglican. We can either leave ACoC/TEC and join ACNA; or we can stay in ACoC/TEC. We need to be clear on WHY we are making the choices we are and we need to be clear on WHAT we need to be doing once we make the choice. I see the ACNA option as being for those who would plant new Anglican churches and actively evangelize, free from the millstone that is the collapsing, heretical structures of ACoC/TEC, yet also outside the formal Anglican Communion. I see the ACoC/TEC option as being for those who see themselves either (a) as witnessing to a dying institution and/or people within a dying institution, and/or (b) maintaining and defending an isolated island of ordered orthodoxy within a heretical sea, so that when the heretical sea dries us (as we know it eventually will), the island can assist the restructuring of an ordered, comprehensive, orthodox Anglicanism in North America once more. Personally, I think that when the revisionist institutions finally do collapse, we will need both groups in order to recover a comprehensive, orthodox Anglicanism again.
James – your post was very helpful to me. It gives me a lot to think about as to why I am staying in ACoC – at the moment anyway.
I can see you have a lot to think about as you consider your move to either move to an ANiC parish or remain in the ACoC. From the facts that have shown themselves over the past decade it is evident the ACoC has abandoned any claim to be either Anglican or Christian regardless of their name. The primary question to consider is whether you wish to be a Christian – I should state it is evident that is indeed your position – but you cannot be either a Christian or an Anglican if you follow the lead of the ACoC and the TEC. The actions of the bishops and Primates show they clearly reject the two mandatory conditions for being either an Anglican or a Christian:-
1. full acceptance of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ – Michael Ingham and other so-called bishops reject the virgin birth, the resurrection and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
2. full acceptance and recognition of the authority of Scripture – God’s word is NOT subject to any majority vote and definitely NOT to the whims of so-called bishops.
Michael Ingham with the approval of Fred Hiltz has legally stolen properties – properties that were paid for by orthodox and committed Christians. They are NOT liberals but are definitely apostates and I can only urge you to seek out and become a member of an ANiC parish.
JamesW, thanks for your thoughtful post. I enjoy reading your informative statements.
#10 Frank, while I agree with you on your post, for the most part my church and diocese hasn’t succumbed to the disease that has infected the rest of the ACoC. Yet.
I am staying in the ACoC because there isn’t an ANiC/ACNA in my city. And while that’s not the main reason why I’m staying, I’m staying because I haven’t yet seen any of the problems within my church that are taking place throughout the wider Church. When the ACoC votes in favour to bless/acknowledge/accept SSM/SSBs, then I might think about leaving.
Another reason I stay is because of the people in my congregations. I enjoy their company and comradeship. They are an older bunch and still more within the “old school” Anglicanism realm. That’s not to say, though, that they aren’t willing to accept change, depending on what that change is. I’m still getting used to the new (young) priest we have and his … theology he is presenting.
Anyway, I’m not ready just yet to jump ship. I’m not blind to what is going on in the wider ACoC. I’m rather disappointed and saddened and feel we are giving up what we have stood for and are bending to the will of what society wants or accepts.
But – where are the next generation of pastors going to come from? If the pattern in Ottawa holds for the rest of the country, young orthodox people who think that they have a calling simply aren’t being ordained in the ACoC. I don’t think that orthodox parishes who are ‘holding the fort’ are going to be able to find acceptable people to lead them.
I’m going to make the blood boil of my fellow ACC friends in stating that conservative Anglicans should hold fast because Liberal Anglicans don’t do a good job of replacing themselves. I’m a middle of the road (though a tad-bit evangelical) Anglican. My wife and I have three children – a few others in our church do as well. But my experience with the vast majority of Liberal Anglicans is that 1) they aren’t having enough babies and 2) they don’t pass the faith on to their off-spring very well.
Wait a generation – there won’t be any Liberals left.
For Eph 3:20
How can you possibly claim to be evangelical? Previous comments you have made show you are decidedly apostate as you clearly indicate you take your stand with the apostates. The correct terminology within the ACoC is apostasy (you call them liberal) versus orthodoxy (you call them conservative). When you clearly reject the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture you cannot possibly claim to be Christian.
He may be confusing evangelistic with Evangelical. It’s a common problem. However, I too struggle to see any Evangelical content in previous posts.
I completely difffer with posts 14 and 15. I am an inquirying Christian. I take my faith very seriously and suggest we probably have more in common than against.
I believe scripture to be the inspired word of God – though perhaps incomplete. God’s transformative work in the world did not end in the 3rd century. Science compliments scripture and our understanding of human behaviour. You got to believe that a first century Christian just couldn’t possibly comprehend that God could create and love a homosexual – I mean it was just beyond their understanding of human nature. I mean they thought that if a woman didn’t bear any sons then she must be cursed by God.
I can’t see why ANiC feels compelled to leave ACC and form its own church, who in time will find reasons to disagree and then splinter into opposing camps?
You make a big deal about homosexuality, yet find divorce easily compatable with scripture – I do not. I find divorce completely regretably though at times unavoidable because couple fail to embrace the unity that marriage is meant to represent.
It was probably incorrect to claim to be evangelical. A bible thumper I am not. I meant slightly charismatic – realizing the two to be quite different. Yeah I go for the hands in the air and speaking in tongues stuff. I’m a slain in the spirit type of guy (though there isn’t much in the way of a charismatic renewal program in the Anglican church anymore, although there are still remnants in my church in Oshawa).
Hope that helps.
By the way… Calling me an apostate is not contructive. It’s like me calling you a heretic. And in the eyes of the Most Holy Catholic Church you are indeed a heretic. Some 400 years ago you would have been murdered for your heresy. Don’t think you want to bring back the good ole days, do ya?
For Eph 3:20
As with many within the ACoC you seem to believe the primary dispute is the issue of homosexuality. That is understandable due to the fact that this is what the media has proclaimed and is what the so-called bishops in the ACoC want people to believe. Homosexuality is no different than any other sin and those involved must seek repentance the same as thieves, adulterers, etc. To be a Christian (or an Anglican) the issues are quite simply the following:-
a) full acceptance of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ – He is THE way, THE truth and THE life. If that is NOT true then the Eucharist is nothing less than a sham. Tragically there are many so-called bishops and clergy within the ACoC that reject this teaching.
b) full acceptance of the authority of Scripture – which means such authority is NOT subject to any majority vote at Synod and definitely NOT to the whims of so-called bishops.
Rejection of these conditions does make one a heretic or an apostate despite the harshness of these words. I do pray for the repentance and conversion of the false teachers but remain appalled at the failure of the Primate to take appropriate action against such false teachers.
Frank,
Actually to be an Anglican, the three legged chair consists of:
1) Scripture
2) Tradition
3) Reason
If you throw in the Chicago Quadralateral you also add the Historic Episcopacy.
Perhaps reason has been given primacy of late. But why to you presume that scripture – or our understanding of it – cannot evolve. I accept the authority of scripture, yet in a church tha allows some measure of reasonableness, I have come to appreciate that those in the 1st Century – however well meaning gthey might have been – did not have fullest understanding of the human condition.
If you want the absolute security of the teaching authority of the church I suggest you join the RC Church – although they’d have a problem with your priests getting married or womern being priests. But then again some in ANiC don’t believe in women priests either.
The three legged stool is a myth. Hooker never said any such thing.
http://livingtext.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/richard-hooker-and-the-three-legged-stool/
Eph posted…
“I have come to appreciate that those in the 1st Century – however well meaning they might have been – did not have fullest understanding of the human condition.”
It is not my intention to be rude, but, this is a prime example of the rubbish that is put forth by those who support the homosexual agenda. “Oh those poor early Christians. If only they were educated like we are.” Talk about arrogance! We should instead be saying “Us poor Christians of today. If only we had remained Faithful to God’s Holy Word and not allowed ourselves to indulge in pleasures of the groin.”
The simple truth is that all human behaviour, including sexual behaviour, is ALWAYS a choice. We are not born homosexual, just as we are not born adulterers. People choose to indulge in sinful behaviour, and God calls us to stop it and come back to Him. It is so very sad that this truth is not what most people are willing to hear. I should not be surprised though. After all, Jesus Christ does tell us that there will be some who will recieve the Word of God, and many who will not.
Sorry AMP, but medical science and contemporary psychology disagree with your opinion regarding being born homosexual. It is not a “condition” or a “disease.” You can’t be “cured” of being a homosexual. You are born that way – full stop.
And contrary to your earlier point, I believe it exceedingly arrogant of us to presume that God’s revelation ended in the 3rd century. How big of you to know the mind of God.
Hello Eph
You and I obviously disagree about the so called “medical science”. If a person can be “born” homosexual” than how has it been possible for so very many people to live a heterosexual life and after many years proclaim themselves to be homosexual. This one fact alone makes it obvious that we humans decide what our behaviour is. And what about identical twins? If one identical twin is born homosexual, than why not both? That there are occurances of one identical twin choosing a homosexual life while the other does not shows quite clearly than once again behaviour is chosen. I couild go on and on and on, but I think the point is made (and the blog administrators would likely think that this post is long enough anyway).
As far as knowing the mind of God. I have never claimed that and frankly it is extremely presumptuous of you to protray me that way. What I do believe is that God has communicated His message to everyone by means of His Holy Bible. And as far as God’s revelation being complete, all you need to do is read the last chapters of the last book of the Holy Bible (Revelations) to see that that is true. The notion that God is continuing to give us knew information is lie put forth by those who do not like the message that God has already sent.
Eph 3:20 [#22],
Read the interview here.
Both Daryle and Dawn are examples of people who were homosexuals and now don’t experience same sex attraction. There are many other examples, but information about them and what they have been through is actively suppressed in the ACoC.
Amp,
You said:
“And as far as God’s revelation being complete, all you need to do is read the last chapters of the last book of the Holy Bible (Revelations) to see that that is true.”
This is true indeed of the Book of Revelation. But the reference in Revelation is not in reference to the whole Bible given that John had no understanding of an aggregate bible when it was written. In fact, there is no reason, other than convention perhaps, why additional literature could not comprise sacred scripture.
David,
I am suspicious of anyone who claims to b “cured” of homosexuality. My sense is that they were heterosexual all along, but merely “experimented” with the homosexual lifestyle. The latter would be unnatural (and therefore sinful) of course as the “natural” state of a heterosexual is to be heterosexual.
Let’s cut to the chase… why would someone choose to be gay? Given the hostility, censure, criticism, degradation and scorn we have, through history, thrown at these poor souls, why would anyone willing choose to be gay?
Eph:3:20
You are dodging the issue. Whether Dawn and Daryle chose homosexuality or were born with a disposition to same-sex attraction, isn’t the point. The point is, they have changed: both are happily married to partners of the opposite sex.
Your “sense” that “that they were heterosexual all along” really just betrays your unwillingness to have your preconceptions challenged. You can’t sensibly claim to know them better than they know themselves.
Read Dawn’s story here with a more open mind and see if your opinion changes.
“My sense is that they were heterosexual all along, but merely “experimented” with the homosexual lifestyle.”
So it is possible for heterosexual people to “experiment”, but for homosexual people it is a “born that way” issue. How than do we determine who is a heterosexual experimenter and a born that way homosexual? Really Eph, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. But what you end up doing is confirming our beliefs. If it is possible for hetersexuals to engage in homosexual activities, than it must also be possible for homosexuals to engage in hetersexual activities. And thus it is a choice!
“But the reference in Revelation is not in reference to the whole Bible given that John had no understanding of an aggregate bible when it was written.”
This betrays a beleif that the Bible was written by people. It was not. The Holy Bible was written by God. And God most certainly inspired and led the leaders of the early Church so that the Holy Bible that God intended for us to have is what we got. Nothing more is to be added, and nothing is to ever be taken away.
“This betrays a beleif that the Bible was written by people. It was not. The Holy Bible was written by God. And God most certainly inspired and led the leaders of the early Church so that the Holy Bible that God intended for us to have is what we got. Nothing more is to be added, and nothing is to ever be taken away.”
Another point to possibly make – I think it was made already on this forum somewhere – is that all the books of the Bible were written at a time when there were still people around who knew/interacted with/heard from/met Jesus and his many disciples. This is how they had the background knowledge to write the particular NT books. People who had heard Jesus’ message still had it with them, and those who were writing I’m probably sure talked with them.
Moreover, with this many apostles and disciples around, God was able to speak through a great number of people, some of whom wrote portions of the Bible.
This is why I can’t accept Mormonism as even a denomination of Christianity, considering some guy in the 1800s decided he could write another chapter to the Bible and claim it was canonical. But that is a topic for another occasion…
I agree with those who suggest that Eph 3:20′s views as expressed here are not compatible with orthodox Christianity. A few thoughts on that:
1) You either believe that Scripture is divinely inspired or you don’t. If you think Scripture is merely the recorded thoughts of first century rubes, then you might as well skip church and Christianity because it would be one giant waste of time. If you accept that Scripture is divinely inspired, then you need to take it seriously.
2) It doesn’t really matter whether homosexually inclined persons are “born that way”, whether they can change, or whatever. Lots of people are “born that way” with regard to other predilections and are unable to change, but we don’t then decide to simply say that the resultant action is good. What we do know is that everyone has the choice whether or not to act out on their sexual inclinations, and we also know that Scripture has made it clear that acting out on homosexual inclinations is wrong. Period. End of story.
That said, Eph 3:20′s comment “Wait a generation – there won’t be any Liberals left” is, I think, very far-sighted. You can quibble with the nomenclature (I think revisionist is a good term), but I think Eph 3:20 is right that in another 20-30 years, you will see the ACoC and TEC implode in a way that we can’t possibly imagine today. Already, the ACoC and TEC are becoming boutique churches for a demographic that has overwhelmingly turned its back on Christianity – BOTH revisionist and orthodox Christianity.
Thus I see a role for Anglican Christians both within ACoC and in the ACNA. In the latter, because North American needs a robust mission-oriented evangelistic Anglicanism. In the former, because Christians should never avoid those areas in need of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the ACoC and TEC are places sorely in need of the Gospel, but are also important, historical churches that we shouldn’t give up on so easily. Again, either choice is defensible, so long as you understand the reasons for that choice and the consequences which will flow from that choice.
James W,
Thanks for chimming in. I appreciate several of your comments, particularly the latter ones, though I take exception to this one:
“1) You either believe that Scripture is divinely inspired or you don’t. If you think Scripture is merely the recorded thoughts of first century rubes, then you might as well skip church and Christianity because it would be one giant waste of time. If you accept that Scripture is divinely inspired, then you need to take it seriously.”
I absolutely believe scripture it divinely inspired. And with the exception of homosexuality, I am very socially conservative. I have some questions for you however.
Let me put homosexuality aside. We have a clear difference of opinion, of this there is no doubt. But let me ask, if you are so orthodox in your interpretation of scripture, why then do you…
a) accept a female priesthood – every orthodox Christian demonination clearly deliniates between roles for women and men in the church, why not ANic?
b) accept divorce – Christ was so clear about the union joined permanently
c) not accept the authority of Rome – if Christ gave Peter the keys to bind in heaven and on earth, then clearly the Roman church is Christ’s church, why not go back to Roman Catholicism
As a former RC, one of my stumbling blocks with Anglicanism (though not a deal breaker) is your obsession with the Monarchy as head of the church. Not only is the idea of an hereditary monarchy absurd in the 21st century, but what is so “holy” about Royals. They are not role models. What is there to emulate in their self-serving ways?
a) There were female church leaders in the new testament, and our pastors are presbyters, not priests. As Anglicans we are to let scripture interpret scripture (one of the 39 articles, I forget which one), therefore have to find a way forward that acknowledges both Paul’s words and the existence of Phoebe and others like her. Women deacons and presbyters, but not bishops, is the road we have chosen.
b) Paul allowed for divorce under very limited circumstances. Divorced and remarried people are not allowed to become presbyters unless special permission is given by the bishop, again, given under very limited (and biblically based) circumstances.
c) We trace our roots back to the protestant reformation.
Hello again Eph
I think that Kate makes some good points in her post. I might also add this…
re you question #c)
As Anglicans we accept the legitimacy of the Apostolic Succession of our Bishops, and this we can trace all the way back to pre-reformation England, and consequently the rest of the way back to the Apostles.
Regarding the Monarchy, I see some significant benefits for a government as a good Monarch will be a strong source of considerable experience (decades insted fo the few years that politicians typically serve) and non-partisan input. Too bad Canada does not make greater use of this. The Monarch as head of the Church is now only symbolic. In time this will likely change, but we must remember and understand that this would involve a chance to the Constitution of Great Britian, and potentially several other countries. And Constitutional change takes a very long time, even when it does not involve religion.
…particularly when the constitution is unwritten. However, the Church of Wales has been disestablished, so the methodology is known and there is precedent, if the will to do the same in England emerges.
Eph 3:20:
First, a clarification. I am not part of the ANiC nor the ACNA. I became an Anglican in the ACoC, then moved to the USA where I currently belong to a TEC parish.
Second, you raised four issues. Kate has responded to them very well, but here are my thoughts…
1) women’s ordination – there are actually several theologically conservative denominations which have women ministers – especially Pentecostal ones (if you grew up in the Vancouver area, you might remember Bernice Gerard). I see no Scriptural grounds to forbid women clergy, as there were women leaders in the early church. There is obviously no time to review the evidence here, but I categorically reject the assertion that permitting women clergy is similar to accepting homosexual behavior. That said, the biggest challenge to me for women clergy is the fact that the Orthodox and Roman Churches do not permit it – I think that their prohibition is a humanly derived law, and not of Scripture, but even so church unity is important.
b) divorce – I agree that the ACNA should actually issue some clearer rules on divorce. I think that conservative Anglicans too easily accept a permissive divorce practice. That said, nobody is championing divorce as a good thing and blessed by God, which should be affirmed by one and all (as revisionists are arguing for homosexual behavior).
c) the Roman church – certainly the Church of Rome is a Christian church, but I think that they err in claiming the mantle of being the “only” legitimate Christian church. We need no more accept the authority of Rome, than we need to accept the authority of Constantinople, Canterbury, or what have you. I would take Kate one step further – Anglicans do trace their roots to the Reformation, but also earlier than that. It wasn’t until around the seventh century A.D. that Rome was able to politically establish itself as the “be all and end all” of Western Christianity. It was always seen as, perhaps the most important See, but never the authoritarian power it is today. Until Rome established itself politically in this way, there were thriving and very independent catholic churches in Britain and Ireland.
d) Monarchy as head of the church – I actually now oppose the Monarch being head of the Church. It worked okay when the Monarch was clearly a Christan head of a Christian nation, but doesn’t work when the Monarch is intended to be some sort of interfaith figurehead of a secular state that is actually quite hostile to Christianity – I mean that it is conceptually impossible.
The Monarch as head of the church model presupposes a certain view of Sovereignty, God and the nation and their interrelationship, which very obviously does not exist any longer. Thus, it would be best to acknowledge this fact and let the Church of England govern itself as an independent organization.
ANiC’s canons are pretty clear on divorce, from what I remember. It’s been a while since I read them.
This is from the copy of the canons I was given before last year’s synod, I don’t believe anything was changed:
II.9.10 Of The Remarriage of Divorced Persons
(a) As marriage is a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman in which the two become one flesh, it is both an ordinance of Creation, affirmed as such by our Lord, and commended by Saint Paul as a sign of the mystical union between Christ and His Church (Matthew 19:3-9; Ephesians 5:22-32). Therefore, the failure of a marriage is always a tragedy. Scripture acknowledges our fallen nature and does provide guidance to know when a couple may divorce and allows the possibility of a subsequent marriage in certain circumstances (Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7).
(i) If one or both parties of a couple requesting solemnization of marriage by a member of the ANiC Clergy have been divorced, the member of the ANiC Clergy must obtain approval from the ANiC Bishop to marry the couple. The ANiC Bishop’s approval must be
granted in accordance with the approved policies and procedures of ANiC in relation to the solemnization of marriage; and
(ii) When a divorced person seeks permission to remarry, the ANiC Clergy must ascertain the pertinent facts concerning the termination of a previous marriage; and forward such information to the ANiC Bishop in writing for his godly advice and consent;
To #29, #31, #33, #34, & #35: Please read Mark Galli’s article entitled “Why the Bible is Not a Book of Moral Laws”, posted on January 12, 2012 in Christianity Today Magazine (Web-Only, http://www.christianitytoday.com). My friends, who are on opposite sides of the same-sex blessings, appreciated this article. Christianity Today has been my favourite magazine since 1970. J. I. Packer and John Stott were among the former contributing editors of this evangelical publication.
I really don’t see why my comment on English Law was tagged here; however…
I strongly disagree that the moral law in Scripture is merely ethical guidance. If we follow that line, we could reasonably assume that we should only consider not killing other people, and that might lead us to the conclusion that we can commit a series of murders to the glory of God (see The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg). The Ten Commandments are just that: commandments, not suggestions.
#31 c) E 3:20 and #35) JW
Understanding Jesus’ intention in giving Peter the keys is a question well worth working through.
I recently read RC author Scott Hahn’s exegesis of Mt 16:16 and was challenged by a cross reference to Isaiah 22:21-23 that I hadn’t found in any of my Protestant study Bibles. In brief, Hahn points out that by using the metaphor of keys and the responsibility of binding and loosing Jesus is deliberately echoing the words spoken by Isaiah to Eliakim, the good steward of David’s house. Hahn then points out that as Son of David, Jesus’ fulfills the promise that the Davidic kingdom, along with its offices, will never fail. Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church parallels but reverses Isaiah’s prophecy that, despite the honour he brings to the office, Eliakim will fall. While the responsibilities of binding and loosing were shared with the other apostles the keys were given to Peter alone.
How do we as Anglicans recognize the office of steward given to Peter and his successors? While we humans may fail, God is faithful to his promises and I think we need to honour this office in his kingdom: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.