Recently we noted here that the Global South Primatial Oversight Council is offering episcopal oversight and support for Anglicans dissenting from local jurisdictional authority structures.
Today it looks like South Carolina will be the first Diocese to take up this offer as a resolution to this effect is announced on Titus One Nine as on the books for the forthcoming Diocesan Convention next weekend.
ADDITIONAL NOTE
It is tempting to see South Carolina's move as solely related to one matter, homosexuality and then to either condemn South Carolina for making one issue, not found in the creeds, a reason for schism (which took place a while ago) and now for revision of structural arrangements as an Anglican diocese within the Anglican Communion, or to commend the example of South Carolina as a way forward for other dioceses (perhaps even parishes) around the world to remain within the Anglican Communion when they experience disagreement with their province (or parish with diocese and/or province) over homosexuality.
The reality (as being noted in various comments below) is that South Carolina has left it larger church body (The Episcopal Church [TEC]) because it has determined that the differences between its understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ (as revealed to us through Scripture and taught in the tradition of the Anglican church since the days of the English Reformation) and TEC's understanding of the gospel are a barrier to remaining in continued communion with TEC.
Thus condemning South Carolina for making a schism out of homosexuality is a condemnation based on a peculiar understanding of the situation South Carolina in relationship to TEC finds itself in.
Conversely, before rushing to imitate South Carolina, I suggest it worth hitting the 'pause' button in order to reflect, Is the larger body to which I and my parish/diocese are a part in great disagreement over the gospel itself? (For example, a helpful related question could be, Is that larger body inhibiting the preaching of the gospel in my parish or in the churches of my diocese?)
Many Anglicans who have worried about what other Anglicans in their patch really believe about the gospel have lived with considerable disagreement over the gospel for a long time. Is anything different in your patch about preaching the gospel today? Speaking only for myself, and only about my church ACANZP, I do not see any great difference about the mix of views roundabouts today compared with many yesterdays.
Fellow Kiwi Anglicans, what do you think?
Other Anglicans, what is happening in your patch?
If every diocese does a 'South Carolina', there will be quite a bit of chaos!
59 comments:
Fascinating timing indeed!
I read this T19 post after my comment on the David Ould thread. It looks as if others are now channelling this sense of "enough" syuitably. NB too that the ABC was at this Cairo meeting ...What might this Oversight Council mean for our part of the world, I wonder - not least for our GS and its aftermath ...
Interesting that anyone would want to take on the responsibility of the oversight of any large organisation.
Perhaps they should think very carefully about exactly what it is they are in for : ) ...
I agreed with Peter in a previous post when He mentioned the only apparent difference offered by this new group is their stance on homesexuality. And although conservative myself in my beliefs, I agree having this as the only conforming foundation which differs from the structure of the Anglican Church as it now stands would prove tenuous indeed.
I much rather favour the theology adhered to by American Shane Claibourne. I think His interpretation of living out the word of God would be a more honest challenge to the church as a whole to be less cultural driven and more authentic than any change in oversight structure would acheive.
the only apparent difference offered by this new group is their stance on homesexuality
Not at all. There are far far more important matters of distinction; the gospel itself.
Hi David, I just read the statement of foundation principles for this group and don't personally know a lot about it, however, other than the specific mention of homosexuality it didn't seem to differ a lot to me in respect to the profession of faith adhered to currently by the Anglican Church, and other churches.
Can you help me understand by giving me examples of where the gospel itself does not appear in the current Anglican profession of faith yet appears in the foundation principles of this new group.
Many thanks.
Jean,
Which statement of foundation principles are you referring to?
Hi David, I just looked at the website again and I had been reading the Jerusalem Statement. It entails adhering to the faith foundations of Anglicanism as per the rest of the communion. With the difference of saying some areas within the communion have dissented from these beliefs with specific reference to homosexuality and believing 'all religions lead to God'.
Yet you say the distinction of this new group is the gospel itself.
Some individuals and churches within the Anglican communion may have dissented from following the statement of faith of the worldwide Anglican communion but the statement of faith has not changed and as far as I can comprehend is still aligned with the gospel.
I can see the merit in holding such persons or churches accountable to the statements of faith to which they have professed - if their behaviour goes against this, however, I struggle to see the necessity of a new oversight structure.
Can't this be done within the current Anglican Communion? Couldn't the group lobby for accountability without making itself a new authority?
There are just as many churches and persons within the current Anglican communion who do adhere to the foundational beliefs.
P.S. I attend an Anglican church but if asked I say I am a Christian. Denominations to me are a practical way of administering the gospel but I believe in the unity of the whole church.
No doubt Bishop Lawrence expects to be able to get back into the Anglican Communion through this questionable means. One can only hope that the ACC will see through this attempt to circumvent the appropriate protocols.
Intentional Schism is not healed by short-cuts.
"Which statement of foundation principles are you referring to?"
Would this be the historic Creeds?
hi Jean, that's really helpful to understand a bit more of where you're coming from.
The Jerusalem Declaration is from the first GAFCON which is part of the FCA (Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) movement.
The Global South is a slightly different grouping but there is a lot of overlap between the two and so I think it's fair to say that the general approach is the same.
Some individuals and churches within the Anglican communion may have dissented from following the statement of faith of the worldwide Anglican communion but the statement of faith has not changed and as far as I can comprehend is still aligned with the gospel.
I think this hits the nub of the issue. It's entirely true to say that no Province of the Anglican Communion has officially in it's foundational documents rejected the gospel and yet it is quite evident that many leaders in (for example) TEC have certainly abandoned the gospel. That's well documented. Further there has been a remarkable reluctance to discipline or censure them in any way.
So at that point, even if the documents haven't changed the gospel has still been abandoned. In fact I'd argue it's a greater problem since there is a clear lack of integrity for those who claim to value and uphold those documents while actually teaching against them.
Thus we have our current crisis. We have asked that they be held accountable to those statements of faith but nothing has happened. So the Global South and FCA have decided to get on with it on their own. Let those who reject the historical gospel reject it. We will carry on.
"No doubt Bishop Lawrence expects to be able to get back into the Anglican Communion through this questionable means"
Fr Ron, why would he want to?
I'd also be interested to know why you would assume that was his intention anyway - I haven't seen anything on blogs or in press statements to suggest that the bishop, clergy or lay people of Dio South Carolina spend any time at all thinking about the official body known as "the Anglican Communion".
But perhaps you are aware of something I am not?
Jean wrote:
“Some individuals and churches within the Anglican communion may have dissented from following the statement of faith of the worldwide Anglican communion”
They have? That is news to me.
There are certainly major issues and disputes in the Anglican Communion but I didn’t know that any group had dissented from following a statement of faith.
Can you be more specific about who has dissented from what?
" So the Global South and FCA have decided to get on with it on their own. Let those who reject the historical gospel reject it. We will carry on." - David Ould -
Do you, David, speak for the whole of the Sydney Diocese, or just for your parish? If, indeed you do speak for the majority of the Sydney parishes (which I very much doubt), do you figure that the Australian FCA crowd with opt into the GAFCON/Global South fraternity, and separate out from the Australian Anglican Province?
I wonder what your Provincial Anglican Church of Australia would have to say about that? (and, in fact, do they know about your expressed intention?)
"But perhaps you are aware of something I am not?" - MichaelA -
Obviously!
"Obviously"
Fr Ron, I am getting the distinct impression that you are avoiding my question!
I asked why you assumed that +Lawrence's intention is "to get back into the Anglican Communion through this questionable means"?
As I wrote above, I am not aware of any objective indication that that is the case, hence why I asked on what basis you would make such an assumption.
Well...?
"...do you figure that the Australian FCA crowd with opt into the GAFCON/Global South fraternity, and separate out from the Australian Anglican Province?"
Fr Ron, where did you get this idea from?
David wrote nothing about separating from anyone. Not even a hint. His post said that the Global South and FCA will not join others who reject the historical gospel.
Now I appreciate that the idea of Gafcon "separating" from the rest of the Anglican world is a favourite hobby horse of yours - you persist in suggesting it will happen, even though as I understand it, Gafcon have repeatedly made clear that they do NOT intend to do that.
But why read a comment about sticking to the historical gospel as meaning an institutional separation?
MichaelA;
"But why read a comment about sticking to the historical gospel as meaning an institutional separation?"
You are putting 1 and 1 together here and making 3.
The fact that Gafcon may have expressed the sentiment that they cannot live with anyone who does not 'stick to the historic Gospel' - presumably thinking that everyone except them does not 'stick to the historic Gospel' -
might, automatically & logically presume that Gafcon is intent on separating themselves out from the rest of us who think differently from them.
That does not mean that Gafcon has the lien on 'the historic Gospel'. In fact, it may mean the opposite.
"I asked why you assumed that +Lawrence's intention is "to get back into the Anglican Communion through this questionable means"?
- MichaelA -
I think, Michael, that the process by which I have come to this conclusion is called 'logic'.
I answer your question (a good rabbinical method, practised by OLJC - though I cannot claim to be Him) by asking you a question:
If Bishop Lawrence and his floating diocese of S.C. did not want to re-join the Anglican Communion (of which the G.S. Provinces are members); why did he not simply join Archbishop Robbie and his band at ACNA? - They have no provenance in the A.C.O., and it surely would have been easier to register a protest against the Anglican Communion.
Hi Michael/Ron
I am going to stick up, at least a little, for Ron here!
It strikes me that although GAFCON has not quite said it will separate from the Anglican Communion it has voices within it which have made some distinctly strong noises about no continuing in fellowship etc ... underlined by GAFCON bishops who have not gone to Lambeth ... there is, to my mind at least, a question when claims to belong to Anglican Communion bodies takes on more and more the air of rhetoric and less and less the air of reality.
Hi Michael/Ron
Also, on the matter of SC rejoining the AngComm, I also support Ron. The line in the Virtue Online article is:
"An upcoming resolution to be presented at their Annual Diocesan Convention March 14-15 could change all that. In response to an offer by the newly created Global South Primatial Oversight Council for pastoral oversight, the diocese seeks to have a formal ecclesiastical connection to the larger Communion and a consequent pastoral relationship."
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18678
Thanks David and Peter for helping me to understand a bit better the wider picture.
Michael A by dissenting I merely mean it in a colloquial sense, of people or churches choosing to make decisions or take actions which go against the agreed principles of faith. As I comprehend it Lambeth, representing the authority of the Anglican communion, still hold in canon law that the Anglican Communion is not to bless same sex marriages. And it is their responsibility to uphold this.
I was a little shocked to learn the Episcopal Church in the US alongside accepting the marriage of same sex couples, has accepted de facto relationships on the basis of them being a regular part of current culture, and they have a neutral response to the issue of abortion. This does not mean I agree with the draconian approach of some conservative US christians/churches towards these issues.
I thank God that downunder in New Zealand the Anglican Church has yet to reach the need for division and are still at the stage of discussion, however, I can see if a line is not drawn somewhere on where we stand theologically on these topical issues in respect to what we believe, our local communion could be threatened. By this I am not implying everyone who attends church will agree about all things but that those in authority take a clear stance.
Otherwise I fear the church will be drawn into murky waters ethically speaking.
A good example in NZ is the legalisation of legalising prostitution, I believe people generally saw it as being tolerant and aimed at protecting prostitutes. Yet brothels and child trafficking have increased. People are upset at brothels in residential areas, and having the teachers of their children moonlighting as prostitutes.
Legalising such things as the marriage of same sex couples will lead to similar complications - such as adoption of children, what impact will it have on the children down the line? How would I feel if my children had a homosexual youth worker?
Personally I could not honestly serve God with integrity under the rulings made by the US Episcopal Church.
Such wisdom is needed. Please note I have homosexual friends, and many friends in de facto relationships. I just believe God encourages us to follow His way in these things to protect us not to judge us. I can love my friends yet be honest with them that this is not the way I choose to live and explain why.
Maybe I am an idealist. I still believe it is possible to preach the truth in love, and to worship in both spirit and truth. Inspired by such people as Jackie Pullinger, Phillip Yancey and Henri Nouwen. To be models of love yet standing firm in the faith.
Thank you, peter, in these last two posts, you have proved to me (and to others) that you are not totally biassed against Anglicans who do not belong to the Gafcon. Thank you.
This means a lot to me as a member of ACANZP, which also seems not to have much in common with Gafcon.
Golly, Ron, is "not totally biased" a compliment or a critique?
As there are many Anglicans who do not belong to GAFCON (not even by virtue of their bishop attending GAFCON) it would be a most strange thing if I was in any way shape or form biased against them. Ours is an inclusive church, in keeping with Paul's Epistle to the Romans ...
" How would I feel if my children had a homosexual youth worker? "
- Jean -
Dear Jean, I wonder if your hard-line on homosexuality would change at all if one of your children turned out to be intrinsically gay?
This has been known to be the experience of certain Christian parents, whose theological under-standing of the etiology of human sexual difference has changed. do you think your ideas could change? Or are they immutable?
It really is amazing what a difference is made when one finds one's own flesh and blood involved. I wonder if God could be found in the experience of change in one's own understanding of the reality involved?
“It strikes me that although GAFCON has not quite said it will separate from the Anglican Communion…”
Actually they have said the exact opposite, and said it very clearly.
If you disagree with this, then I suggest the most effective way to do so is to come up with citations (or even a citation) to support your position. Gafcon has issued numerous statements and communiques since 2008 and they are all easily accessible on-line, so it shouldn’t be difficult.
The Nairobi Statement in October 2013 is recent, and fairly comprehensive, so that would be a good start: http://anglicanink.com/article/gafcon-2-statement.
“it has voices within it which have made some distinctly strong noises about no continuing in fellowship etc”
What voices, by whom? Unless you can give some examples (can you?) then this isn’t saying anything that doesn’t apply to every single movement on earth.
Every church and every movement (heck, every parish!) has voices within it saying just about everything. What views would I find if I did a confidential survey of members of your parish?
“…underlined by GAFCON bishops who have not gone to Lambeth …”
Which has precisely what relevance? They won’t go to the next one either, if ABC and ACO don’t sort themselves out, but that will not put them one millimetre outside the Anglican Communion.
However, your comment raises a serious question about your attitude to those who disagree with you on this – several bishops did not attend Lambeth 2008 who have had no connection with GAFCON, then or since (you may have forgotten that many people had a problem with ABC’s attitude towards TEC in 2008, not just Gafcon). Yet apparently you want to have those bishops removed from the Communion because of their non-attendance at Lambeth – by what authority?
“… there is, to my mind at least, a question when claims to belong to Anglican Communion bodies takes on more and more the air of rhetoric and less and less the air of reality….”
You do realise this sounds more than a little rhetorical? ;)
“Also, on the matter of SC rejoining the AngComm, I also support Ron. The line in the Virtue Online article is: …”
Yes. How does the quote support Father Ron’s position (or yours)?
The primatial oversight sought by Dio SC is the same as that which ACNA already has. It is no more or less “official”. And that should give you a strong hint at what Dio SC means by “Communion” in this quote.
The real point of this quote is that Dio South Carolina does not regard itself as under the primatial oversight or authority of TEC. It is not going to the ABC for that oversight, or the ACO, but to a new committee formed by the Standing Committee of the Global South a few weeks ago.
"Dear Jean, I wonder if your hard-line on homosexuality would change at all if one of your children turned out to be intrinsically gay?"
Firstly, there is no credible reason to think that people are "intrinsically gay" (or intrinsically anything else).
Secondly, what is the relevance of this question and what gives you the right to ask it of any parent?
Every parent would have huge issues to face if their child did all sorts of things. I could give you a long list, and it would not advance the debate one iota.
"This has been known to be the experience of certain Christian parents, whose theological under-standing of the etiology of human sexual difference has changed"
Of course. Many other parents have had a very different experience. They still deeply love their children, without agreeing with their actions.
So what?
Hi Michael,
I am at a loss to know how to explain that when bishops do not go to Lambeth Conferences the question is not whether they technically continue to belong to the Anglican Communion (they do) nor whether they should be formally ejected from the Communion (I am not asking for that), but whether belonging to the Communion as a whole global fellowship of Anglicans has any actual content and meaning. Communion life, like church life, is about meeting together. To refuse to meet is to engage in a form of separate action (but note I am not going so far as to call this schism). So all the protestations of GAFCON and other groupings within the Communion that they are not leaving the Communion can be measured by actions. My point is not to say they should go to Lambeth (that is an argument for another day) but to say that the appearance of non-attendance at Lambeth is of separation from the life of the Communion, at least for the time being.
As for South Carolina, I note in this item, http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/53376/ , that it talks about an Anglican Communion Development committee as an arm of the Diocesan Council. Again, I am at a loss to understand why you do not see South Carolina's move towards the GS Primatial Council as a decisive step in renewed engagement with Communion life.
Hi Michael,
To the extent that some parents change their theological understanding of homosexuality when they learn of a child's coming out and some do not, yon are correct, 'So what?'
To the extent that in my experience here in NZ, virtually all parents (if not other close relatives, say, uncles and aunts) take on a new perspective re homosexuality (e.g. Arguing for the church to show compassion in its language and greater inclusion in its acceptance, even if it does not change its theology) when discovering a close relation is gay, then I think Ron has a point which needs to be heard. All too often the severest talk against the church showing more acceptance of homosexuals comes from those with least personal contact with homosexuals; with the consequence that the fastest change of view comes from those who then discover a loved one is gay and are horrified at the thought of some form of exclusion by the church.
For myself I am trying to conduct my own contributions to discussions so that nothing needs change no matter who in my life 'comes out'.
"Dear Jean, I wonder if your hard-line on homosexuality would change at all if one of your children turned out to be intrinsically gay?"
Fr John I am sorry if you read my stance as being hard lined.
I used the example above with the other examples to illustrate what responses are likely to be raised down the track or faced by church members if the church leadership agreed to homosexuals taking on leadership positions or being married in christian unions.
Could my perspectives change. Of course on any issue, I am human. I try to openly speak the truth as I understand it from scripture, but I am not the source of truth.
I do agree with Michael in that whether being gay is a genetic (born gay) or an aquired behaviour is an unresolved issue.
Certainly if I had a child who was homosexual I would love that child and welcome them to church, and hope others would accept them. But as much as I wanted it could I actively encourage them into church leadership?
I have struggled personally with a contentious christian issue in that my fiancee was of another faith. First of all I wished with all my heart that all roads led to God, I even prayed it be so. I prayed and struggled too with the etimology often presented to me of not being unequally yoked.
He and his family believed christians were arrogant, thought they held the whole truth since Jesus was the only way to God, and he had no desire to consider christianity. So it wasn't always easy because of course I loved him. I appreciated those of my church who invited him to social events and on courses such as alpha and befriended him and included him in their prayers.
After two years of praying every single day for Him God performed a miracle. Unbeknown to me he had said to God one night if my God was real he should make Himself known. The next day for some reason I dragged Him to a church (not my church) where a minister had a word of knowledge which spoke to Him. The following night he had a dream. Within two weeks He was baptised into the Christian faith.
Now eight years later he remains a committed christian whose faith is much stronger than mine. He openly witnesses to his family, attends church and a homegroup, and has set up a charity in his home country.
I know this is a happy ending story but not entirely. In the midst of the struggle our relationship sufferred, and we are no longer together but remain friends.
I often consider how Jesus approached contentious issues:
The samaritan woman at the well. He went out of his way to talk with her (he a jew take water from a samaritan), she responded truthfully when she said she had no husband, she shared her beliefs and He responded by gently offering her another perspective, she recognised who He was. And her life and beliefs changed.
The prostitute. He refused to let others condemn her, you who have not sinned cast the first stone, yet gently prompted her to go and 'sin no more'.
The tax collector. He welcomed him and when the tax collector accepted who He was, the tax collector went on to return money collected unessarily.
Somehow Jesus managed to Love and yet keep to the truth can we not do the same? Knowing that we need not convict people that is the job of the Holy Spirit. Once they know Jesus will they not change?
Anyway I know I ramble and thank you to all who have managed to read all this. I will not respond or contribute to any more posts due to other committments but I thank you all for giving me a greater understanding of the wider picture of things.
I commend you all as you work in your own ways towards bringing unity into the Anglican Communion and the christian body as a whole.
May the God of hope bless you with all knowlege and insight and you trust in Him.
P.S. . As to accepting those not belonging to GAFCON Fr John if it helps I had never heard of it before this blog!
"I am at a loss to know how to explain that when bishops do not go to Lambeth Conferences the question is not whether they technically continue to belong to the Anglican Communion (they do) nor whether they should be formally ejected from the Communion (I am not asking for that), but whether belonging to the Communion as a whole global fellowship of Anglicans has any actual content and meaning."
Peter, thank you for putting your finger on precisely the difficulty that I and others have with your view of this.
That is not a compliment (just to be clear!) because it means that you have already decided, without debate, that those bishops were wrong about the very reason that they didn't go to Lambeth – that they considered that the tolerance by many Christian leaders of wrong teaching was depriving "the Communion as a whole global fellowship of Anglicans of actual content and meaning". I am deliberately using your own words, because they do describe the problem, if not in the way you intended.
I hope I am making myself clear – you have cut off any consideration of what happened before Lambeth, i.e. as to why they made a *considered* decision not to go. You have excluded that from consideration. In so doing, you have thereby endorsed the very things they were concerned about. Strongly endorsed, in fact.
Furthermore, you (along with many others in the Western churches) by this methodology have stopped yourself listening to what those bishops were saying.
"Communion life, like church life, is about meeting together. To refuse to meet is to engage in a form of separate action (but note I am not going so far as to call this schism)."
Really? Then that means that by meeting together, you are endorsing ALL the views of everyone with whom you meet. By YOUR definition!
"So all the protestations of GAFCON and other groupings within the Communion that they are not leaving the Communion can be measured by actions."
I am sorry Peter but that is simply absurd. People protest about what is happening in the Communion and you decide that they are leaving? Such reductionism doesn't even merit a reply.
"My point is not to say they should go to Lambeth …"
That is precisely your point Peter, or you wouldn't have brought it up in this context.
"but to say that the appearance of non-attendance at Lambeth is of separation from the life of the Communion, at least for the time being."
You can say it all you like Peter, but it is an absurd position, and no rational person should be moved by it. It is totally out of touch with church polity and church history, and would condemn many of the great saints. I am not going to throw our tradition in the bin, as you are apparently intent on doing.
"As for South Carolina, I note in this item, http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/53376/ , that it talks about an Anglican Communion Development committee as an arm of the Diocesan Council."
Yes, now please read that part of the article where Canon Harmon writes "Please make sure to read the text of this resolution and the rationale which are linked in the bishop's comments—KSH" and "Read it all".
You are *assuming* that by "Anglican Communion" Dio SC means only the formal organisation made up of a list kept by the Anglican Consultative Council, and you are quite wrong about that. Note also my post above on this point – you are reading into South Carolina's documents, taken out of context, what you want to read there.
"Again, I am at a loss to understand why you do not see South Carolina's move towards the GS Primatial Council as a decisive step in renewed engagement with Communion life."
But that is precisely what I do see it as – and Gafcon and ACNA are part of that Communion life. Again, you are only reading what you want to read there.
"To the extent that in my experience here in NZ, virtually all parents (if not other close relatives, say, uncles and aunts) take on a new perspective re homosexuality (e.g. Arguing for the church to show compassion in its language and greater inclusion in its acceptance, even if it does not change its theology) when discovering a close relation is gay…"
Even assuming that your experience is normative, you are describing something quite different to Fr Ron. He wrote:
"…whose theological under-standing of the etiology of human sexual difference has changed".
You appear to be trying to remake Fr Ron's position into your own, and I don't think it is.
"then I think Ron has a point which needs to be heard."
Except that its not the point that you are making. Quite different in fact.
"All too often the severest talk against the church showing more acceptance of homosexuals comes from those with least personal contact with homosexuals; with the consequence that the fastest change of view comes from those who then discover a loved one is gay and are horrified at the thought of some form of exclusion by the church."
Even if your experience is normative, how does this relate to the issue in question? Fr Ron put to Jean that her "theological understanding of the etiology of homan sexual difference" would change if she found that a relative or family member was homosexual. He did this with no personal knowledge of Jean whatsoever, and nothing in her post to indicate her personal situation.
I then challenged Fr Ron's right to even make such a suggestion (which was a personal one, and NOT simply a statement that some people in that situation had undergone such a change), and you then step in to say that Fr Ron has a valid point to make, and you refer to those who indulge in "the severest talk against the church showing more acceptance of homosexuals".
This is particularly bizarre when one reads what Jean actually wrote – she appears to actually be quite moderate on these issues. I am surprised that you could think that Fr Ron's description of her position as "hard-line on homosexuality" was reasonable or logical.
"For myself I am trying to conduct my own contributions to discussions so that nothing needs change no matter who in my life 'comes out'."
That seems very sensible.
Hi Michael
It depends a bit on definitions etc!
Perhaps I could try to be clear about what I am not arguing: I am not arguing that the bishops were wrong to protest by not going to Lambeth; nor am I arguing that there is a great fellowship of Anglicans worldwide which many Anglicans associated with GAFCON have no intention to leave or otherwise become separated from.
What I am trying to say is that there is a formal organisation called 'the Anglican Communion' which mostly consists of Anglicans meeting together in certain customary forums and conferences (ACC, Lambeth, Primates, other commissions). For Anglicans who formally belong to this formal organisation to say that they have no intention of leaving the organisation while also having no intention of going to its meetings is a bit rich. The question I am raising is not whether they are right or wrong to avoid meeting with people they consider to be false teachers and what have you; but whether their protestations of continued belonging to the formal organisation have any particular meaning ... especially when the meetings they do value and make an effort to go to are precisely meetings of Anglicans not organised by formal elements of the formal organisation called the Anglican Communion.
Likely we are in the midst of an evolution of what global communion for Anglicans is going to consist of. At some point it could be helpful for those who have moved on in heart and head from the organisation known as the Anglican Communion also move on in terms of membership. There are so many of them that their new organisation will be the premiere Anglican global fellowship.
Hi Ron
Much as I appreciate most of your submitted comment, I must demur at you trying to second guess what is going on in the mind of a fellow commenter!
""You appear to be trying to remake Fr Ron's position into your own, and I don't think it is." - MichaelA -
[]
For anyone, even MichaelA, to think that you would necessarily align yourself with precisely my arguments about homosexuality, they must surely be blinkered.
[]
Now, for a little night prayer:
"O Holy Jesus, most merciful Redeemer, Friend and Brother; may we know You more clearly, love You more dearly, and follow You more nearly, day by day"
(post-biblical, but valid)
"
Hi Michael, re yr 2.41 am comment above
Your criticism is fair if you push my comment as far as you do.
But my words were not intended to agree with every sentiment in Ron's comment; nor to suggest that Jean herself shares in some general attitudes which I was speaking of (rather than speaking solely of and to her comment).
All of which I say not so much to defend myself but to acknowledge your critique while expressing that I am underwhelmed by it!
"For Anglicans who formally belong to this formal organisation to say that they have no intention of leaving the organisation while also having no intention of going to its meetings is a bit rich."
Who said they "have no intention of going to its meetings"? Peter Carrell said it, and I have no idea how he knows something that is 180 degrees different to what they have said.
Most of the approximately one quarter of bishops of the Anglican Communion who didn't go to Lambeth 2008 made clear that they had a reason for their actions. That carries with it the necessary implication that they will attend it when adherence to Anglican faith and order are restored.
The same applies to the Primates Meetings. None of the primates who failed to attend Dublin (after great patience under provocation I might add) stated, hinted or implied that they intended to never attend a Primates Meeting again. In fact, the recent meeting of the standing committee of the Global South made this very point.
But I am sorry, that's wrong - we know they intended to withdraw permanently, because Peter Carrell has told us so!
"The question I am raising is not whether they are right or wrong to avoid meeting with people they consider to be false teachers and what have you; but whether their protestations of continued belonging to the formal organisation have any particular meaning."
Of course you aren't raising the first question – it is patently clear that you want to try to isolate their non-attendance from the reason why they did not attend!
You have still not stated, anywhere, the basis on which you assert that a deliberate failure to attend a meeting equates to a withdrawal from an organisation. This is not surprising since your assertion is indefensible, both in terms of scriptural teaching and Christian tradition.
They teach us that it is not a right, but the duty of any Christian leader who finds that his organisation has been infiltrated by false teachers to protest that. Such duty may include withdrawing from contact in appropriate cases, and such withdrawal does not imply withdrawing from the organisation. On the contrary – it is a claim that the persons withdrawing from contact are the rightful members of the organisation.
Thus, when Athanasius was inhibited and deposed as Bishop of Alexandria, he and his followers refused to accept the ruling of the ecclesiastical authorities. The bishop of Rome also refused to accept it. He called his own Synod, in defiance of the decisions of the Eastern church, and it declared that Athanasius was right and his opponents were false teachers. Orthodox Christians in Egypt refused to accept the ministry of those who replaced Athanasius and withdrew from church services.
The judgment of history and of the church is that Athanasius and the bishop of Rome were correct, and the eastern bishops and the emperor were wrong.
Now, I will state it again - you have never provided any support for your assertion that withdrawal from a meeting because the leaders of that meeting are accepting false teachers constitutes an ipso facto withdrawal from the organisation. It is contrary to the teachings of scripture and the church, and I prefer to stand with them.
To be cont.
Cont.
"... especially when the meetings they do value and make an effort to go to are precisely meetings of Anglicans not organised by formal elements of the formal organisation called the Anglican Communion."
What on earth...? I would be very interested to see your evidence (whether from Anglican Communion documents or anything else) that Anglicans are not allowed to gather in any meetings they choose, or that they require approval from "the Anglican Communion" or any body associated with it in order to do so.
"Likely we are in the midst of an evolution of what global communion for Anglicans is going to consist of."
That is mainly up to you and others like you. If you try to force the orthodox to leave (particularly with highly questionable arguments and methodology) the responsibility before God lies on you.
"At some point it could be helpful for those who have moved on in heart and head from the organisation known as the Anglican Communion also move on in terms of membership."
I agree 100%. However, I do not think that those people (the Episcopal Church of the USA, the Anglican Church of Canada, and others who reject or try to avoid the authority of scripture, creeds and formularies) will agree with you. That is something you will have to discuss with them.
Hi Michael
There is not much to the AC apart from its meetings so to not meet is to w/draw from its life.
Has anything changed since Lambeth 2008 to suggest that Lambeth 2018 is going to be attended by those who did not attend in 2008? Has any lessening of concerns re state of the (formal) AC been part of the voice of GAFCON in recent statements? Did GAFCON 2013'sfinal statement, among many commitments, make any statement about commitment to rejoin meetings of the formal AC? (No).
I understand all the reasons for the non-involvement, I understand the reasons for GAFCON declaring that the instruments of unity of the formal AC are broken and for declaring that new ones such as GAFCON are being forged. As I have said, I think a new global Anglican fellowship which will largely replace the formal AC is in the making.
It would help, I suggest, if there was greater honesty about the break in relationship with the formal AC. Yes that formal AC will be left with false teachers in control of it, and few of us want that. But nothing will change about the situation in the formal AC re the false teachers as long as those who think they are false teachers stay away from meetings
I am not arguing that the establishment of a new global Anglican fellowship is the wrong way to protest about the false teacher (as though I would argue that Luther was wrong to form a new/non-Roman church at the Reformation). I am arguing that the time is now at hand for some honest reckoning with what the actual state of membership of the formal AC is (or is not).
Hi Michael
There is not much to the AC apart from its meetings so to not meet is to w/draw from its life.
Has anything changed since Lambeth 2008 to suggest that Lambeth 2018 is going to be attended by those who did not attend in 2008? Has any lessening of concerns re state of the (formal) AC been part of the voice of GAFCON in recent statements? Did GAFCON 2013'sfinal statement, among many commitments, make any statement about commitment to rejoin meetings of the formal AC? (No).
I understand all the reasons for the non-involvement, I understand the reasons for GAFCON declaring that the instruments of unity of the formal AC are broken and for declaring that new ones such as GAFCON are being forged. As I have said, I think a new global Anglican fellowship which will largely replace the formal AC is in the making.
It would help, I suggest, if there was greater honesty about the break in relationship with the formal AC. Yes that formal AC will be left with false teachers in control of it, and few of us want that. But nothing will change about the situation in the formal AC re the false teachers as long as those who think they are false teachers stay away from meetings
I am not arguing that the establishment of a new global Anglican fellowship is the wrong way to protest about the false teacher (as though I would argue that Luther was wrong to form a new/non-Roman church at the Reformation). I am arguing that the time is now at hand for some honest reckoning with what the actual state of membership of the formal AC is (or is not).
"That carries with it the necessary implication that they will attend it when adherence to Anglican faith and order are restored." - MichaelA -
This presumes, of course, that 'they' have an understanding of what exactly comprises the 'Anglican Faith' that is superior, or more correct than that of the majority of bishops who attended the last Lambeth Conference!
This sounds a wee bit presumptuous - of 'them', if not of one's-self in making the comment.
One of the problems in the Communion at the moment, is this presumption of a 'holier than thou' status of those who cannot see eye to eye with the acceptance of a new understanding of gender and sexuality in the Church.
"Yes that formal AC will be left with false teachers in control of it, and few of us want that. But nothing will change about the situation in the formal AC re the false teachers as long as those who think they are false teachers stay away from meetings"
- Peter Carrell -
Here again, we have the assumption that the Anglican Communion is controlled by 'false teachers'!
Then why the Hell, Peter, don't you just scuttle out of it, and join the 'Holier than thou' brigade in the Gafcon?. That might leave the rest of us to focus on the working out of the gospel to the poor and the disadvantaged of this world.
Surely your tender conscience would not permit you to stay in a Church that has False teachers for its leaders? What are you doing still holding on to a non-Gafcon Church that has not given into the blandishments of the anti-gay lot.
I'm just about fed-up with the slurs that are being thrown at leaders in the Church who are doing their level best to open up its heart to the lepers of our day. If people don't like the Church the way it is, they have a very clear option.
Dear Ron,
I don't think our church is under the control of false teachers.
I am very concerned that when GAFCON etc leave the Communion the (effectively) Western rump left will be more or less at the behest of the leadership of TEC which I believe to be quite flawed (cf. my critique of +Gene's theology).
This has very little to do with sexuality or acceptance of homosexuality if that is what you are getting at. The theology which concerns me is that which refuses to honour the uniqueness of Christ. That refusal I understand to be false teaching. What do you understand it to be?
However it would be a concern re false teaching if Anglican doctrine within the Western rump acceded to the notion that Christian teaching on marriage extends to partnerships between two men or two women. I think I have fairly consistently here expressed my disbelief that such extension is consistent with orthodox doctrine of marriage. However we are some way from that whereas Anglicans denying the uniqeness of Christ have been with us for some time now.
So, my question for you is this: if a Christian teacher denies the uniqeness of Christ are they a false teacher or not?
If they are a false teacher then no slur is involved to describe them as a false teacher. If they are not a false teacher then when has Anglican doctrine been changed to deny the uniqeness of Christ?
Dear Ron,
I don't think our church is under the control of false teachers.
I am very concerned that when GAFCON etc leave the Communion the (effectively) Western rump left will be more or less at the behest of the leadership of TEC which I believe to be quite flawed (cf. my critique of +Gene's theology).
This has very little to do with sexuality or acceptance of homosexuality if that is what you are getting at. The theology which concerns me is that which refuses to honour the uniqueness of Christ. That refusal I understand to be false teaching. What do you understand it to be?
However it would be a concern re false teaching if Anglican doctrine within the Western rump acceded to the notion that Christian teaching on marriage extends to partnerships between two men or two women. I think I have fairly consistently here expressed my disbelief that such extension is consistent with orthodox doctrine of marriage. However we are some way from that whereas Anglicans denying the uniqeness of Christ have been with us for some time now.
So, my question for you is this: if a Christian teacher denies the uniqeness of Christ are they a false teacher or not?
If they are a false teacher then no slur is involved to describe them as a false teacher. If they are not a false teacher then when has Anglican doctrine been changed to deny the uniqeness of Christ?
Hi Ron
A couple of other thoughts:
- life is complicated: I am oversimplifying the situation both ways;
- not all in GAFCON let alone Global South are as vociferous as others about the urgency of the situation, the impossibility of working together across the formal Communion;
- a Western rump formal Anglican Communion might or might not be as beholden to TEC as I fear.
We shall see.
Hi Ron / Michael
I want to walk back a bit on some things I have said above (having thought a bit overnight). It is tiring trying to defend things I write which are easily picked off with contrary evidence etc.
So: GAFCON wants to remain in the Communion. I will try to recognise that core will beyond whatever reactions I have to rhetoric or the noise of a few. The future of the Anglican Communion is hopefully not in the hands of false teachers.
"So, my question for you (Ron)is this: if a Christian teacher denies the uniqeness of Christ are they a false teacher or not?
If that were the case, Peter, I would be inclined to agree with you.
However, the 'uniqueness of Christ - Who, I believe, has saved ALL God's children from damnation - is not at issue when teachers are suggesting that there are people of other religious persuasion who may not yet know that the Christ of God is uniquely their Saviour, but whose desire for God is in some way different from ours.
Regarding your last observation, I firmly believe that the future of the Anglican Communion is in the hands of God Almighty.
I'm not so sure of the future of Gafcon - if they persist in their exclusive claims to the knowledge of God's most holy will for the rest of us in the Communion!
And the Lenten Season continues!
However, the 'uniqueness of Christ - Who, I believe, has saved ALL God's children from damnation - is not at issue when teachers are suggesting that there are people of other religious persuasion who may not yet know that the Christ of God is uniquely their Saviour, but whose desire for God is in some way different from ours.
XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
At this point Ron will argue "but they ARE saved by Jesus, they just don't know it".
Just saving him the time by doing it for him. He can spend his time, instead, showing us how the New Testament makes that claim.
"Who, I believe, has saved ALL God's children from damnation..."
Sure you believe that Fr Ron, I don't doubt you. But since its not what Christ himself taught, why should anyone else believe the same as you?
"I'm not so sure of the future of Gafcon - if they persist in their exclusive claims to the knowledge of God's most holy will for the rest of us in the Communion!"
Given that you claim such exclusive knowledge God's most holy will for the rest of us, why shouldn't Gafcon do it too ... ;)
Reading this important thread again, I came across this comment from Jean:
"I know this is a happy ending story but not entirely. In the midst of the struggle our relationship sufferred (sic), and we are no longer together but remain friends."
And, Jean, do you think that this was an intrinsic part of God's will, for which you prayed? Or, is it at all out of synch with the good news of your friend's conversion?
Food for thought? surely!
" such withdrawal does not imply withdrawing from the organisation. On the contrary – it is a claim that the persons withdrawing from contact are the rightful members of the organisation." - MichaelA -
What sort of strange 'logic' is this? Do you really mean that by Gafcon staying away from Lambeth, they are claiming the Lambeth Provenance? Sound a bit silly to me. But then, what has logic to do with all of this anyway?
David, you may not yet have gathered that I am NOT a Calvinist. I believe in the historic statements of belief found in the historic Creeds. I do NOT place my faith in the 39 Artifacts. They are a post-credal statement of what seems to be a confessional Church - which is not now the situation of Anglicans.
You do realise, David, don't you, that to the Roman Cathilics and the Orthodox - the largest body of Christians - Anglicanism is a sect: which Article 18 speaks of in this specific way:
"They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature.
So you see, David, according to Art.18, you may just have become "hoist by your own petard".
This is yet another reason why I, and many other Anglicans, have a problem with the 39 Artifacts.
Ron says,
David, you may not yet have gathered that I am NOT a Calvinist. I believe in the historic statements of belief found in the historic Creeds. I do NOT place my faith in the 39 Artifacts. They are a post-credal statement of what seems to be a confessional Church - which is not now the situation of Anglicans.
The Constitution of the Anglican Church of New Zealand says,
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS
1. 1. This Branch of the United Church of England and Ireland in New Zealand doth hold and maintain the Doctrine and Sacraments of CHRIST as the LORD hath commanded in His Holy Word, and as the United Church of England and Ireland hath received and explained the
same in the Book of Common Prayer, in the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.
and
FURTHER PROVISIONS
PART B
Subject to the provisions of the Church of England Empowering Act, 1928 and to the Fundamental Provisions –
1. 1. This Church holds and maintains the Doctrine and Sacraments of Christ as the Lord
has commanded in Holy Scripture and as explained in
The Book of Common Prayer 1662
Te Rawiri
The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons
The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion
A New Zealand Prayer Book - He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa.
But, of course, Ron is the genuine Anglican and those of us who uphold the 39 Articles are not.
Go figure.
You do realise, David, don't you, that to the Roman Cathilics and the Orthodox etc etc etc etc...
Yes. But I'm not a Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox so I don't think I'm a sect.
So your rather convoluted and ridiculous petard remains .. well .. convoluted and ridiculous.
David Ould. When I was ordained in ACANZP in 1980, there was no specific requirement asked or needed to assent to the 39 artifacts. Maybe in the Sydney Diocese this is still de rigueur, but not in ACANZP.
FYI, here is the Wikipedia entry on the 39 Arts:
"The Thirty-Nine Articles initially played a significant role in Anglican doctrine and practice. Following the passing of the 1604 canons, all Anglican clergy had to formally subscribe to the articles. Today, however, the articles are no longer binding, but are seen as a historical document which has played a significant role in the shaping of Anglican identity. The degree to which each of the articles has remained influential varies.
On the doctrine of justification, for example, there is a wide range of beliefs within the Anglican Communion, with some Anglo-Catholics arguing for a faith with good works and the sacraments. At the same time, however, some Evangelical Anglicans ascribe to the Reformed emphasis on sola fide ("faith alone") in their doctrine of justification (see Sydney Anglicanism.)
Still other Anglicans adopt a nuanced view of justification, taking elements from the early Church Fathers, Catholicism, Protestantism, liberal theology and latitudinarian thought.
I hope that helps to bring you up to date with Anglicanism outside of the sydney Diocese. Blessings!
David Ould. When I was ordained in ACANZP in 1980, there was no specific requirement asked or needed to assent to the 39 artifacts. Maybe in the Sydney Diocese this is still de rigueur, but not in ACANZP.
So what you're basically saying is that by your reckoning the ACANZP doesn't require it's clergy to uphold it's constitutionally stated doctrine.
Oh well. I'm sure somebody somewhere will believe you.
Wikipedia articles are lots of fun. I'm more interested in the official doctrinal positions of the churches we're ordained into. For both you and me that includes the 39 Articles. I believe them, you reject them as authoritative.
And yet you have the gall to constantly accuse me and others like me of not being genuinely Anglican.
Like I said. I'm sure somebody somwhere will be persuaded.
Hi David and Ron
I wouldn't like for you to be talking past each other ...
In ACANZP no one is required to assent to the 39A or to understand then is singularly authoritative over our life. The key words in your citation from our constitution, David, concern the explaining of the doctrine of Christ in the 39A, various prayer books, etc. Our common doctrine, if you like, is the doctrine of Christ, not the 39A.
So I partially agree with Ron re the 'relative' rather than 'absolute' status of the 39A according to our constitution. However the 39A are nevertheless a part of our life and contribute to our doctrine. I cannot square that with any demeaning of the 39A. Nor can I square that with any demeaning of Anglicans who, in another jurisdiction, have a stronger adherence if not full assent to the 39A.
An Anglican living by the 39A is a good Anglican.
It is always worth remembering that when Newman tried his very best to manipulate the 39A to suit his purposes he gave up and acknowledged they could not be twisted to suit the innovations he proposed. To Rome he went, with a good conscience.
Hi David and Ron
In the second para above the first sentence should be '... understand them as ...'
Our common doctrine, if you like, is the doctrine of Christ, not the 39A.
Yes, and your constitution states clearly that that "doctrine of Christ" is found in the 39 Articles. So anyone who wants to claim they adhere to the "doctrine of Christ" according to the ACANZP cannot at the same time reject the 39 Articles. At least they can't do it and claim to be a loyal and true Anglican.
Your point on Newman is well made. He had the integrity to leave. Others seem to like their stipend too much while at the same time failing to keep the obligations of our ordination
"An Anglican living by the 39A is a good Anglican." - Peter Carrell -
I'm assuming, Peter, that you do NOT mean that any Anglican living -not by the doctrine of the 39 Articles, but by the Doctrine of Christ is, necessarily, a 'bad Anglican'
Kyrie, elison! Christe, eleison!
Hi Ron
I notice that you give people a hard time who accept the 39A while cheerfully demeaning the Articles on occasions as Artifacts. So I rise to the defence of the downtrodden.
Those Anglicans who do not live by the 39A may or may not be good Anglicans. A lot would depend on whether their understanding of the doctrine of Christ was impaired or not by their rejection of the 39A.
I agree with you, there, Peter. The Articles were written at a specific point in history, where they clearly delineated emergent Anglicanism as different from the rooted theological stance of 'the others'.
Today, I think Anglicans (or many of us), feel that there is not quite the same threat from either side of the theological spectrum.
I thank, you, Peter, for your eirenic forbearance - especially as we've both been censured by an esteemed colleague in ACANZP. I will try to do better!
Post a Comment