I recently read a very interesting analysis of the composition of John's Gospel which proposes a two stage composition.* The first stage effectively conveyed a gospel of egalitarian love for a charismatic church untrammelled by the structure of an institution.
Paradoxically, this stage, reaching back to the egalitarian, charismatic kingdom brokered by Jesus himself constitutes reason to think that the Johannine author of the gospel was, at this stage at least, the Apostle John, son of Zebedee.
The second stage, including the addition of John 21 with its rapprochement between the church of the Beloved Disciple and the church of Peter, evidences a church evolving out of the free charismatic movement of Jesus into the institution we continue to have, an institution required to deal decisively with false teachers. The perils of false teachers for the Johannine church are charted through the three Epistles of John; these, on the theory, being composed between the first and second stages of the Gospel.
This is not the only occasion within the New Testament to discern tension between the (original) charismatic and (emerging) institutional church (compare, e.g., 1 Corinthians with the Pastoral Epistles, or Matthew's Gospel with Mark's Gospel).
Running through church history this kind of tension continues as new movements of the Spirit break out and the organisation of the church variously resists or incorporates the movement. A notable British success at incorporation was the Rome-oriented incorporation of the Celtic church at the Synod of Whitby. A notable Anglican failure at incorporation was Methodism which became the Methodist church.
Fast forward to 2015 and we have the Anglican Communion at the crossroads. Will this Communion which has neither resisted nor incorporated the (alleged) movement of the Spirit within TEC find a 'way forward' which clarifies the Communion's approach to same sex marriage? Will this Communion which so far through nearly 150 years existence has resisted becoming overly institutionalised find new momentum towards being an institution in the sense of a 'global church' rather than a communion? Or, will the next few years see the Communion quietly evolve into a series of Anglican movements, ungoverned by prelate or constitution? It is already evolving in that direction but it is not yet determined that we will end all desire to be a global church.
Apropos of which, a comment on the previous post is very interesting! See here.
[*Paul N. Anderson, "The Community that Raymond Brown Left Behind: Reflections on the Johannine Dialectical Situation," in Culpepper, R. Alan and Anderson, Paul N. (eds) Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014, pp. 47-94. Anderson here builds on work by Bultmann, Brown, Barrett, etc.]
35 comments:
".......will the next few years see the Communion quietly evolve into a series of Anglican movements, ungoverned by prelate or constitution? It is already evolving in that direction but it is not yet determined that we will end all desire to be a global church." - Dr. Peter Carrell
There are already signs, Peter, that the GAFCON movement (together with FoCA) - which has formed its own confessional Credo - The Jerusalem Statement - is seeking to take over the soul of Anglicanism around the world.
GAFCON is resisting any perception of a desire to be part of the Anglican Communion as presently constituted - with the 'Instruments of Unity being disregarded by GAFCON in favour of its own constitution. It has, in fact, resiled from Eucharistic Fellowship with at least 2 Provincial Churches in the A.C. No other Provinces have declared their institutional independence of the anglican Communion!
TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Church of England, itself, have made no such declaration of unilateral independence from the Communion. The fact that they have not agreed to the imposition of a Covenantantal, Confessional, relationship with other Provinces has been more than matched by GAFCON and the various offshoots of that entity. Their obvious, intentional withdrawal from Communion fellowship is proof positive of their schismatic intentions.
You cannot blame non-GAFOCN Provinces for the breakdown of the Communion. This lies at the feet of those who have already stated their own intention not to participate in the Instruments.
Hi Ron
It is not always helpful when relationships have broken down to assign blame. One reason why it is not always helpful is that when A blames B, B often has something for which A is to blame. And so on. Chicken/egg.
If we are to assign blame, then the provinces which deliberately flouted the resolution of Lambeth 1998, knowing there would be Communion consequences for doing so, should stand up and take the blame. GAFCON has been one of those consequences.
Before you try to defend TEC over the ordination of Gene Robinson, bear in mind that the point of a Communion is that interdependency is presumed. So when one of the provinces exercises its right to act independently (and TEC did have that right) it necessarily, consequentially impacted on the interdependency on which 'Communion' for Anglican provinces is founded. The net got broken.
My primary question in the post is not 'who broke the net?' but 'if we mend the net, how large will the net be?'
Not blaming, Peter; just stating facts!
I take heart from the fact that the Body of Christ exists - no matter who wants to withdraw from the Anglican Communion. Christ is in the midst - "Where 2 or 3 are gathered together in My Name" - Jesus
;
Dear Peter, with reference to your remarks about independent thinking in the Communion; sometimes that action is consonant with the call of the gospel. One such 'independent move' was carried out by our own Church in Aotearoa/NZ; when it decided to include lay-people in synodical government - a brave move if ever there was one. No-one decided to leave the Anglican Communion because of it. In fact, it was a sign of inclusion - of lay-people given their true place in the Church.
TEC and the A. C. of C. decided that homosexual people were included in the Body of Christ and decided to use their evidential call to leadership. This was a similar call to inclusion of a formerly discounted lomb opf the Church
Hi Ron
Your facts are controvertible!
Yes, independent actions are taken by individual provinces. Some are well received, some are not.
It was predictable that the 2003 actions of TEC were not going to be well received and the prediction was accurate.
I question whether it was predictable that NZ's inclusion of laity in governance in its 1857 constitution would generate bad consequences.
No Anglican province that I am aware of has ever decided to exclude 'homosexual people ... in the Body of Christ'. What TEC and ACCan decided was to (a) change the grounds on which a life was considered to be 'ordered' relative to ministry qualification, (b) the grounds on which orderings of relationships were blessed by God or not. On both (a) and (b) it is quite reasonable to ask whether such discernment is a discernment of all God's people or a local discernment, perhaps influenced by the direction a local culture has moved along. There is much to discuss and debate about (a) and (b) which has nothing to do with 'inclusion' and everything to do with questions of 'authority', in particular the question of whether God has authorised the changes made. Many Anglicans continue to look for the case being made that God has authorised such changes.
"[Gafcon] has, in fact, resiled from Eucharistic Fellowship with at least 2 Provincial Churches in the A.C. No other Provinces have declared their institutional independence of the anglican Communion!"
Fr Ron, I am sorry but there is no way of saying this more gently - you do not have a clue what you are talking about.
1. Several provinces in the Anglican Commununion have declared themselves in impaired communion with TEC, and they mostly did this before 2007, i.e. before Gafcon existed in any sense.
2. Apart from anything else, the entire Global South is in impaired communion with TEC. That is 20 of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion, of which only six are involved in Gafcon.
You do understand the difference between six and twenty?
3. In Australia, several LIBERAL dioceses declared themselves in impaired communion with TEC as long ago as 2003. In other words, they agree with the theology of TEC, but considered that it was guilty of initiating schism when it consecrated VG Robinson in advance of any Communion-wide consensus on the matter.
[This is the primary reason why, when the Presiding Bishop of TEC, K J Schori made her visit to Australasia in 2010, she only received one invitation to preach in Australia. Most of the dioceses here agree with her theology but they do not agree with TEC's communion-breaking action in 2003]
4. Declaring oneself to be in impaired communion is not, and never has been, a "declaration of institutional independence". If it was, more than half the Anglican Communion would be gone. And Fr Ron, lets be frank - you already know this. You have repeatedly made it clear that you WISH that various orthodox/conservative groups would leave the communion and you are frustrated that they have not done so, and that they have stated this clearly.
Thank you Michael!
Life in the Communion is more complex than the simple 'black/white' of 'united'/'schismatic.'
MichaelA, I object to your statement when yo say that I do not have a clue as to what I am talking about. This is little short of ad hominem, which our host is dedicated to reject on this site.
However, your seeming objection to my summarisation of the situation when I compare a statement of 'impaired Communion' with intentional schism; you may be forgetting the FACT that GAFCON has already withdrawn from Communion relationship with the Instruments of Communion. That is not just impairment. It is downright schismatic withdrawal.
Schism is a cutting off from the parent body - in this case the 'Instruments of Communion'. This is what GAFCON did. If you want to relegate this to merely 'Impaired Communion' so be it. However, it is still schismatic. To the point where GAFCON has proclaimed its own confessional 'Jerusalem Statement'!
Dear Ron
I apologise for falling short on my standards re moderation. The point you make about an ad hominem against you is quite correct and I should have moderated that comment out.
Dear Ron and Michael
It seems to me that it would be good to establish and agree on the facts of the matter re 'impaired communion' versus 'schism'.
As I understand the matter you are both right, depending on which bit of Communion life we are looking at.
1. Communion is impaired in the sense that supposing the TEC GC 2015 were to walk back all the objected to decisions of the last decade or so then I imagine Primates would be willing to turn out in toto to a Primates Meeting and participate in a eucharist in that meeting and I imagine such a meeting would call for Lambeth 2018 to get back on schedule and all the bishops of the Communion would turn up for that.
2. There is schism to the extent that some provinces have walked away from 'Instruments of Communion' and, in the unlikely event of GC 2015 walking back objected to decisions, it is difficult to see Instruments of Communion such as the Primates Meeting or Lambeth again being Instruments of the Communion of all provinces of the Communion.
Is there any point on which my analysis according to 1 and 2 is wrong?
Greetings All,
It is an interesting conundrum.
I think you make a valid point Michael when you outline how some liberal Australian parishes declared themselves in impaired communion with TEC not over theology but because of the way they went ahead without consensus.
It is for this reason I disagree with your assessment of Bishop Idowa's position after reading the link you posted on the previous thread. To me he clearly states he is a 'conservative pentecostal evangelist' - wow! However, from what I gathered from his writing is he sees the possibiliity of the instruments of the communion to be ones of unity but in order for that to be so they need be given a degree of authority. Not servile authority as he points out (e.g. not without debate or input from the international members of those instruments) but by the recognition of those members that decisions which are made are agreed to be abided by all involved.
This is what the Australian liberal dioceses did - chose that submitting to consensus was more important than their particular stance - and don't we all to some degree in order to have some sense of order? I would abide by the decision of the Minister of my current church (or leave). I would abide by the decision of my boss at work (or resign). This is of course unless they altered their position after hearing me out or I decided I could llive with their decision.
I do not think using the instruments of Canterbury centralises power. It is obvious that the make-up of all the instruments - given the people turn up - are represented. And the ABC is the chairperson and acts as the connecting point between the various instruments put he does not hold the power of veto; and given his current stance on 'there will only be a primmates meeting if the primates want it 2018' that is hardly autocracy in practice.
I wouldn't say the 'liberal movement' for lack of another word is like other schisms or 'movements of the spirit'. Such as the example you give with Methodism Peter, Charles Wesley for one was literally moved by the Spirit in his christian walk at the time Methodism evolved - I have not of such encounters igniting 'liberal' teaching. Also (and you can correct me) with the likes of the Methodists it appears to me the controversy was over their method (e.g. they preached to the masses/field preaching and this offended a few COE sensibilities) as opposed to their doctrine.
Now since I seem to be in a disagreeable mood (smile). I also understand Bryden's statement re the two sides - the twain shall never meet approach. However, I think there are many for whom the liberal/conservative labels do not apply in entirety (e.g. they are liberal on one issue/conservative on another); and I would even take a guess that the majority of Anglican's may actually fall into this category.
Ron we know your position re homosexuality but do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? That He is the way the truth and the Life? Are you conservative on such issues?
So I think the decision that needs making is, is their value in retaining the Anglican Communion? Bishop Idowa I think is correct when he point on the positive aspects such as having a person representing Anglicans in a position who can speak and intervene on international issues (such as persecuted christians) and to forward paths towards ecumenicalism with other denominations, building the one church.
Are the TEC impairing themselves by following doctrine independent of the communion?
Are some members of GAFCON impairing themselves by refusing to participate in the instruments of communion?
Cheers
Jean
Hi Jean
In broad terms Methodism in the 18th century constituted a threat/challenge to the CofE 'order' or way of doing things. The bishops of the day had the opportunity to embrace and absorb it or refuse to do so. They chose the latter and the consequence was a new church (and three hundred years later attempts at reconciliation!).
The 'liberal' movement over sexuality claims to be 'Spirit-led' and constitutes a threat/challenge to the Anglican order of church life. The question before our Communion is whether we will embrace and absorb it or refuse to do so. The slight difference (or big difference!) with 18th century Methodism is that the new church/global fellowship which might be formed (is being formed?) could consist of those refusing to embrace this movement rather than the movement itself.
Hi Peter
Yes I see in this respect both movements challenge the order or 'how the Anglican Church does things'.
But would it still be correct to say Methodism while it varied in how things were done its theology was still in the main part concurrent with the CoE, that its formation might have hinged more on the CoE strong tendency to cater to the upper class?
It is indeed an irony that the new fellowship that might be formed is the one refusing the new movement. Albeit it significant? Has this ever happened before?
Hmm as for spirit-led movements... 'where the spirit dwells there is unity' ... : ) will have to watch for that!
All the best,
Jean
P.S. After perusing a few other blogs I would like to commend you on your effort to keep this one free of comments which put others down etc.
Thanks Jean!
Jean asked: "Ron we know your position re homosexuality but do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? That He is the way the truth and the Life? Are you conservative on such issues?"
My simple answer to your question , Jean, is that I am part of a team of clergy in the Christchurch Parish of St. Michael and All Angels. If you had had the opportunity to worship with us during the season of Lent, each day of Holy Week; the Great Triduum, the vigil and Celebration of Easter, you would have known my (and our) theological position of Christ's Resurrection from the Dead. You would also be in no doubt of our catholic orthodoxy by our recital of the Church's Creeds. We do not take these statement lightly!
Christ is risen, Alleluia!
He is risen indeed, Alleluia, Alleluia!
Hi Ron
Yes I do know your of your church and I would have guessed as much.
Excuse me for using you to support my point : ) - my insistence that there are many Anglican who are 'liberal' (in terms of what the term commonly entails) on some matters, and conservative (in terms of what that term entails) on other matters.
All the best,
Jean
"Ron we know your position re homosexuality but do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? That He is the way the truth and the Life? Are you conservative on such issues?"
I must protest this attempt to OWN Creedal Christianity as "conservative". There is ONE Nicene Creed*; we all use it.
* Excluding the Filioque controversy, that is.
"It is for this reason I disagree with your assessment of Bishop Idowa's position after reading the link you posted on the previous thread. ... However, from what I gathered from his writing is he sees the possibiliity of the instruments of the communion to be ones of unity but in order for that to be so they need be given a degree of authority."
Jean, isn't that what I wrote? I don't understand what you are disagreeing with.
"Not servile authority as he points out (e.g. not without debate or input from the international members of those instruments) but by the recognition of those members that decisions which are made are agreed to be abided by all involved."
Of course, but that is just saying the same thing. When the Pope issues a statement, even a statement ex cathedra, it is never done "without debate or input from the members of the Roman Catholic Church". In fact, there is a great deal of debate always goes on before any such pronouncement. The point is that, after all the debate, the Pope makes a decision that is binding on all Roman Catholics. The same goes for the pronouncements of a General Council called by the Pope.
The point is, after all the debate and input, one or more people make a decision that is binding on everyone.
So I really don't understand where we disagree.
Note that I left open whether people agree or disagree with this concept - its not rocket science to work out that some will support it, some will be opposed, and many will be ambivalent but require to be convinced, and these divisions will not necessarily run along theological lines.
Note that, apart from the issue of whether we want it or not, I also averted to the practical and very knotty issue of how it would be achieved.
"I do not think using the instruments of Canterbury centralises power."
I have never heard of "the instruments of Canterbury".
This is not to be picky, but if we are going to debate this then we need to be precise enough in our language that there is no confusion.
There is (i) an Archbishop of Canterbury, (ii) a Lambeth Conference, (iii) an Anglican Consultative Council and (iv) a Primates Meeting. At different times in the past different bodies have collectively referred to these four entities as "instruments of unity" or "instruments of communion", but those entities didn't necessarily have any authority to do so. Its just a matter of common (but by no means universal) usage.
Now, to take the second point from your quote above, I agree that *currently* usage of the "Instruments of Communion" does not entail any centralisation of power, because those instruments have no power. But +Idowa-Fearon is proposing that they be given power. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but in order to understand his position, it is important to realise that he is proposing something which does not currently exist.
"The Anglican Communion" is an expression that pre-dates the first Lambeth Conference in 1867. Some later Lambeth Conferences (not the first) referred to the idea, but without making clear what they meant.
The concept as commonly understood today refers to a grouping of 38 provinces, each of which is a legally independent church. But none of those 38 provinces have ever agreed to cede any authority to the Anglican Communion in general, nor to any of the instruments of communion - i.e. to the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council or the Primates Meeting. [Of course each Primate by definition has authority within their own province, but that authority derives from the province itself, not from the Anglican Communion.]
Note that it is open to any province to adopt a resolution of the Lambeth Conference to have effect within its own jurisdiction, but the authority to do so derives from the province, not the Lambeth Conference.
In order to understand the historical context, it is important to note that the Archbishops of Canterbury who called the early Lambeth Conferences made clear that they did not regard it as having any authority to make binding decisions. Nobody has ever declared that view to be incorrect and it is not clear who today would have power to do so, particularly when these days the vast majority of bishops at the Lambeth Conference are no longer under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Hence why the practical issue of how to achieve what +Idowa-Fearon is advocating is an interesting one, to say the least.
Excluding also the gender neutral language (for us men and for our salvation): albeit not quite in the same league as filioque.
Nick
"There is ONE Nicene Creed*; we all use it."
JCF, in the context of the discussion your response appears to miss the important point: The question to Fr Ron was as to what he believes, not as to what he recites.
Now it seems to me that Fr Ron has responded on that issue when he wrote "We do not take these statement lightly!" That is a response that goes to belief rather than mere recital, so it would seem to have answered the question.
But your post appears to veer off into an irrelevant point - yes all Anglicans *recite* a Creed called the Nicene, but that doesn't mean they all believe it, so it was a legitimate question.
And by the way, not all Christians recite the same Creed (and no, the filioque is not the only difference). Nor is anyone entirely sure where that Creed comes from (it is substantially different from that which was formulated at the Council of Nicaea). But we agree on it as a succinct summary of certain truths found in Holy Scripture.
Christ is risen, Alleluia!
He is risen indeed, Alleluia, Alleluia!
Congratulations, Peter, on being mentioned by Jon White in his 'Episcopal Cafe' article appended in your link to this thread. I noted his comment here:
"it is hard to imagine a sitting Archbishop of Canterbury willfully participating in or condoning the creation of an alternate Anglican church within England. So what solution is there?"
Certainly an interesting situation at this very moment, when the GAFCON lot are meeting in the U.K. to validate their Kenyan plant in England under the provocative title "Anglican Mission in England" (AMiE).
My own thought are that the ABC is, indeed, 'keeping stum' about the prospects of an invasion of the Church of England territory by another entity which claims a higher degree of 'Anglican Orthodoxy' than our Mother Church of England.
Mind you, this challenge to the C. of E. is little different from that given a week ago in our very own Australasian context to the Anglican Provinces of Australia and New Zealand - where some local people were present at a meeting of obviously disaffected Anglicans.
What goes on in the U.K. during this week will probably end up in one of two possible outcomes:
1. Nothing at all will happen as a direct result of GAFCON's meeting on the territory of the C. of E.; or:
2. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York will cave in to pressure from the GAFCON Provinces to cave in to a more conservative attitude to sex and gender issues in the Communion.
If the latter outcome prevails, then I foresee the imminent breakup of the Anglican Communion as presently (notionally, at least) constituted.
"Dear Ron
I apologise for falling short on my standards re moderation. The point you make about an ad hominem against you is quite correct and I should have moderated that comment out."
I disagree Peter. I suggest it was quite clear from my comment that I was referring to Fr Ron's knowledge on a particular issue. If I had made the comment generally, then that would be ad hominem.
By pandering to Fr Ron in this way, you reinforce a very serious issue which has concerned me for some time:
You have permitted Fr Ron to *repeatedly* assert on your blog that I and many other Christians around the globe are schismatics. That is a very serious accusation, and you have allowed your blog to be used for it, many times.
There are also a number of other accusations which you have allowed Fr Ron to use your blog as a platform for. I will raise them in another post.
"Is there any point on which my analysis according to 1 and 2 is wrong?"
Peter, it is not whether it is wrong, but whether it is relevant. You have raised the question about what might happen in the future if certain things are done. You may well be right. Many provincial leaders have made clear, at various times and in various documents that the state of impaired communion will be lifted if TEC repents.
Fr Ron has made an accusation (actually many accusations, but lets deal with one at a time) against other Christians, and that accusation relates to what has actually occurred, not to what might occur in future. The accusation is that they are "schismatic", and it is twinned with an implied accusation that what the Gafcon provinces have done is somehow different to what other provinces have done.
Both accusations are obviously false.
Declaring themselves in a state of "impaired communion" with TEC is something done by many provinces and not a few dioceses. I did not create the term – those provinces did. The effect of it is that they do not have communion with the leaders of TEC until they repent, but neither do they seek the expulsion of TEC from the Anglican Communion, and nor do they reject reconciliation – quite the contrary. And they do have communion with those in TEC who do not share the errors of its leaders.
All the things called "schism" in church history involve an institutional separation, e.g. the 5th century, the 11th century, the 16th century, the 18th century. That is distinct from discipline being applied to the leadership of only two provinces of the Anglican Communion (TEC and ACoC). It did not involve having communion with some members of the separated bodies, nor continuing in the same organisation.
Furthermore, Fr Ron tries to make TEC the organisation, rather than a member of the organisation. What I mean by this is that every province that is in a state of impaired communion with TEC and ACoC remains in FULL communion with every other member of the Anglican Communion. Anyone who calls that "schism" does not know what the word means.
On the Gafcon point, provinces and dioceses were declaring themselves in impaired communion with TEC as early as 2003. Gafcon didn't exist until 2008. Yet Fr Ron *repeatedly* insists that the only provinces engaging in "schism" (as he calls it) are those in Gafcon.
Currently, the entire global south (20 provinces) is in a state of impaired communion with TEC. They do not participate in Holy Communion with its leaders, although they have participated in Holy Communion with individual bishops of TEC who do not share in its heresies.
As I queried above (and I note Fr Ron did not respond), do you not understand the difference between 6 provinces and 20 provinces?
Hi Michael
Your point is made well about accusations of 'schism' in some instances (at least) being as much ad hominem as other matters. I shall try to be more vigilant.
When you write, "What I mean by this is that every province that is in a state of impaired communion with TEC and ACoC remains in FULL communion with every other member of the Anglican Communion. Anyone who calls that "schism" does not know what the word means." you are making an excellent point.
Nevertheless I remain sympathetic to 'schism' being part of the analysis of the situation. For example when a group of Primates (I am strongly tempted to think of the GAFCON Primates) makes noises supporting congregations which have institutionally walked away from (say) the Church of England, then something is going on re schism.
Would it be fair to say that the Diocese of South Carolina has schismatically walked apart from TEC?
Dear Ron
I shall be more vigilant about your use of 'schism/schismatic' in the future!
Hi Michael
My apologies it was a typing error. I understand them as the instruments of the communion, and I also understand they have been used as a means of dialogue as opposed to ones of power.
I do not know the inner workings of how the Pope makes decisions in the Catholic Church but I have to some extent comprehended he has the "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered". And in this respect I commend the current one for ex-communicating the Mafia.
In respect to authority it appears to me on one extent people do see the Anglican communion as deserving to some extent this sense of loyalty. You mentioned the Australian diocese who without communion consensus rejected TEC's change in 'church order'.
As a NZ nun put it when it came to nun's being charged to minister but being unable to take action if they found Priests behaving irresponsibility said, "it is a very difficult thing when one is given responsibility but not the authority to carry it out".
While I don't think the Anglican Church has a desire for any candidate with a total centralisation of authority, is the communion perhaps a good place for the mandate of the discerning and upholding of core doctrine?
At present I think we? the media? the church in general? is always looking to the ABC to 'see what he thinks', 'to make a comment on the happenings within the global Anglican Church', to 'speak out against false teaching' and yet at the same time many are not willing to give any credit (actually it seems more the opposite) or submit willingly to the communion he represents.
I am not in opposition to what GAFCON stands for but it does aim to be a fellowship of confessing Anglicans, ones who abide by the original 39 articles? In doing so
is it not also supporting the idea of authority, to be a member one must abide by set standards?
Cheers
Jean
Hi Michael
I realised I didn't really address what I disagreed with in your previous statement it was primarily this:
"He also advocates some changes to the Primates meeting, but the main point is that anything they say must go to the ACC which is to act as a "clearing house", i.e. vetting everything, and since the ACC in turn is to be directly controlled by the ABC, it shouldn't make much difference anyway. "
I found this comment to infer more of a conspiracy theory for gaining power for the ABC rather than a correct interpretation of what was said.
From my reading what was suggested was that what the Lambeth, comes up with is considered by the Primates then goes to the ACC for theological investigation, but it is then returned to the Primates for approval before anything 'goes ahead'. Neither is there anything to suggest the ABC is to control the ACC, to chair something is not to control it.
". And they do have communion with those in TEC who do not share the errors of its leaders." - MichaelA -
One might, then, call this 'selective communion'; which is not 'full communion' with TEC and its leaders.
For the information of MichaelA:
from the Oxford English Dictionary:
one of the meanings of the words;
1: 'Schism' - the secession of a group owing to doctrinal & other differences.
2: 'secede' - withdraw formally from membership of a federal union or a political or religious organisation.
ACNA has, in fact, already done this.
By formal association with ACNA * AMiE, GAFCON and FoCA are exhibiting schismatic tendencies, at least! OR Am I totally wrong about that? I await, Peter, your judgement on this matter.
Hi Ron
You are putting up proposals for discussion in the post above, re the meaning of 'schism' and whether certain groups are or are not exhibiting 'schismatic tendencies'. I think they are fair point for discussion and thus I am happy to publish your comment.
There have been other comments where a too easy assumption (judgment?) has been made about the connection between GAFCON and schism have been made and I could have been more vigilant about those.
In respect of the schismatic tendencies you raise above, I would offer the point that groups of Anglicans within the Communion who support and offer hospitality to ACNA would understand themselves as not exhibiting schismatic tendencies by doing so.
Hi Ron and Michael
The thought has struck me that if the Communion is determinedly NOT a church - so many argue - then can those who walk apart from it be deemed to be schismatic???
Peter. If then, as you posit here, the Anglican Communion is not a Church, per se, why do certain Provinces of it assume they have some sort of dogmatic claim to any superior 'Anglican Orthodoxy" that should in any way demand allegiance?
The schism of ACNA is from the parent bodies of TEC and the A.C. of Canada.
Hi Ron
Arguments abound about whether the Communion is or is not a church or should be treated as a quasi-church. It is difficult to keep up with all the nuances :)
(I myself recognise that the Communion is not a church because it is not a set of congregations bound by the one (general) synod and/or episcopal hierarchical).
Hi JCF
A bit belated I am sorry....
My main point was to illustrate how people are often put in different 'camps'; conservative/liberal etc whereas often the opinions people hold across the theological spectrum do not neatly put them into either category.
Perhaps a better word to use would have been orthodox.
Blessings
Jean
Jean, when you been around the traps as long as I have, you will get to realise that there are different parts of the Body of Christ who insist that only they are 'Orthodox' Christians - not only the Eastern Churches (plural) but also, even sects of the Anglican Church family!
"Orthodoxy" seems merely to proclaim one's own understanding of what the Body of Christ actually represents!
Post a Comment