tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post6069525162402360387..comments2024-03-28T19:03:49.275+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: If not "Who is Anglican?" then "What is Anglican?"Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29012300085512195082019-05-25T20:34:43.214+12:002019-05-25T20:34:43.214+12:00Dear Glen
The question is whether a church founded...Dear Glen<br />The question is whether a church founded through its constitution on Holy Scripture is able to keep reading that Holy Scripture in order to support its people pastorally as they face the challenges of life and respond to deepening understanding of the human condition. In various ways the church has done that, sometimes with questions raised about the flexibility of the constitution to enable change (notably, ordination of women). The Anglican Church of the 1857 constitution has not understood itself to be frozen in time - we varied the constitution a little in 1992 (while preserving the core of the 1857 constitution); and we wrested to ourselves the possibility of new liturgies beyond BCP (so, my understanding of the 1928 Church of England Empowering Act). But you seem, in a time when many Anglican families are recognising that they have gay family members with capacity to lovingly enter into permanent partnerships, to be unable to see that it might be consistent with the 1857 constitution to explore whether some flexibility might be permissible within the general bounds of our life to offer ecclesial support to gay Anglicans in same sex partnerships. You are more than entitled to argue your view and, as you know, it has much sympathy in the life of ACANZP (and even more sympathy in the new CCAANZ). But what your view does not have is majority support within ACANZP. Notwithstanding that, no one requires you to leave!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91579266686198292192019-05-25T20:24:37.355+12:002019-05-25T20:24:37.355+12:00Hi Ron.
Schism is in the eye of the beholder. Lik...Hi Ron.<br /><br />Schism is in the eye of the beholder. Like "apostate" I don't think it's a useful term. There were divisions, including institutional ones, from the early church onward. The debate over the nature of Christ led to several institutional splits, some of which exist to this day, which is why Egyptian Coptic Christians have a different institution to other Orthodox churches. Armenians have their own church, so do other Arab Christians. Then the Western and the Eastern churches split in the Great Schism. Then Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed Christians split from Rome in the Reformation. Anglicanism began as a schismatic church (at least as far as Rome was concerned), and to this day is not in any kind of institutional unity with the Pope, and our affirmation of the ordination of women means that's not going to be the case anytime soon. GAFCON is just doing what the Church of England did in the 16th century. And while I disagree with their reasons, they are at least doing it for reasons of conscience. England's church split from Rome because a king wanted a divorce and a new wife.<br /><br />In short, there has never been institutional unity in the Church. <i>We are all schismatics</i>.<br /><br />Personally I don't believe Christ's call to unity in the Body of God and in the Spirit has anything at all to do with Christian church institutions. I don't even think it has anything to do with Christian religion. I think it's a far more radical concept.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59921732312422608562019-05-25T19:43:47.207+12:002019-05-25T19:43:47.207+12:00Hi Peter and Ron,
Peter, in you response to my bl...<br />Hi Peter and Ron,<br /><br />Peter, in you response to my blog,you say:[you are over simplifing a complex situation re relationships]May 22 @ 9.30 PM.<br /><br /> Well,lets have the full Monty.Can you show me the Canon of the ACANZP which states that the Doctrine of the Church, as per Her Constitution 1857 should read: "that sexual acts between two people of the same sex are acceptable; and/or that such relationships are considered "chaste" within that Doctrine".<br /><br />To the best of my knowledge,a minor Canon on discipline was changed;to circumvent Synod's inability to change the Doctrine 1857.So,some people allowed in the back door, now wish to dominate the Church. There is a major difference between Bishops not being disciplined and saying that the Doctrine of the Church finds same sex activity part of God's Will.<br /><br />Ron, I simply refer you to Art.19:"As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria,and Antioch hath erred; so has the Church of Rome hath erred,not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies,but also in matters of Faith".<br /><br /> Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10044880978341522842019-05-25T19:39:52.364+12:002019-05-25T19:39:52.364+12:00Dear Ron
In my experience editors do what editors ...Dear Ron<br />In my experience editors do what editors do.<br />I personally do not check up on everything that an editor may say about me.<br />Time is precious!<br /><br />Apostasy is a grave charge but we can treat it lightly in the heat of these particular moments in time.<br />What matters is whether charges of “apostasy” continue to be made in the cooler light of day as the years roll by: that will be awkward and difficult for any future reunion.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3897446188727316462019-05-25T19:35:23.943+12:002019-05-25T19:35:23.943+12:00Hi John
Of course I can ask Jay!
But it is not Jay...Hi John<br />Of course I can ask Jay!<br />But it is not Jay posting here who is making claims about the Anglicanness of CCAANZ.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61601346175553332272019-05-25T18:32:34.484+12:002019-05-25T18:32:34.484+12:00Dear Peter, with regard to the mention of 'apo...Dear Peter, with regard to the mention of 'apostate' in the video interview with the new bishop of the CCAANZ 'diocese'; do you really think he was unaware of the presence of that word in the title of the video in which he was significantly featured. Surely he would have had some sontrol over the distribution of the video and the offensive nature of its implication for his former colleagues in ACANZP? <br /><br />Shawn, you may consider the use of the word 'apostate' to be a matter of amusement. However, When GAFCON-ites are accusing members of our Church and other legitimately- founded Anglican Churches of the Anglican Communion of being 'apostate' or 'unorthodox' (while declaring their own form of Church life as 'Orthodox Anglican') - this proclaims a state of serious separatism (schism) that denies Christ's call to unity in the Body of Christ.Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59325103230481674862019-05-25T17:41:17.804+12:002019-05-25T17:41:17.804+12:00Hello Peter, (I'm not sure if my first reply a...Hello Peter, (I'm not sure if my first reply actually sent.) Sorry I can't answer your questions though I'd suggest contacting the Bishop elect Jay Behan. It does mean a lot to be Anglican but why that isn't found on a number of websites - no doubt it will in the near future now CCAANZ has officially been formed. johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17947454493033317429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31234500480185592822019-05-25T16:23:38.573+12:002019-05-25T16:23:38.573+12:00Hello Peter - Sorry I do not know all the answers ...Hello Peter - Sorry I do not know all the answers to your questions - I'd suggest if you contacted the Bishop elect Jay Behan he could possibly answer in more detail. johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17947454493033317429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86641734416028236082019-05-25T14:03:29.995+12:002019-05-25T14:03:29.995+12:00Personally Ron I don't find accusations of &qu...Personally Ron I don't find accusations of "apostate" serious at all, I find them hilarious. <br /><br />Yes Cam, I wonder myself how long the unity within GAFCON can last given that in forming the group they have had to paper over a significant and serious difference between their members with regards to female leadership. I also find it fascinating that on that issue CCAANZ have no problem living with two radically different interpretations of Scripture, and two radically different church practices, yet could not do so with regards to the other issue. Why is one a "first order" issue that cannot be compromised, but the other isn't? That seems contradictory to me. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57921537254510068322019-05-25T13:56:37.865+12:002019-05-25T13:56:37.865+12:00A further question, John:
if "Anglican" ...A further question, John:<br />if "Anglican" means much to CCAANZ, why is it quite difficult to find the word on a number of their church websites?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23995327695156525232019-05-25T13:42:14.211+12:002019-05-25T13:42:14.211+12:00Dear John
In order to get a better sense of what C...Dear John<br />In order to get a better sense of what CCAANZP is based on, are you able to tell us whether, for instance, it has a constitution, and canons; and whether that constitution and canons is the same as ACANZP had prior to May 2018 (recalling that prior to May 2018 there was - it has been said - no cause for schism)?<br />Or is there another constitution?<br />Further, Anglicanism is best expressed through its agreed common prayers - BCP, NZPB etc. Are you able to confirm what prayer book or prayer books CCAANZP will be using?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39671258375198708202019-05-25T13:31:28.277+12:002019-05-25T13:31:28.277+12:00The name Anglican does indeed belong to those who ...The name Anglican does indeed belong to those who remain loyal to the original Christian Church. Amen. Those in the CCAANZ very much see themselves still belonging to the original Christian Church. Because ACANZP have ignored the fundamental provisions of its constitutuiton and Lambeth 1.10 and amended one of its canons- maybe they should no longer use the name Anglican? CCAANZ are maintaining the teaching the Anglican Church has always held to and which almost 80% of Anglicans worldwide still hold to. CCAANZ has not left their orginial Anglican Foundation - for that many are truly thankful. johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17947454493033317429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47477225588413877472019-05-25T09:36:18.242+12:002019-05-25T09:36:18.242+12:00I think, Cam, that if we merge your "compromi...I think, Cam, that if we merge your "compromise with integrity" with Shawn's timely reminder of the ways in which every Anglican cherry picks Scripture to one degree or another (at the very least every Anglican has an odd take on episcopacy ... according to Presbyterians and Baptists!!), then we are talking about a difference of approaches to Scripture between CCAANZ and ACANZP rather than a question of apostolic faithfulness versus unfaithful apostasy.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63408432021485733012019-05-25T08:39:31.716+12:002019-05-25T08:39:31.716+12:00The enemy of my enemy...
As CCAANZ is supported a...The enemy of my enemy...<br /><br />As CCAANZ is supported and encouraged by Sydney and GAFCON one wonders how long before that which unites is subsumed by that which divides. I really feel for The Revd Jay Behan in this interview where he is led in his reflections by the pastor's questions, and feel much of the tone of the interview is not his. As you point out +Peter the word in the title is never uttered by Jay himself, and much of the tenor conveyed is contrived from the interviewer. There appears a sorte on the 'unique' nature of the Constitution 1857, what some would think Selwyn's genius, the interviewer suggests is odd and out of line with other Provinces. Personally voices from three houses meeting in synod to regulate and form church teaching seems reasonably laudable. And again personally speaking this does not effect the diffidence I hold to those called to Episcopal office. Partly due to trusting the Spirit lead structures our province has in place which raises up the men and women called to the episcopate.<br /><br />It has been our 'unique' structure (not actually unique...adopted in many places) which has allowed the ACANZP to be forerunners in the Gospel of equality with regards female leadership, and yes headship of congregations and diocese across the province. And we are not done yet in undoing a patriarchy that made genitalia and chromosomes somehow pertinent in fitness of workers to the harvest.<br /><br />When the hurmuph dies down over That Topic CCAANZ will have interesting bedfellows with regard the above. It may be they will have to work at accomodation or something like 'two integrities' if they are to hold together on this issue. Time will tell.<br /><br />As we learn in ACANZP 101 the Constitution signed in 1857, when Maori still made up some 50% of the population had not one Maori signatory. This week we remembered, (and in terms of how long it took possibly repented) the first Maori ordained priest in 1858 The Revd Rota Waitoa. If Shawn ever a Constitution were no longer fit for purpose in a nation aware of it's bi-cultural genesis, then ACANZP's is one!<br /><br />Again though nothing like what The Revd Behan or any communications from CCAANZ have suggested, the same Diocese 'leading' that interview can hardly be held up as champion of reconciliation and healing in partnership with the indigenous people. Google 'banning of smoking ceremonies', and you'll get a feel for some high ranking Syndey Anglicans disposition toward indigenous culture.<br /><br />So to return to the opening proverb (non-sciptural) and +Peter's question as to what makes Anglicans so. I posit some degree of 'compromise with integrity' is a good starting point. Of course this is what the motion of General Synod 2018 was trying to effect. In looking at what unites CCAANZ with their 2/3 Anglican brothers and sisters it may be there will be need for 'holding with integrity' differences too. I hope so. Women, and indigenous rights being things as dear to my heart as That Topic will ever be. <br /><br />Which begs the question in terms of Anglicanism, why schism on the grounds of what ultimately is part of, has been for 400 years, a particularly Anglican characteristc?<br /><br />...Is my friend.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />camhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00221166306830227866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67981815753496177782019-05-24T22:11:05.583+12:002019-05-24T22:11:05.583+12:00Dear Malcolm
Good points - thank you!Dear Malcolm<br />Good points - thank you!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-13629421565695211782019-05-24T21:26:56.820+12:002019-05-24T21:26:56.820+12:00Hello
Shawn at 4.36 am: a comment in line for &qu...Hello<br /><br />Shawn at 4.36 am: a comment in line for "best of 2019" - thank you! You highlight the challenges of consistently reading, interpreting and applying the Bible.<br /><br />Ron: I have not heard Jay himself use "apostate" and it is most unfortunate that the producer of the video has so titled the video in that way.<br /><br />John: an interesting point of view - arguably not shared by many in ACANZP.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64418871595772726852019-05-24T21:16:04.844+12:002019-05-24T21:16:04.844+12:00"Not happy with the(ir) name"? NO!
Not..."Not happy with the(ir) name"? NO!<br /><br />Not happy with the fact that they are arrogating to themselves the name "Anglican", which belongs to those of us still loyal to the original Christian Church they have chosen to abandon. Intentional schism does not give schismastics the moral right to label their former colleagues 'apostate'. GAFCONites should be sure enough of their status to use the name they themselves opted for from their beginning. By leaving their original Anglican Foundation, they automatically lose the right to call themselves 'Anglican'. Those leaving the mother ship are not entitled to take the furniture and fittings (nor, indeed, the title of their former vessel).Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63983679667523705692019-05-24T18:34:49.116+12:002019-05-24T18:34:49.116+12:00Those (clergy and laity) who have been stripped of...Those (clergy and laity) who have been stripped of their church buildings, homes and assets, have had their names slandered by some of their Bishops, colleagues and brothers and sisters in Christ, whom they have served alongside for many years of faithful service, find themselves having to leave ACANZP because their own integrity stops them from being able to go along with the "two integrity" NONSENSE, to join the MAJORITY of ANGLICANS around the globe, and you are not happy with the name - really? johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17947454493033317429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70830074346529774542019-05-24T11:21:17.111+12:002019-05-24T11:21:17.111+12:00The very title of an Austrian Free Church pastor&#...The very title of an Austrian Free Church pastor's interview with Jay Behan - " "Leaving gracefully from an apostate denomination!" - implies a sense of judgement (bias?) against Mr.Behan's former Church - whose acceptance of committed Same-Sex Relationships has been affirmed by an Act of Synod in ACANZP.<br /><br />To be called an 'apostate Church' is a very serious accusation - especially from a former minister of ACANZP of our local Province of the worldwide Anglican Communion. However, considering the foreign bedfellows Mr Behan has now chosen for his future ministry as a bishop of his new 'Anglican' diocese', it is likely that he - and the Church he now represents - will be governed by what he presumes to be the 'orthodoxy' of GAFCON, FOCA, ACNA and other dissidents from the offical Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion.<br /><br />In other words, the 12 parishes that have decided to come under the episcopate of Mr. Behan will no longer be considered part of ACANZP and the Anglican Communion headed by the ABC and Lambeth; but a new entity headed by the GAFCON Primates, whose influence has encouraged them to secede from their local provincial Anglican Church.<br /><br />For a group of disaffected clergy and their followers to seek to set up their alternative 'Anglican' Church in Aotearoa/New Zealand is one thing, but to label their former colleagues as 'apostate' is quite another. It seems that any hope of reconciliation between these departees and the Anglican Church in Aotearoa/New Zealand in its present Constitution is now impossible - UNLESS the graceless word 'apostate' is removed from their critical assessment of the Mission of Christ conducted by our Church of ACANZP. Father Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062632692873621258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82765137490971439222019-05-24T09:35:12.594+12:002019-05-24T09:35:12.594+12:00Dear Peter,
I like the name of the new church. It...Dear Peter,<br /><br />I like the name of the new church. It reminds me of verses like 2 Cor 9:13 and Heb 4:14. It was both hilarious and painful being in a group attempting to come to a consensus. The truth is, whatever name was chosen, it was going to come under scrutiny and criticism. Fair enough.<br /><br />However, just like claiming to be an evangelical anglican doesn't exclude other anglicans from holding to the gospel, so too with the idea of confessing Christ. After all, as you rightly point out, there are many anglicans in the western churches who "sit lightly" with the 39 articles—particularly article 4!<br /><br />MalcolmMalcolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00673750364562577262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43536094049727653072019-05-24T04:36:49.175+12:002019-05-24T04:36:49.175+12:00Hi Glen.
So as not to derail the thread topic I&#...Hi Glen.<br /><br />So as not to derail the thread topic I'll make this my last comment on the issue.<br /><br />The Church as you put it is not the Church of the medieval period when prayers to the saints and for the dead were normal. It is not even the Church of the Patristic period when such things too were accepted and practised. Keep this in mind, the men who forged the Nicene Creed prayed to Mary and the Saints. So any church that was inspired by or affected by the Reformation, as Anglicanism was, is already a different church to that which was the norm for well over a thousand years, both on doctrinal matters and on institutional ones. Things for us have already changed, in some respects radically. The Reformation throws a big monkey wrench into the claims of Protestant conservatives to be conservative or traditional at all with regards to doctrine and practice and definitions of what the Church is and believes. When Evangelicals talk about what the Church has always believed, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians can be forgiven for laughing.<br /><br />The Constitution is to me largely irrelevant. It was adopted in 1857, and it's now the 21st century, so it likely needs updating anyway. It was written in a very different time to ours, and such things should not be set in stone. <br /><br />The issue of sin and sinner depends entirely on whether or not we think the Bible has anything to say on the matter, which is debatable, and whether or not we think it matters even if it does. The same Paul in the New Testament who appears to condemn homosexuality also says that women should cover their heads in church and not cut their hear at all. How many Evangelical churches abide by that? If they don't, and they have some "first order/second order/cultural difference" scheme to justify not doing so, then they have already lost the argument on homosexuality, and any moral leg to stand on, because any such scheme is just convenient cherry picking.<br /><br />And as far as the Old Testament goes, this is the same text in which "God's Law" allows for slavery and the rape of wives. So to me it's not a valid source of moral thinking for the 21st century, or any other for that matter. <br /><br />The Bible has to be interpreted. Nobody, no matter what they claim to the contrary, simply reads and practices according the "plain meaning" of Scripture. And the Bible has always been interpreted for the times, always. The Apostolic church threw out the necessity for new male Christians to be circumcised, which was controversial to some church leaders. The Reformation churches threw out the Bible's teaching on usury because they didn't see it as being relevant anymore. And most modern Evangelicals don't insist that women cease cutting their hear and wear head coverings in church. There is a glaring contradiction with conservative Christians who say the Bible condemns homosexuality, but happily play the stock market and go to church on Sunday to listen to a female preacher who is not wearing a hat.<br /><br />For me the beating heart of the Gospel is love God and love your neighbour. That's it. Everything else is just commentary, and how that is practised changes over time, and <i>always</i> has done. I see no valid reason why loving my neighbour should not include allowing for LGBT people to be who they are in all the fullness of their humanity and sexuality, especially given that we now know that as far as nature is concerned, it's perfectly natural.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83870034437913688242019-05-23T20:35:49.914+12:002019-05-23T20:35:49.914+12:00Hi Shawn,
Perhaps the question, as to whether the...<br />Hi Shawn,<br /><br />Perhaps the question, as to whether the Church is acceptable to us; is not the first order question we should be asking. The primary question is;"whose Church is it"?, and then "what is Her function"?<br /><br />Your blog seems to resonate with the attitude put to the Ma Whea Commission by a liberal Church here in Auckland; "the primary function of the Commission is,given the differences on these issues in the Church,how those of a liberal and conservative convictions convictions remain part of the same organization". That statement appears to pre-suppose that the liberal conviction had/has a Constitutional legitimancy of it's own and a right to demand that it is met. <br /><br />To me,the fatal flaw in the establishment of the Ma Whea Commission was that to the best of my knowledge;it's terms of reference did not require it to take cognizance of the Constitution 1857. But all of that is now water under the bridge and the "broad Church" now "loves both the sinner and the sin".It can not get more accommodating than that.<br /><br /> Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86112048545291079552019-05-23T14:10:20.801+12:002019-05-23T14:10:20.801+12:00Hi Glenn.
"But you know that these parishes ...Hi Glenn.<br /><br />"But you know that these parishes are not distancing themselves from people who are homosexual. They are distancing themselves from the blessing of same-sex relationships and eventually marriage"<br /><br />To LGBT people that's the same thing. Being denied the ability to fully express their sexuality in loving relationships or marriage by a church, means that the church has in fact distanced itself from them. "Love the sinner not the sin" may sound good in conservative circles, but to LGBT people it might as well be "hate the sinner". There is no way around the fact that if a church insists that LGBT people give up any hope of living in a relationship according to their sexuality, it has in reality distanced itself from them in a profound way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39776345741439674662019-05-23T13:58:12.794+12:002019-05-23T13:58:12.794+12:00Hi Simon.
It's interesting to me that you bri...Hi Simon.<br /><br />It's interesting to me that you bring up the issue of reflecting society in a discussion about Anglican identity, interesting because arguably reflecting society has always been one of the unspoken aspects of Anglican identity. The Church of England, as many observers often noted, was, and is, very <i>English</i>. It is after all, an established church, closely tied to the Crown and Parliament. That dynamic has not radically changed here in New Zealand, hence the importance of the Treaty to ACANZP, and perhaps provides a partial explanation, beyond liberalism, for ACANZP's current approach to same sex relationships. Being Anglican has never been about being radical, let alone being radically outside of society. Anglican's roots are in a compromise between Catholicism and the Reformation, a middle way which went on to define the Anglican spirit and it's theological approach, and perhaps more importantly, a middle way that was useful to the State.<br /><br />So ACANZP's current approach of blessing same sex relations, but not affirming marriage, and allowing a diversity of practice and conscience on the issue, in effect a compromise position, is deeply Anglican. On that score, with regards to the churches that have left, I'm scratching my head as to why they are surprised. <br /><br />As to reflecting society in general, all churches do so to some degree, and it is impossible not to do so. The most conservative American Evangelical churches are still very <i>American</i>. Where any church draws the line is entirely dependent on one's theology and priorities. It's never a simple either/or.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91942580458363176812019-05-23T10:02:58.693+12:002019-05-23T10:02:58.693+12:00"Homosexuality is not evil"
But you kno..."Homosexuality is not evil"<br /><br />But you know that these parishes are not distancing themselves from people who are homosexual. They are distancing themselves from the <i>blessing</i> of same-sex relationships and eventually marriage, which - again, as you know - they do regard such an intent to "bless" as evil.<br /><br />It's also weird that anyone would say, in effect, that they cannot recognise as "Anglican" any church that has not historically existed in New Zealand. It may come as a shock to the General Synod standing committee that there are, in fact, Anglican Churches all around the world. The Committee is free to say that they construe their own church in New Zealand that way. But to say that being Anglican itself requires that history is myopic. The question is - what do Anglican Churches around the world have in common?<br /><br />The Anglican Church here has made historically and biblically conservatives seem unwelcome by changing the church to conform with a much more modern, progressive outlook (one, ironically, that would have been unrecognisable to our forebears in the faith who forged this history with Maori!). So they'll have to pardon conservative Anglicans for not caring if they now want to say "and by the way we don't recognise the space you now have, now that we've made you unwelcome in ours."Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15365045662764795503noreply@blogger.com