The post is his so head on over there to read how he arrives at this conclusion,
"The great ecumenical councils of the early Church – Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon – defended the faith against errors that in various ways would have silenced God and/or stripped Christ of his eternity. The Church Fathers assumed and used the Word of God in their deliberations, but they did not give us a creed or a synodical letter that summarises what they believed the orthodox doctrine of the Word should be. Can the ACANZP work now to produce a unified statement regarding the word of God – a statement that is scrupulously careful not to destroy the ramparts that those early councils raised, and that will allow us to hear the Word of God together once again?"Please comment on his post on his site but if you wish to comment more generally on Motion 30, the Way Forward, how your own synod is approaching the matter (Christchurch synod meets later this week), then I will accept comments here.
Thanks Trevor!
7 comments:
"Now, however, we have one party saying to the other, “You are withholding the promise of salvation from some to whom God freely offers it,” and the other party saying, “No, you are holding out a false hope of salvation to some who cannot be saved unless as part of their repentance, they are willing to live a celibate life.” - Trevor Morrison
The 'other party' in this case, Peter, includes - as the author of the article describes, the 'Sola Scriptura' group - a group whose policies I have great difficulty in taking too seriously, on grounds I have already enunicated clearly on ADU, but which include the understanding, in the Western world at least, that LGBT people are co-equal children of God, deserving of respect and eirenic understanding of their situation.
The S.S. party - as represented here - seems to believe that to be Gay is to be un-natural, and that to live out that sexual-orientation in a monogamous, loving, Same-Sex relationship is anathema, not only t0 them but to the God Who created them.
I say, Let Motion 30 be passed as soon as is practicable! I most certainly urge the Synod of our Christchurch Diocese to give their assent to the process!
Frankly Peter, I cannot but respond to this great post from Trevor by referencing this link:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/09/liberalisms-parochialism
Hi Peter,
It will be interesting to see how the Christchurch Synod handles Motion 30. Hopefully, the detailed reasons for either receiving or not receiving the motion will be available for analysis.
Actually, I am not certain that final resolution of the Christchurch Synod is going to be, personally, that relevant. The problem is that the anger felt over the patronising insults, contained within Motion 30, still hasn’t subsided.
One still enjoys the music and gossip associated with Sunday morning gatherings, and the occasional sermon will cause some useful introspection for the following week, but Motion 30, and the ensuing discussion, has rather soured any sense of Communion one might have had.
Fortunately, it is all about theological purity and not about “bums on pews”, so I doubt that our increasing absence will be that important in the great scheme of things.
Michael Primrose
Christchurch
HI Michael
A point of clarification (making an inference from what you write!):
-there was an initial motion for the Synod to consider which proposed that we 'received' Motion 30 (or not);
- that has been withdrawn in favour of a discussion about Motion 30.
Thus I do not think we will see our Synod agreeing or disagreeing with Motion 30 via some motion of our own.
I won't second guess what speeches people may be inclined to make during the discussion time!
Hi Peter,
Thank you for the clarification. I was relying on the "Documents you need for Synod" page
http://www.anglicanlife.org.nz/Diocesan-Life/Synod/Documents-you-need-for-Synod-September-2014
If no decision with respect to Motion 30 is likely to be made, and only a general discussion held, then I see even less relevance to me personally.
However, it has never been obvious that this discussion was about real people and actual lives, so one shouldn't be surprised.
Michael Primrose
Christchurch
Hmm, Michael, I see the problem re paperwork/web not being up to date ... there was a mailout a few weeks ago of revised motions etc.
I wonder why the revision of motions was really raised, and by whom?
Post a Comment