A busy week in a muddly, threatening against ever getting back to the blog kind of way ... so to assure readers this blog still breathes, here are some posts of interest to me and perhaps to you:
South African Anglican Church Charts Way Forward?
Is the Bible Wrong?
Does Acts 15 Help with Making Decisions?
But Is Conciliar Decision-Making Intrinsically Messy According to Anglican Articles?
Talking of Anglican Decision-Making, It is Percy v Welby in High Stakes Future of the Church Debate?
Human Biology is Complex, Not Always Binary in Gender Distinction and the Church Often Fails Badly to Understand This
In other words, in Anglicanland this week, we remain ever caught in the vortext between Scripture, councils, bishops, synods and pundits :)
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
re-"Human Biology is complex...............And the Church often fails badly to understand this"
This is certainly true,not for the Church,but for those in the Church who have removed themselves from the legitimate Doctrine of the ACANZP and the Creeds and traditions of the ONE,HOLY,CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH:preferring instead, to accept a evolutionary explanation of the origin of matter and life.The understanding of these origins,as contained in the legitimate Doctrine of the ACANZP is diametrically opposed to that of the neo-Darwinism and evolutionary -theism of the liberal progressive Christianity.
This argument on the binary nature of man's sexuality is found in the teachings of the homosexual theorists influenced by Michael Foucault; which according to Prof.Jerry Muller-see" First Things (New York) no 35,Aug/sept 1993.His disciple,Prof J Butler,argues for an alternative conception of pleasure which is outside the reproductive economy.ibid.
One must ask as to where all this has any reference to the the legitimate Doctrine of the ACANZP and how the Church has failed to understand it????
Regards,Glen.
Hi Peter, I prefer the witness of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the dean of oxford. God has a habit of choosing the right leaders.
ReplyDeleteNick
Indeed, Nick!
ReplyDeleteYes, Glen, and it took the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church a long time to realise that Galileo's modern understanding of the Cosmos was correct. The Church has never been infallible - despite the claims made about that. The Holy Spirit is still helping faithful human beings to come to terms with the realities of human life -
ReplyDelete"When the Spirit comes, s/he will lead you into ALL the Truth!" - Jesus to the faithful.
The Holy Spirit is still trying to break through to some of us!
"...it took the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church a long time to realise that Galileo's modern understanding of the Cosmos was correct"
ReplyDeleteThere are two major errors with this statement Fr Ron
First and foremost the Roman Catholic inquisition of the early 17th century is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and never represented it. This was a purely local controversy and not even on the radar of most of the Christians who lived at that time
Second "Galileo's modern understanding of the Cosmos was correct" is not exactly correct - it is mathematically convenient to center the Solar system on the Sun, it makes the calculation of planetary orbits simpler but it is not a fundamental TRUTH!
"The Holy Spirit is still helping faithful human beings to come to terms with the realities of human life"
And that reality is that we are fallen creatures living in a broken world subject to things we don't understand and misdirected desires and lusts, not only sexual, though that particular aspect of "human life" seems to be the major focus of this age
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
ReplyDeleteI was not challenging the statement "human biology" is complex" but that,"not always Binary in gender distinction".When nature gets the genetic sexual distinction wrong it leads to medical conditions.It appears that the statement is not referring to Gender distinction but to sexual preference.To the best of my knowledge,no direct genetic linkage has ever been successfully established regarding the latter.
The difference between Galileo's and Michael Foucoult's understandings of the world around them, is that the fluidity of sexual preference is classified as sin in the Scriptures;but nowhere do they condemn us for understanding the sun obits the earth.I do believe that Andrei's summation was more precise.
Andrei, If you had taken the trouble to mark, read and fully digest the response I made - specifically to Glen's previous comment - you would know that I was referring to 'the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' in the context of his post. It was not my own definition. However, considering that the Pope was (and still is - Nick would agree) the Leader of the single largest segment of the Western Catholic Church, responsibile for Galileo's excommunication (and recent reinstatement) my response - to Glen - was in the proper context.
ReplyDeleteLike the current German Catholic Bishops' statement about Luther and the Reformation - even that part of the O,H,C, & A. Church has come to realise it was a necessary step to be taken at the time. You see, Andre, even the R.C. Church in coming to realise that mistakes have been made in the past - about more than cosmological understanding. The extent of human knowledge is still being expanded on many issues. However, there will always be people kicking and screaming their protests about the revision of their often mistaken understanding of the human condition.
If you had taken the time to read the article our Host, Dr.PeterCarrell, has pointed to on this thread - by a published theologian - about his own incarnate experience of sexual 'difference', your mind - with prayer - might have become more open to a fresh, new understanding on an important issue affecting the lives of many committed and faithful Christians.
If you had taken the time to read the article our Host, Dr.PeterCarrell, has pointed to on this thread - by a published theologian - about his own incarnate experience of sexual 'difference', your mind - with prayer
ReplyDeleteI actually did read it Fr Ron and clearly more diligently than you because unlike you I comprehended that it was not an article "by a published theologian" but rather the writing of an individual with undisclosed "gender identity" with an undisclosed genetic "intersex" condition that he had posted for discussion
The sad reality in this fallen world is that not everybody who wants to can get married and raise a family - this will be denied to some for many reasons and that will be a cross they have to bear
I saw on TV last week a woman with terrible cerebral palsy which made it extremely difficult for her to even communicate - we ask why, why is life so unfair? - It is a great problem in Christian Theology to answer this
Changing the definition and meaning of marriage wont fix a thing -
ReplyDeleteHave reread the Constitution of ACANZP and do not see any mention of SCIENCE or HUMAN KNOWLEDGE there, as a source for it's DOCTRINE.Certainly,science may enrich our human existence but it is not what the mission of the Church to proclaim it;the mission of the CHURCH is to PROTECT and PROCLAIM the PURE WORD of GOD.I do not believe that anybody failed to gain ETERNAL LIFE because they believed that the sun orbited the earth;but they do for failing to believe in CHRIST as their LORD and SAVIOUR.
Any articles written by, even published theologians which do not concur with the ACANZP's legitimate DOCTRINE are just the private and esoterical thoughts of another person.They may interesting but of no real value in any discussion concerning Constitutional matters.
This whole issue could have been put to rest quite simply by the House of Bishops stating clearly that ACANZP is part of the ONE,HOLY,CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH and these motions are outside Her Constitution.
Scripture is clear that gender is a gift from God, not a social construct. Science says the same thing. The vast majority of human beings are men or women. The very small minority of people born with a genetic gender disorder do not change the basic facts of human biology. And a large number of those claiming to be "transgender" do not even have that genetic disorder.
ReplyDeleteWhen a man goes through all the medical interventions to become a "women" the fact remains that he still has the male chromosome. Nothing basic and fundamental to that man's actual gender identity has changed. It's a fantasy fuelled by Liberalisms obsession with promoting every single sexual and gender deviance as a new "right" that must be accepted.
So science, real science, is not the issue here. Once again it is Liberal ideology with a strong dose of Cultural Marxism that is being promoted.
The Church may sometimes get things wrong, but that is why we have Scripture, as an authority to determine what the Church should or should not teach. In an Anglican context, Scripture is our baseline for determining truth, along with tradition and reason. That is, reason rightly understood, not the "reason" that looks very much like Liberal/Modernist ideology.
Private "revelations" reached through personal prayer do not trump God's revelation in Scripture, and are not an authority in the Church. This is not a "sola scriptura" view, it is the view of the whole church, Orthodox, Roman and Protestant. The private "revelations" of individuals have never been a legitimate authority in the Church that can trump Scripture, in any branch.
The job of the Church is to determine, however imperfectly, the truth of God's revelation to us. It is to be in the world, but not OF the world. It is not the job of the Church to jump on every fashionable Liberal bandwagon.
Excellent evidence on this single thread, of the preponderence of 'Sola Scriptura' advocates in Evangelical Anglicanism - not my particularinterest, I'm afraid! Nor it is at all helpful to the current debates going on around the world by serious students of the 'Good News' of Our Lord Jesus Christ to all, in the Gospel. I can see that there will need to be 2 different 'Anglican' Churches - if people are to helped into the modern era of freedom from institutional prejudice for the Children of God who happen to be different.
ReplyDeleteHi Ron
ReplyDeleteI am publishing your comment because it makes one point which is not ad hominem: the likelihood that, in the end, we will need two Anglican churches to accommodate different points of view.
Pretty much everything else about the comment is ad hominem as it implies that some Anglicans are not serious students of the Gospel and that different points of view re sexuality represent "institutional prejudice" (instead of considered theological reflection on Scripture and tradition.
Dear Peter, have you not considered the possibility that some people who might be reading your blog would consider that the continual tirade being carried on by some of your commenters against those of us who support monogamous same-sex unions (as opposed to unbridled promiscuity) for those Christians and others who long to have their loving relationshops recognised and honoured in the Church, might also be considered 'ad hominen' ? After all, is it not better to promote love rather than hatred? Agape!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
Could someone please explain to me,how there could ever be two Anglican Churches with diametrically opposed points of view.This notion was promoted from the beginning; but nobody could offer a rational explanation of how one circumvents Paragraphs 1,5 & 6 of the Fundamental Provisions of the Constitution.
Why stop at two Anglican Churches???Why not a separate church for drug abusers and alcoholics????(like the tea ad. where the two old ladies say"whatever hes on I'll have some to").
Regards,Glen.
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
I do not need a separate Anglican Church which accommodates my point of view. It is CHRIST'S CHURCH founded on Him being the Son of the living God and upon His words and Sacraments as defined in paras. 1, 5 & 6 of the Fundamental Provisions of the Constitution. My point of view is neither here nor there. I either accept the Doctrine of the Church or I walk away and find another church which better suits my beliefs (this is the advice given by Bishop Selwyn to the first General Synod of the Church in New Zealand - March 8th, 1859.
Regards, Glen
I could not agree with you more. Glen; that if there are people in ACANZP who simply cannot live with what our Church - in General Synod - at its next session decides to do in its plan to 'Move Forward' on Same Sex Blessings, then, for the sake of their own consciences - as a matter of personal integrity - they should, perhaps, just quietly leave and join a community that best suits their own unique understanding of gender and sexuality issues.
ReplyDeleteMake no mistake, Glen, I would much prefer such people to stay and learn to live with the difference involved. However, no pressure should be brought to bear - except the pressure of one's own informed, God-give conscience - for which we are each answerable to God!
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteI do not consider it a "tirade" for commenters to continue to argue for Scriptural and traditional doctrine, providing there is no denigration of people, and certainly not of fellow commenters here.
Hi Glen
ReplyDeleteI do not think "Anglican" is a patented term only applicable to churches in the CofE tradition who stick to Fundamental Provisions and the like. After all, the CofE itself may change in directions you and I disagree with and surely it would be "Anglican" for a church to decide to follow such changes.
"After all, the CofE itself may change in directions you and I disagree with and surely it would be "Anglican" for a church to decide to follow such changes."
ReplyDeleteA "church" may do as it wills after all a "church" is only a building of wood, brick or stone and in the town where I live there are many "churches" that have already been converted to profane use - homes, coffee houses and one has even become a nightclub
Soon there will be a few more Anglican "churches" finding a new life devoid of worship - in the USA there is apparently an Episcopalian church that found new life as a brothel.
The Faithful will endure though
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteQuite simply,the ACANZP is a legally constituted "body", recognized in N.Z. Law both through it's Constitution and The Church of England Empowering Act 1928.As such,it is required by LAW to fulfill it's legal obligations;the same as any secular organisation.
Jesus said:Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's:Matt 22-17/22. Here,the ACANZP has a double obligation;She must meet Her legal obligations to Caesar, while fulfilling Her Ordained Mission.Therefore,it is Her legal obligation to abide by Her Constitution.
Our family has donated land to the Church,on which a Church now stands.The DEED OF GIFT is quite clear that the land was donated for the purpose of proclaiming the Doctrine of the Church as defined in the Constitution 1857. If the Church wants to change it's doctrine,they are no longer entitled to the property.
This discussion, probably better belonged in your blog about the Church v State;but here it is.Through their dismal leadership,the Bishops have opened a PANDORA'S BOX and allowed G.S. to take us into the dessert for another 40 years.
We raised the question to the Ma Whea Commission regarding the relationship of the ACANZP to the rest of the Anglican Communion.Quite simply,I would argue that the ACANZP can never move outside of the Doctrine as defined in Paragraphs 1,5&6 of the Constitution 1857.
Therefore I would argue that anybody wishing to use the term "ANGLICAN";would have to clearly distinguish themselves from the ACANZP.
Regards,Glen.
Hi Glen
ReplyDelete(Thanks, by the way, for written material posted to me).
Yes, I understand all that, and I do not know if our hierarchy (i.e. bishops and chancellors) do understand the "box" they have opened, but it would only be fair if we cannot settle our affairs in unity that we allow for two different streams of Kiwi Anglicanism to emerge from this present division. To which stream your family's bequest belongs is a fair matter to be concerned about, but I am at this point trying to deal with the principle of the matter, not the details!
Dear Glen, even the "Church of England Empowering Act" cannot prevent the working of the Holy Spirit in the ACANZP. We are now no longer ruled over by the Church of England - having already defined ourselves by the unique status of a 3-Tikanga Church - something the C. of E. has never envisaged and may not even understand. This is the Church ministering to needs in the local situation.
ReplyDeleteThe Anglican Church here has already shown its pioneering independence - by initiating, for instance, lay representation in our Synods, and allowing for woman priests and bishops - well before (maybe even inspiration for) the C. of E. - all according to the will of God as discerned by the local Church Leaders.
A Church which does not keep up with the times could be considered moribund if not actually deceased. I do not want to be part of such a Church.
Whatever happens at General Synod 2018, it will be the will and purpose of ACANZP to follow the Holy Spirit's call to minister to All and Sundry - All whom the Lord will call to Baptism into Christ and His Body, the Church.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteThe Church of England Empowering Act is a NZ Act of Parliament which governs the life of our church in certain ways, with particular respect to our potential to change (or not) our constitution.
Notwithstanding your confidence in the Holy Spirit, its movement in our church in a direction congenial to your theological outlook may be quenched unless the Act is changed!
This, then, Peter, may be a matter of urgent attention for our House of Bishops and for the General Synod - if they intend to go forward with changing our Constitution in any way - which, of course, they are at liberty to do - as has been done before.
ReplyDeleteDear Nick. I've just noticed your comment - to the effect that "God always chooses the right leaders". You would affirm then, without qualification, that this has happened with the election of Pope Francis, whose openness to change has your Coillege of Cardinals quite worried. As Good Pope John XXIII insisted, we must uphold the adage 'Semper Reformanda'.
ReplyDeleteHi Ron
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of the Church of England Empowering Act is that we are not free to change the "Fundamental Provisions" of the Constitution (as, indeed, we did not when we revised the Constitution in 1992 ... we revised the bits of it which we could revise). So, Glen and my argument is that Constitutional change is a "big thing" because it would involve going to Parliament ...
But others with actual mainline university law qualifications (mine is from the University of the Bush) might think differently!
Fr Ron,
ReplyDeleteI made my comment in the context of a dean seemingly at odds with his provincial. I imagine the provincial will win. To answer your question, however, the Pope would not have been my first choice; he is too much St John XXIII and not enough St John Paul II for me. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that he is the correct man for the job at this time and a supreme pontiff with whom I am happy to be in full communion.
Nick
Hi Ron,
ReplyDeleteI wrote :"I either accept the Doctrine of the Church,or I walk away".However,I have no problem with the Doctrine of the Church;in fact I wholeheartedly endorse it and will do my utmost to defend it.
I did not write:"if I cannot live with what G.S. does,I will walk away".It must be abundantly clear by now,my total opposition to what can be alleged to be,the UNCONSTITUTIONAL and HIGHLY IRREGULAR manner, in which G.S. appears to be trying to circumvent Paragraphs 1,5 & 6 of the Fundamental Provisions of ACANZP'S Constitution; in the progression of THEIR Way Forward.But, is it GOD'S WAY FORWARD????
Bishop Selwyn set the Church up in an excellent manner with a Constitution which could be revised in 1992; to allow for the Church to meet the various cultures of Her Parishioners.But that was far different from the
present manipulations being undertaken.The 1992 revision did not affect the Legitimate Doctrine as defined in the Constitution.The 1992 revision of the Constitution and The Church of England Empowering Act 1928 both reinforce the 1857 prohibition of ALTERING or DIMINISHING the 1857 definition and sources of our Doctrine.
Regards,Glen.
Dear Glen; a straight answer please: If GS 2018 moves in a way contrary to your wishes on Same Sex Blessings, will you walk away? Constitutions can be changed!
ReplyDeleteDear Nick; you do admit than that sometimes God chooses a person in authority who does not always meet your stadards of propriety or suitability!
"My ways are not your ways; nor my thoughts your thoughts!"
Blessings, Fr.Ron
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
I have a copy of the submission made by a well known Barrister and official in the the Church,here in Auckland.Happy to post it to you if you would like it.I see you are one of the smart kids that graduated in law from the Bush University.Never did myself,got mine at a historic village in outback Aussie.You know,one of those blank forms where you have to fill your name in.
regards,Glen.
That would be appreciated thanks Glen
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHi Ron,
My honest answer is that I would be joining with anybody else who will issue proceedings in the N.Z.High Court challenging ACANZP under The Church of England Empowering Act sec.7:INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE CIVIL COURT NOT EXCLUDED----Nothing in this Act contained shall annul,limit or abridge the inherent power of the Supreme Court to prohibit anything purporting to be done under this Act on the ground that it not a bona fide exercise of the powers conferred in this Act.
As I have said previously,dismal leadership of the Church has opened a Pandora's Box which will never be sorted out in our life time and will waste thousands of dollars on legal expenses.
Regards,Glen.
My honest answer is that I would be joining with anybody else who will issue proceedings in the N.Z.High Court challenging ACANZP under The Church of England Empowering Act
ReplyDeleteAnd in so doing will contribute to alienating people from the Church and the Anglican church in particular
Using the courts is not the way Glenn
1 Corinthians 6:1-8
Dear Glen, has it ever crossed your mind that, in any court action you might be intent on making against any ACANZP' affirmative action on Same Sex Blessings, would actually be in against the spirit of the N.Z. Government's own legislation which allows for Same Sex Marriage. Methinks you will be wasting your (or anybody else's) money on your planned litigation. Wake up and smell the roses, Glen!
ReplyDelete"They will know you're my disciples by your love" i.e. not your litigation!
Dear Ron, Glen and Andrei
ReplyDeleteFar be it for me to come between an alliance between Ron and Andrei against litigious action.
But I understand Glen's point to be much less about going to court and much more about the integrity of ACANZP in respect of its willingness to understand its own constitution and the consequences of being a church constituted in the way it is constituted rather than in another way.
I presume Ron that you do wish to belong to a church which says (via its core documents) what it means and means what it says?
Hi Andrei,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, that using the Courts is not the ideal way;but I did not open this can of worms.However,The Gay and Lesbian Clergy Anti-Discrimination Society Inc.v The Bishop of Auckland establishes the lengths to which,some of those promoting this issue will go.The society lost the case on Constitutional grounds.At (16):Archbishop Richardson gave detailed evidence as to the Constitution of the ACANZP and as to the "doctrines or rules or the established customs"of the Anglican Church.
Now,all that is put aside and they can quite happily talk of changing the Constitution and Doctrine to suit themselves.If it comes to a point where legal action is necessary,the ACANZP will have become a CLAYTON'S CHURCH,a church where you don't really have a Church.we don't want to become another T.E.C.;where attendance numbers are rapidly falling and their seminaries closing.The T.E.C. have a millions of dollars pursuing the Orthodox Anglicans;and have lost their case in South Carolina.
Regards,Glen.
Fr Ron
ReplyDeleteGod appointed Justin Welby as the provincial.
Nick
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
Thanks,you are quite right in your summation.
Ron,thanks also, for your suggestion,I will go tomorrow morning and smell our rose "PEACE".A lovely old fashion rose,do you know it?
Regards,Glen.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is, to me, not overly relevant to the issues of sexuality and gender. That Scripture holds a pre-eminent authority in terms of God's revelation to us is affirmed in all branches of the wider Church, Orthodox and Catholic as well as Protestant. Exactly how that authority is understood, and it's relationship to tradition and the authority of the Church, is different in each branch, but that Scripture does hold a place of an actual authority and not merely a guide, is something the whole catholic church affirms.
ReplyDeleteThus, holding the issues of sexuality and gender up to to the light of Scripture is not an example of Sola Scriptura, but an example of catholic Christianity.
If we (Anglicans) were to replace the authority of Scripture with private revelations and subjective opinions as to which way the wind of the Spirit is blowing, we would not only be opening ourselves up to doctrinal and moral anarchy, we would also be placing ourselves well outside the boundaries of the wider catholic Church. Such a position would be closer to the radical ideas of the Quakers than to any understanding of basic Christian orthodoxy and practice.
Reforming the Church, where and when it needs reform, is a good thing. It does not however mean that the Church has to accept every possible reform that is proposed. The Church must practice discernment, and it must do so in the light of God's revelation to us in Scripture, tradition and reason, and not at the whims of the modern world. If we were to try to keep pace with modernity, we would be changing our doctrines every other week. Moreover, Western modernity is not a repository of all things good and true. There are many things about modernity that Christians can rightly be critical of, and like everything else, it requires critical discernment by the Church, not uncritical acceptance.
Loving people who are different to us does not require that we affirm everything they do, let alone affirming those things God considers a sin. True Christian agape is far more robust and realistic than the modern notions of uncritically affirming people and what they do. Christ requires us to love people despite their sins as we are sinners ourselves. Christ does not require that we affirm peoples sins in order to love them.
Finally, I note that the current Pope is definitely not on side with the ideas of transgenderism.
Pope Francis Slams Transgenderism: 'Annihilation of Man as Image of God'
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8129/pope-francis-slams-transgenderism-annihilation-man-james-barrett
Shawn, I am very interested in how you are currently defending the status quo of ACANZP's Constitution. Does that mean that, after many other options of belonging to different 'churches', you are now settled with us? Praise God if you are! And Welcome! Oh, by the way (and even Nick must agree with me here: Even Popes have been known to err. Especially when there were two of them; 1 in Rome and another in Avignon. There has never been a 'Perfect Church'.
ReplyDeleteDear Nick, I think you are comparing the situation of our Archbishop of Canterbury with that of your Pope, Francis. However, Anglicanism doen't work in the same way. Whereas the Pope is given the title "Supreme Pontiff", there is no such animal in Anglicanism. Each Provincial Archbishop in our setup is responsible for his/her own provincial affairs - with no veto over any other province. Each province also has its very own Constitution. The ABC is given the courtesy title of "Primus inter pares" or 'First among equals'. There is no R.C. equivalent as far as I am aware.
Hello Ron, yes I have settled in the Anglican Church, partly for pragmatic reasons, partly out of a renewed interest Celtic Christianity, and partly from a personal realisation of the importance of hiving a sense of tradition that connects us to the past.
ReplyDeleteI think the current Pope errs quite a lot, though on political issues rather than doctrinal ones, but on this issue I believe he has it right.
Dear Fr Ron,
ReplyDeleteActually, you brought up the comparison today at 12.12am.
I think the ABC was a good choice and (to use my original language) chosen by God. I prefer him to the dean of Oxford, because the dean was not chosen by God to be the provincial. Anyway, aren't there persecuted brothers and sisters to be praying for instead of this?
Nick
Hi Shawn,
ReplyDeleteYes,welcome to the 'Wanderers Club".I agree with you that the current Pope errs quite a lot when he strays into political issues.He does not stand alone there, though;our own Episcopal leadership errs in this manner as well.So we find ourselves in this self imposed "paper bag";trying to find a way out (forward).
In fact,I find your summation of the issue very useful and interesting. I have found it very difficult, to get the core issue to remain as the topic of discussion.At the center of all this,is a very simple question---Of what value and importance is the founding articles of the
Church,from the Scriptures through to the 39 Articles.
Regards,Glen.