If ADU stands for any one thing within theology and ecclesiology, it is for re-union of Christian churches, the one church of Christ invisible made visible on earth, as God's will is done in heaven so it should be on earth. Starting with Anglicans would be a fine thing :)
Thus music to my ears is this report on a recent Orthodox-Catholic agreement.
Noteworthy in this report here is a more careful approach to actual history of East-West relationships, setting aside as much ecclesial prejudice and scholarly bias as possible, with the upshot that, hey presto, the truth wins and paves the way for the light of rapprochement to be seen at the end of the tunnel of separation. It is still a long tunnel but maybe, just maybe, a pinpoint of light at the end is in sight!
Oh, happy day ...
See also now a Russian report on the same meeting, which draws our attention to the somewhat deferred question of Uniatism.
That's a Catholic take and it is factually inaccurate in that it says Moscow wasn't there when it was -Metropolitan Hilarion was there
It was the Bulgarians who didn't send representatives
And the sticky point is the Uniates an issue that has been exacerbated by the USA's fomenting of a civil war in Ukraine - a project run by the Catholic Joe Biden (who promotes abortion on demand and gay marriage BTW)
I removed the rest of this comment because it was fairly intemperate
Your temperateness is appreciated!
Yes the Uniate question is a "hot" one and the article cited does not deal with it; but I did see it raised as one of the obstacles to unity in another article I read recently.
Not really on board personally with a world run by Biden and co !? There are more than a few messes those pollies have created ...
Here you are Peter
A wonderful sign of possible catholic Convergence of the major Churches of East and West. In the meantime, our Anglican difference appears to be between the North and the Global South - not so much a problem of primacy but rather of contextual theological understandings of gender and sexuality. In the great scheme of things, it seems, sadly, that the Catholic/Orthodox Split might be resolved before the Anglican one.
Thanks Ron and Andrei
Have added the link, Andrei, to the Russian report, into the post above.
Ancient Canon law says there can only be one bishop overseeing any particular territory.
The issue first arose when the missionaries from the Latin encountered the Greek missionaries in the Balkans but it was worked out without too much drama - one legacy of this is there is a version of the Latin rite celebrated in Church Slavonic, not much used today since Vatican II but still in use
Ideally reconciliation would see a return to this one bishop overseeing a territory but it will not happen this side of the Day of Judgement - the divergence is too great
But this doesn't mean the Church is disunited - those of us who desire to follow Jesus Christ might not receive communion in one another's churches but we must love and respect one another - even when it is a personal struggle because we are fallen creatures and carry our own baggage that always has its source in the machinations of those who covet temporal political power
Satan seeks to divide the Church and we must resist but that doesn't mean ecumenism is the way forward - it can do more harm than good
Rather we must grow together by understanding how things look to others
Here is a BBC report from Tbilisi three years ago - these scenes have been repeated in Belgrade, Podgorica, Vilnius among others - your sense of Anglican politeness might find this disturbing but it also shows how the ISSUE will further separate Anglicans from the rest of Christendom.
To me such events which are imposed from outside the Nations concerned are paganism and are forced upon these countries by their new masters to force them to pay homage to the Imperial Gods and are a form of subjegation
If the ADU Theology abd Ecclesiology stands for one thing and that is for the re-union of Christian Churches;why hoist the skull and crossbones up the flag pole??? Or do you think that this liberal stance on marriage is okay with the Orthodox and Roman Churches??? For all protestation to the Contrary,that our Doctrine on Marriage has not changed;it has.If a Priest blesses the s/s relation of a couple who have been married in a civil ceremony,is that not blessing that marriage in the name of God? If it is not in the name of God,then whose name is it in??
Standing Resolution Intercommunion 1:"Old Catholic Church; that this Synod (2004) on the recommendation of the Bishops and of a select committee of the Synod,thankfully accepts the statement agreed upon between the representatives of the Old Catholic Churches and the Anglican Communion at a conference held in Bonn on the 2nd July 1931,opening the way to a state of intercommunion on the following terms:
1, Each Communion recognizes the Catholicity and independance of the and maintains it's own;
2.Each Communion agrees to admit members of the other Communion to participate in its sacraments;
3.Intercommunion does not require from either Communion,the acceptance of all Doctrinal opinion,sacramental devotion,or liturgical practice characteristic of the other,but implies that each believes the others to hold all of the Essentials of the Christian Faith.1952"
Are we telling the other Communions that we do not HOLD Christ's teaching that MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN to be an ESSENTIAL OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH???
Unmoored from Scripture, marriage can mean anything we want it to mean.
It would appear from your response that you have not fully imbibed the ‘way forward working group’s’ re-definition of marriage in Genesis 2 where the authors state, and I quote:
"we can see that this desire looks beyond the surface of a binary, heteronormative world. It is expressed not in finding a partner of the opposite sex but a partner of the apposite sex. It is to this partner that one “cleaves” in a union for all of this life.”
It is this diabolical narrative that Peter seeks to accommodate within the Anglican Church of Aotearoa. Who amongst us can unite with this doctrine of demons and still remain faithful to Christ and his teaching on marriage?
Brendon is right - redefining marriage is a rebellion against God and the order of his creation
Marriage as an institution goes to the heart of the orderly procreation of our species as articulated in Genesis 1
The Church itself is described as the "Bride of Christ" not the "Partner of Christ"
Brendon uses the term "diabolical" - I'd say "Satanic"
But we have been round and round this and got nowhere.
We live in a post Christian society on the brink of being drawn into a devastating war - a war which has decimated our Christian brethren in the ME. This is all part of our rebellion against God and his Church - I see these disputes as connected on a spiritual level
Brendan and Andrei,you are quite right.I was in a hurry to feed our four legged flock and did not think of the possible distortion of the word. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. I also think we live in a time of greatly increased influence by father of lies and his brigade.Sadly,this influence seems to have had a major impact on on our universities,education system(???) through the teachings of Darwin and Marx;as well as our own dear Church through evolutionary theology,progressive Christianity,post modernism,liberalism and liberation theology.
"we can see that this desire looks beyond the surface of a binary, heteronormative world."
We have been talking about cultural discernment on the way forward thread.
Anyone familiar with the language of academic cultural Marxism will recognise the term "heteronormative" straight away. That ideology is where it comes from. Glen has posted a quote from one of our Bishops which uses also uses cultural Marxist terms such as "the Other" and calls to move away from "White, male, heterosexual" privilege.
If the way forward working group is operating from a cultural Marxist perspective, rather than a Christian one, then it should be dissolved immediately, and it's members replaced by people operating from a Christian perspective.
For myself I have zero respect for the way forward group, and no hope at all that anything good will come from it.
I largely agree with Shawn that the struggle orthodox believers face is with what had come to be called 'Cultural Marxism' - a tern that will be unknown to most unless you have spent a few years in the fever swamp the Humanities departments of modern universities and know that modern Marxists have largely given up on economics (recognising that Marxist economics don't work - although the sixth formers currently in charge of the British Labour Party are not convinced). In Cultural Marxism, the old class struggle is transposed to those supposedly 'on the margin' (women, 'people of color' as Americans stupidly call them, sexual minorities, immigrants etc) out of whom the modern Left is trying to forge a new majority. Clergy who espouse this talk betray their practical atheism: they are not interested in salvation but rather in immanentist politics.
"It is expressed not in finding a partner of the opposite sex but a partner of the apposite sex."
Wow, I bet they patted themselves on the back for this profound, perceptive, er, pun.
What an astonishing achievement for Theology in Aotearoa!
What will they come up with next: escatology and the fate of your pet?
Well, you can be sure of this: whenever drivel (and yes, this is a prize specimen in 'Cultural Marxism') is held up for approval, your bovine skubalometer better be working.
A pat on the back indeed.
Hi Brendan. I first came across the term cultural Marxism about ten years ago when reading Patrick Buchanan's book 'The Death of the West' which had a profound effect on my political thinking. And yes, it's the reigning orthodoxy in Humanities departments. What shocked me a few years ago was discovering how much it is also the reigning orthodoxy in Theology departments as well. I think it was a major mistake for the Anglican church to farm out it's theology degrees to secular universities.
"In Cultural Marxism, the old class struggle is transposed to those supposedly 'on the margin' (women, 'people of color' as Americans stupidly call them, sexual minorities, immigrants etc) out of whom the modern Left is trying to forge a new majority."
Yes. In my political circles we call that the coalition of the fringes. Hence the Left's support for mass immigration to the West. It's not about compassion and justice, but about power and control, and a hatred for all things White and Western.
I have read a few of Pat Buchanan’s articles at TAC, and while I haven’t read the book you mention, I suspect you could do much worse than have your politics influenced by him.
The west’s support for mass [Muslim] migration particularly into Europe and the UK will be viewed by future historians as a civilizational tipping point. It seems we are intent upon committing cultural suicide in order to demonstrate our ‘tolerance and inclusion’ to an illiberal people who despise such liberal values.
We need look no further than Proverbs 8:36b for a reason: “all who hate me love death.”
Regarding cultural Marxism, for us to lose the battle for popular culture is one thing, however to lose a Christian denomination to this perverse ideology is another thing entirely.
What I find particularly absurd about the embrace of Marxist liberalism in the Anglican church, is that this ideology is virtually exhausted in the public square. Think Brexit, the rise of ‘far right’ parties in Europe, the election of Pauline Hanson and three other senators on an anti-Islam platform in Australia, and even the emergence of Donald Trump in the USA.
How ironic and fitting that the ‘progressive’ Church should embrace this ideological construct, just as it’s entering its final death throws in mainstream culture.
Sadly, we and our children will be subject to much needless self-inflicted suffering as a result of our collective foolishness. While our hope is in Christ, it is difficult to see how we can avoid an impending civilizational crisis.
I’m usually more cheerful but on this topic it’s difficult to be optimistic.
On further reconsideration of Brendan's and Andrei's remarks, regarding my blog of the 28th Sept.; which I thank them for;perhaps the last sentence should be restructured to read: If we are telling the other Communions that we do not hold that Christ's teaching, that marriage is between MAN and WOMAN is an Essential of CHRISTIAN FAITH, any longer; then on what grounds are we saying that we still part of the One,Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. As the opening tune of Dad's Army goes,"Who do you think you are fooling Mr. Hitler."
Anyone who thinks that God does not give a toss about what goes on in HIS CHURCH should read the LETTERS to the SEVEN CHURCHES: "UNTO the angel of the Church of Ephesus write;These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand,who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;I know thy works, and thy labour,and thy patience,and how thou canst not bear them which are evil:AND THOU HAST TRIED THEM WHICH SAY THEY ARE APOSTLES,AND ARE NOT,AND FOUND THEM TO BE LIARS:And hast borne,and hast patience,and for my names sake hast laboured,and hast not fainted. Neverthe-less I have somewhat against thee,because thou hast left thy first love.Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen,and repent,and do thy first works;or else I come to thee quickly,and will remove thy candlestick out of his place,except thou repent." Rev.2:1-5.
It is my considered opinion, that there was/is NO Constitutional validity to either the MA Whea Commission or this Working Group.I question the "ENABLING POWERS" ie. the LEGAL AUTHORITY to establish these groups.Refer to THE ACANZP Constitution 1857,Part "C" @ 14:"No Doctrines which are repugnant to the Doctrines and Sacraments of Christ as held and maintained by the Church shall be advocated or inculcated by any person acknowledging the authority of General Synod or with the use of any funds or property held under the authority of General Synod."
Therefore,bluntly,I ask you Peter; (1) Are you under the submission to G.S. and (2) Are the contents of your submission consistent with Christ's teaching,The Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty Nine Articles of Faith???
There are at least two lines of reply to your challenge!
(1) I am proposing no change to any doctrine of the church, nor am I proposing the formulation of a formulary which is contradictory to any doctrine of the church but I am proposing a pragmatic change to pastoral policy of the church, something the Anglican churches in historic continuity with the Church of England have often considered and quite often determined to put into practice.
(2) On your understanding of the tightness of the 1857 constitution and the 1928 Act, has our church rightly or wrongly been permitting the remarriage of divorcees? (Noting that this is a very serious question currently being considered by the GS STanding Committee, after Bosco Peters raised it recently).
If you do think we have been wrongly remarrying divorcees, then are you going to pursue all clergy with you challenge as you are pursuing me?
If you do not think we have been wrongly remarrying divorcees then do you concede that back in the day when the change was made (from clearly not conducting such marriages, to conducting them), someone created the precedent of asking whether doctrine as we then understood it was capable of some pastoral reinterpretation?
With all due respect,your pragmatic change to the Pastoral Policy of the Church is without Constitutional Authority and represents Pastoral Practice which has no Scriptural foundation.The Constitution 1857,recognizing the Scriptures (Matt 16:19 & 18:18) and Article 20; allows for the ACANZP to decree Rites and Ceremonies particular to this Province; however,Article 20 states that it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written.It is utter semantics to claim that such practice does not involve changes to Doctrine or require the formulation of Formulary to authorize it.Allowing Bishops and Priests to perform blessings which have no liturgical contraints can only be seen as anarchy.
Yes I do consider that the remarriage of divorcees is outside of our Doctrine except where adultery is concerned; but by allowing such,no precedence has been established,and particularly one which transfers over to same sex blessings.It is an issue which needs to corrected in it's own turn.
In the case, The Gay and Lesbian Clergy Anti-Discrimination Society Inc. V The Bishop of Auckland, the Decision of the Tribunal reads:
[31.4] The fact that there is no prohibition by the Anglican Church on same sex marriage is not relevant as it is an argument by omission and this is not how the Anglican Church adopts a position.If the doctrine is not in the Formularies,there is no adopted doctrine.
[31.5] While it is acknowledge that some Bishops have made discernment and ordination decisions inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Anglican Church,these decisions do not establish anything other than the fact that they are inconsistent with Church Doctrine.
[31.2] It is not enough for a minister of the Church to agree to Doctrine or Teaching that he or she cannot live out.
[33.3] Only Archbishop Richardson and Bishop Bay can speak for the Church.They spoke not just as experts,but as spokespersons for the Church and their evidence must be accepted.The separation of the Church and the State must be maintained.The Tribunal cannot determine what is at heart an ecclesiastical dispute. See Mabon at 523.
So,Yes ,I would pursue all Clergy on this matter.I have here,a number of complaints made against various clergy for alleged breaches of the Constitution and Canons; which the Bishop of Auckland responded to by stating:"The Anglican expression of Christian Faith in this Province is a very broad one,and will continue to be so.(Letter dated 28th Dec 2012.)
Opening points well made and closing observation very relevant!
The point I have been labouring on, is that if such a blessing is allowed,there seems to be no will in the ACANZP leadership to exercise any control.The old adage,"give them an inch and they will take a mile",concerns me. It appears to me, that it is only when a Bishop's decision is in question, that the Constitution can be invoked.Then they speak with the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH!!!
Post a Comment