Editor’s Note:Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the Common Cause Partnership gives his view on the proposed Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Church in North America
How do we renew what was best about the tradition that produced us? How do we not repeat the patterns that subverted our life as a biblical and missionary province? How do we adapt learnings from the vibrant newer branches of the Anglican Communion? How do we restore our role as the bridge among and between the various denominational expressions of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? How do we have both freedom and accountability? How can we be truly catholic, truly evangelical, truly charismatic and truly conciliar in a 21st century context ”“ both North American and global? These are all questions that shaped the deliberations of the Governance Task Force, and the wider consultations the Governance Task Force undertook, and that resulted in the Constitution and Canons proposed for ratification at the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America.
The Constitution and Canons go much further than anyone imagined possible just a year ago….
If ACNA will remain led episcopally – yes, hierarchically – with bishops not only as the authoritative overseers but also as advocates and preservers of the integrity of historic Christian faith, then ACNA will be a blessing that grows and spreads throughout North America.
I suspect Canadians will implicitly comprehend the proposed structure far better than Americans, for it is confederational in nature, much more than federal.
Quebec runs its own version of Canadian ‘social security’ and Ottawa is not even in the equation. There is also no such thing as “Canadian national health care” — it varies tremendously, province to province.
Knowingly or not, ACNA follows much the same model. That is most decidedly not a derogatory comment.
Seems like Bishop Duncan has been reading the negative blogs and hopes that by saying all is well the crowd will follow. I have no doubt that the constitution will be ratified by the delegates (or are they deputies?).
I am still concerned about II.8.3 of the Canons that states, “Therefore, all members and clergy are called to promote and respect the sanctity of every human life from conception to natural death”.
This is a good statement on the issues of abortion and euthanasia; however, I am still confused how it addresses the issues of capital punishment and just war.
Am I picking at nits? Perhaps, but the quoted sentence does not seem to naturally flow from the canon’s statement, “The UNJUSTIFIED taking of life is sinful”.
[blockquote] … II.8.3 … confused how it addresses the issues of capital punishment and just war.[/blockquote]
Any tough decision an individual or government might make may be later subject to a hindsight scrutiny, [b] but [/b] any necessary actions that are taken to protect society from violence or complete subjugation is considered self defense. I think most people understand there is a difference between this issue and other moral questions like abortion or euthanasia.
“Any tough decision an individual or government might make may be later subject to a hindsight scrutiny, but any necessary actions that are taken to protect society from violence or complete subjugation is considered self defense.”
War is a complicated issue. Especially in an age of preemptive war. However your formulation does not justify the death penalty. The death penalty is almost never enacted to protect society from violence. Prison adequately accomplishes that goal. The Death Penalty is primarily a form of retribution for the family of a victim, and secondarlily designed to deter others. I personally think it fails to accomplish both of those things, and is there for difficult to justify morally; especially given the significant risk of convicting innocent people.
6, with the death penalty there are no repeat offenders. And it does acomplish justice. Scripture does not prohibit the death penalty. Whether we want to use it is another question.
My question is not about the ethical/moral issues of capital punishment and moral war. My question is whether the canons, as written (using the words “promote […] EVERY human life”), obliges me to protest every war and every execution carried out by the state (something I’m not inclined to do: see Romans 13:4, etc).
I am not so keen on the death penalty myself. Mainly because it is so expensive to administer, and there is no chance to reverse a mistaken conviction. I have fought in a war and have accompanied police on both gang interdiction and drug enforcement raids and arrests. The world is a complicated place and I could talk for hours on the subject. It is a more basic difference to condemn the behavior of personal selfishness and convenience that victimizes the weak and innocent than to get into a laundry list of controversial social issues. My guess is that the C & C of the ACNA, as written, only wants to address the simpler concepts of personal responsibility.
[i]Please keep to the original topic, thanks[/i]
Cole,
I agree with you that the framers of the C&C;of the ACNA only wanted to address the simpler issues. However, as written, the C&C;opens a larger can of worms that I don’t think the authors intended.
A better canon would replace the last sentence of the paragraph in question with something like, “Likewise, all members and clergy are called to recognize that every human life spans from conception to natural death”.
I know the ACNA understands that the canons of TEC as written are being used against the faithful. The canons of the ACNA need to be written to avoid any such problem in the future (remember, humans abusing power is not confined to the TEC). I trust the current leadership of the ACNA. I hope the final document is one that protects us from future problems.
orthodoxwill: I understand your point – post 8 & 11. Maybe I didn’t on your first post. So my last comment was really addressing #6. I don’t think it is off general topic to discuss how issues that are not fundamental to the faith can derail a commonality of the orthodox who want to come together into a new province. I call it Satan’s spirit of confusion. At the same time, I don’t want to trivialize those other issues as invalid for Christians to discuss. We’re on the same page.