In his statement, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke to the entire Communion, including provinces in parts of the world where gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people face serious criminal penalties and even death. We hope and pray that the Archbishop’s strong condemnation of prejudice against GLBT people, and his call to penitence for our inconsistencies on these issues, will embolden Anglicans across the world to stand against hatred and discrimination when they encounter it in their midst.
We also urge all Anglicans, including the Archbishop, to regard the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the body of Christ as nothing less than a Gospel mandate and a requirement of our baptismal vows. To understand this issue as simply one of civil liberties or human rights ”” to which the Gospel also calls us ”” does grave injustice to our sisters and brothers in Christ and our fundamental understanding of baptismal theology.
This says it all:
“The Episcopal Church has a long, albeit imperfect, history of developing theology and doctrine to support fully including women, people of color, and GLBT people in the life of the church” (emphasis my own).
So we develop theology and doctrine to create a desired outcome?
[blockquote]We also urge all Anglicans, including the Archbishop, to regard the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the body of Christ as nothing less than a Gospel mandate and a requirement of our baptismal vows. To understand this issue as simply one of civil liberties or human rights—to which the Gospel also calls us—does grave injustice to our sisters and brothers in Christ and our fundamental understanding of baptismal theology[/blockquote]
Since when has “baptismal theology” ever meant that the body of Christ is free to sin, or to call sin righteousness? Since when has “baptismal theology” ever meant that those who may be members of Christ’s body need not submit to Christ’s teaching or to his discipline?
[blockquote]The Chicago Consultation believes that, like the church’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, excluding GLBT people from the sacramental life of the church is a sin. Through study, prayer and conversation, we seek to provide clergy and laypeople across The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion with biblical and theological perspectives that will rid the church of this sin.[/blockquote]
But [i]surely[/i] viewing discrimination as a sin (and those who discriminate as sinful) does grave injustice to our baptismal theology… Can’t have your cake and eat it.
Sorry about the excess bold in #1 — it was supposed to end after doctrine, but I mistakenly typed a backslash instead of a forward slash.
“our fundamental understanding of baptismal theologyâ€. This is the clincher.
For what does it mean to have the old Adamic nature killed and buried? Nothing less. And what thereafter does it mean to be co-raised with and in Christ Jesus and so be able to walk in newness of life? To be transformed in the power of the Spirit from one degree of glory to another as we all behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ? What does a new creation actually mean folks?!
Tom Smail many years ago said this:
“The pattern of the resurrection determines the pattern of the Spirit’s work. And the pattern of Christ’s resurrection is one of both continuity and discontinuity together. Something new appears, which is nevertheless not novel, but the fulfilment of what was there before. The Jesus who rises is in identity and continuity with the Jesus who died… And yet, although everything in him passes through death, it is raised up into a radically different mode of being … so that on the one hand he is scarcely recognizable, and yet at the same time seeks to establish with his every action that he is the same.â€
It is this profoundly Christological premise of radical discontinuity amidst continuity that so many in TEC just do not appreciate. Any other form of baptismal theology is frankly suspect and inadequate, not doing justice to the fulness of God’s redemption.
The issue of orientation vs. behavior has been raised so often and in so many places that one can only conclude those who harp on the former while ignoring the latter can only be called deliberate disseminators of falsehood.
This is what Scripture, via the Apostle Paul, says about Episcopalian “full inclusion” baptismal theology:
I Cor. 5:1-5, 9-11 (NIV)
#6 Might I suggest also Romans 1:24-27? Then again, I suppose none of this matters if those involved do not accept the authority of scripture.
[blockquote] 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. [/blockquote]
What part of their baptismal vow do they not understand? See BCP p. 299. (Amplication from 1 Peter by NW Bob.) The respect passage is what they misuse as an excuse to behave as they please. The biblical view of respect is as a mechanism to win people over to Christianity, not to encourage people in sin.
[blockquote] Celebrant: Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People: I will, with God’s help.
…..
Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all
people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People I will, with God’s help.
1 Peter 2:11-17
11Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to [b]abstain from sinful desires,[/b] which war against your soul. 12Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. 13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16[b]Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; [/b]live as servants of God. 17[b]Show proper respect to everyone:[/b] Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. [/blockquote]
Inventors of theology? Hardly. Justifiers of sinful desires and their “blessing” so as to mire ever more deeply the sinner in the sin. Polyamory is next, most likely.
I am coming to the conclusion that so-called “baptismal theology” is the only “theology” that the Chicago Consultation, GLBT activists, and their fellow travelers in TEC give any credence to. A theology based upon Holy Scripture, particularly those Pauline epistles that reassert man’s inherent sinf
Sorry, got cut off for some reason. To continue:
A theology based on Holy Scripture, particularly those Pauline writings that reassert man’s inherent sinfulness and tendency towards depravity, as well as all the OT moral law that the early Church embraced–totally retrograde and abusive.
A theology bolstered by the witness and writings of 2000 years of Christians, and the councils and doctors of the Church–dismissable in the face of “prophetic vision” and the primacy of “justice.”
It appears that the only part of the baptismal vows that these folks give any real credence to are the part about striving for justice and peace, and respecting the dignity of every human. Given the malleability of the definitions of “justice” and “dignity” in our culture, that’s a very slender reed on which to hang one’s theology.
11, particularly when they seem to define “dignity” with going along with whatever someone wants to do or how they want to dfine themselves.
I’ve been reading most anything I can find in my library on Baptism, including Hooker, and several “bibles” on Anglican tradition, as well as the catechism, and I honestly can’t find support for a baptismal theology similar to the one the progressives frequently tout. I wonder if it’s based on the first two lines of the Baptismal rubrics. The impression I get is that in progressive minds, baptism serves two doctrinal functions beyond the sacramental rite of initiation, first as a justifying action (as opposed to faith?) and second, as a point of complete and perpetual sanctification, such that any sinful/questionable act is at once both forgiven/tolerated, and ultimately considered Christ-like. Or worse, it may just be the notion that membership has it privileges. I’m willing to be wrong; any suggested reading for further understanding?
The comments on this link thus far have rightly pointed to a major problem with Dr Meyers’ press release, and indeed with much of the theology emerging from TEC in the last few years – a more than deficient theology of baptism. I would like to point out simply one of the implications of this theology, made more explicit by Dr Meyers, but mentioned more and more in various forms these days, especially in some of the resolutions from GC09. The implication to which I refer is new kind of “mission theology” which seems to be in process of formulation. A key paragraph in Dr Meyers comments begins with words already quoted in the threads above:
“The Archbishop raises important questions about how the Anglican Communion can best structure itself and continue to develop Anglican doctrine. The Episcopal Church has a long, albeit imperfect, history of developing theology and doctrine to support fully including women, people of color, and GLBT people in the life of the church.”
Dr Meyers goes on, however, to offer a corollary: “We can contribute this valuable experience to the Communion, and we look forward to working together with our fellow Anglicans around the globe as we continue discerning God’s call for our common life and mission.”
Some have asked why TEC would want to remain in the Anglican Communion, given that so much of the Communion is labouring under what much of TEC can only consider to be a false theology of ‘exclusion’. It also seems clear (from the Presiding Bishop’s opening address at GC09) that TEC’s functioning mission theology will certainly not including inviting individuals to come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. At best TEC’s mission theology will be focused on issues of social justice such as those delineated by the Millennium Development Goals. As a social justice evangelical I applaud an emphasis on the poor (although the MDGs are not perfect, much in them is laudable and Christians should certainly be in favour of most of them and work towards their implementation!), while I weep at the distain with which evangelism (and, I must add, the ground on which evangelism stands, the atoning death of Jesus on the cross for our sins) seems to be held by many in authority in TEC. But now a third way of doing mission is now appearing, a way closely allied to the unofficial baptismal theology of TEC – convert the rest of the Communion to TEC’s view of inclusion. TEC, it seems, wants to stay within what they can only consider a very imperfect and even distasteful Communion because they have a vision that one day this Communion will be won over to TEC’s view of the gospel. Latent within this view is an eschatological vision formed from an implicit idea of progress – we are developing better theology, we are becoming better societies – the West is getting there faster than other places, but we can help the rest of the world to catch up.
For this reason, it seems to me, TEC will do everything it can to sign the Covenant. They will probably not be happy with whatever version of a Covenant is presented to them, but they will eventually sign on if given a chance, because membership in the Communion gives them a mission field in which to spread their gospel. It seems to me that this may be the Achilles heal in the Covenant process: if TEC is able to sign it, much of the Global South will not; and TEC will sign it if given a chance, even if they have to hold their noses to do it, because not signing would means a loss of status, and a loss of a platform from which to preach.
Grant LeMarquand