THE Archbishop of Canterbury’s notion of a two-track Anglican Communion is flawed, say 13 organÂisations working towards an “inÂclusive” Church of England.
The group expresses “grave conÂcerns” about the implications of Dr Williams’s reflections in Covenant, Communion and the Anglican Future, a response to the actions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the US (News, 31 July).
It finds the Archbishop’s reference to same-sex unions as “chosen life-style” to be inconsistent with his previous statements on committed and faithful same-sex relationships, and “at odds with our reading of the message of the gospel. . . While we applaud his assertion that we are called ”˜to become the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ’, we find no indication of how that can be achieved for those who are not heterosexual,” the joint statement says.
[i]…at odds with our reading of the message of the gospel…[/i]
So who will tell them that their reading of the message of the gospel is incorrect?
The liberals want to take the Church back to 325 AD when all this was settled at the Council of Nicea. Its regressive thinking.
The dilemma for such folks is that in the the dioceses where gay partnered clergy are a significant minority are many fewer than TEC, that non celibate unmarried clergy are liable to clergy discipline, that the COE public policy has always been not to ordain non celibate gay clergy (even if some members of the HOB operated quietly a don’t ask, don’t tell policy), that Bishops in England are appointed not elected, that the HOB in England is hugely loyal to the ABC and cohesive in a way TEC’s HOB is not, and that even in dioceses with 20% gay clergy (so claimed) – such as London or central Southwark – there are significant numbers of evangelicals.
In other words they can huff and puff but the House is not going to fall down.
#2 Palagious,
Interesting observation. A slightly different way of seeing it would be that this is yet another in the ever-continuing series of developments that Christianity has to go through. In the 4th c, the controversies were over orthodoxy, especially on the true nature of the Son of God. Now, it’s a controversy over orthopraxis, especially on the question of how the Christian life is expressed sexually (which I find rather a boring question, but one can’t choose or control the particular trajectories history will take).
In what way is entering into a partnered relationship not a “chosen lifestyle”, whether the relationship is hetero- or homosexual? Or, for that matter, isn’t chosen celibacy not a “lifestyle”.
The meme that “homosexuality is not a choice” has descended into incoherence, if not insanity, and illustrates, again, the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of homosexualist ideology.
Thanks for chiming in, driver8 (#3). You have first-hand experience in the CoE, I don’t. Regardless of how large or small the gay or pro-gay section of the mother church in England may actually be, this united statement by 13 UK groups supporting the pro-gay agenda shows a significant intensification of the polarizing of the CoE. And personally, I think that may well be a very good thing.
As I’m fond of saying, [i]”A house divided against itself cannot stand.”[/i] And in a post-Constantinian age, the breakdown of the old marriage between the Church and the general culture or the social powers that be is a tremendously liberating reality, that frees Anglicans to stop pretending to be united when they plainly aren’t. Oil and water simply don’t mix, and thus will inevitably separate. So without the State compelling an uneasy truce between the warring church factions (as it used to do) in order to maintain the artificial pretense of ecclesiastical unity for the sake of bolstering the unity of the State and sanctifying the political status quo, the two opposing camps are finally free to separate. And as far as I’m concerned, [b]”It is meet and right so to do.”[/b]
What’s most interesting here to me is that the “progressive” wolves are publicly growling at the ABoC, when they know full well that he’s privately supportive of their cause. If they do start turning on ++RW in their disappointment and frustration, it will be a harbinger that things are going to get ugly indeed in this church civil war.
I found quite intriguing your allusion, driver8, to the old fairy tale of the big bad wolf and the three little pigs. You say that these liberal groups can huff and puff all they like and the grand old sturdy house of the CoE won’t be blown down. But as I recall, the wolf did succeed in blowing down the first pig’s house of straw and the second pig’s house of sticks, and was only foiled by the third pig’s solid house made of bricks.
You know the English situation far better than I do, brother, but I suspect that the wolves in sheep’s clothing (the pro-gay advocates of theological relativism) are unfortunately likely to succeed in blowing down sections of Anglicanism in the UK. Or to switch to a biblical analogy, those who refuse to obey the Lord’s teaching and have built their house on the shifting sands of popular opinion are apt to find that their house will indeed come crashing down in the violent storm that is brewing. But those in the CoE who’ve chosen to build their faith and ministry on the Rock need not fear.
David Handy+
Actually Rev Handy I disagree. The Church of England is currently presenting a united front. You have seen it in the Archbishop’s Council’s letter to the Church of Sweden and in the Archbishop’s plea to General Convention and both the Archbishop’s and +Durham’s recent statements. The Church of England believes in a united Communion and has supported the Archbishops plans for a Covenant overwhelmingly every time it has been debated both in the House of Bishops and in General Synod. The reasons why it is important are set out clearly here in Bishop King’s piece:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/24658/
There are isolated pockets of Anglicans all over the world in need of a strong and united Communion to speak for them and to exert pressure on governments and international bodies. Do not underestimate the sway that 78 million Anglicans can and have exerted on events.
I would not be swayed by a currently far from representative group of liberal voices based in the Southwark/St Albans Axis and who sit on most of the 13 or 14 organisations wearing different hats. It is the usual suspects.
Further it is getting nastier as frustration rises. Having said that they are going to out gay clergy in tactics reminiscent of Peter Tatchell, today some have had the affrontery to suggest that the Archbishop and the CofE are planning to purge the CofE of gay priests. This tactic of distraction will not work. We can all see that the threat to gay members of the Church of England comes from the increasingly desperate Axis Powers.
Furthermore we do not want people using the Church of England as a political football, whether from Gafcon or from those who currently seem to see themselves as a fifth column for their mistress at 815 and her slaves.
Pageantmaster, thank you for your observations and information. However, are you not being extremely rude to suggest that gay sycophants of 815 are servile to a “mistress”? Or am I taking a metaphor too literally … yet again? Might not dominatrix be more appropriate? Or perhaps they are “luv”-slaves? It is SO difficult to use the appropriate non-sexist term, is it not?
Pageantmaster (#7, 8),
I’m glad you weighed in too. And of course, you also know the CoE much better than I as an American ever could. I’m sorry if it seemed that I (as an FCA supporter) was proposing something that amounted to treating the CoE like a political football.
But I’m sure you also won’t be surprised that from this side of the Atlantic, the mother church looks far from unified to me. And I continue to think that it’s best for everyone if those who preach a false gospel and hold to a radically different (and unbiblical) worldview were to realign themselves with their fellow heretics throughout the Global North.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your insider’s perspective.
David Handy+