With about seven weeks to go, hope for a unified Communion is not any brighter than it was seven months or ten years ago. Rather, the intransigence of those who reject Biblical authority continues to obstruct our mission and it now seems that the Communion is being forced to choose between following their innovations or continuing on the path that the church has followed since the time of the Apostles.
We have made enormous efforts since 1997 in seeking to avoid this crisis, but without success. Now we confront a moment of decision. If we fail to act we risk leading millions of people away from the faith revealed in the Holy Scriptures and also, even more seriously, we face the real possibility of denying our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
The leadership of The Episcopal Church USA (TECUSA) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) seem to have concluded that the Bible is no longer authoritative in many areas of human experience especially in salvation and sexuality. They claim to have ”˜progressed’ beyond the clear teaching of the Scriptures and they have not hidden their intention to lead others to these same conclusions. They have even boasted that they are years ahead of others in fully understanding the truth of the Holy Scriptures and the nature of God’s love.
Both TECUSA and ACoC have been given several opportunities to consult, discuss and prayerfully respond through their recognized structures. While they produced carefully nuanced, deliberately ambiguous statements, their actions have betrayed them. Their intention is clear; they have chosen to walk away from the Biblically based path we once all walked together. The unrelenting persecution of the remaining faithful among them shows how they have used these past few years to isolate and destroy any and all opposition.
We now confront the seriousness of their actions as the year for the Lambeth Conference draws near..
Update: Simon Sarmiento has very helpfully provided a more user-friendly version of this document.
Another Update: Stephen Noll has a comment here in response which includes the following:
…In terms of the present crisis, I think he is clear that he sees it has culminating in seven weeks, not at Lambeth 2008. Indeed, he has been quite clear about this for at least 18 months since commissioning “The Road to Lambeth.”
I hope against hope that Canterbury will heed Abp. Akinola’s call and take the necessary disciplinary steps against those who have openly defied God’s Word in Scripture and the fundamental articles of the Communion’s identity. I say “hope against hope” because I fear Rowan Williams does not see the situation with the same eyes. But even beyond his personal views, I think he probably represents the Church of England’s inability to accept the reality that a new day has dawned, not ruled from the Anglo-American centers of power. As I have written elsewhere in “The Global Anglican Communion: A Blueprint,” I do not think the Communion can or should be governed as it has in the past. The sacred “Instruments” themselves are of relatively recent origin and overlapping in authority and function. A Communion Covenant is a good thing, but only if it addresses the issues and structures that have led to the present disruption.
Meanwhile we sit, wait and pray. Today’s Gospel is to the point – Luke 12:49-56; as is the Epistle, especially the last words – Heb 12:1-2. I am of course reminded also of Joshua – Choose this day whokm you will serve … as for me and my house we will serve the Lord. May we be on the Lord’s side when the division comes.
Even though my copy may be more readable, I am unable to locate with certainty the intended positioning in the text of footnotes 2,3,4,5.
Examination of the source code suggest that they may possibly be intended to go as follows:
footnote 2 adjacent to footnote 1
footnotes 3,4,5 adjacent to the heading “Scorned Opportunities”.
But I would welcome further opinions, correction, or even authoritative advice.
frianm: I do not think it wil be so black and white. There will be some of the Lord’s people on both sides: therefore the Lord will be on both sides. A split will hurt both of the sides.
I am wondering when he will make an unequivocal statement regarding Lambeth 2008. The Road to Lambeth is unequivocal in its statement that signatories will not attend if unrepentant consecrators of +Gene are present. ++Orombi has made an unequivocal statement that this is indeed the position in the paper commissioned by and signed by ++Akinola. Yet ++Akinola shies away from a statement committing himself. He comes close, but never goes all the way. What gives?
Eugene:
Remember that when the Children of Israel, when they were carried captive into Babylon, the good (like Daniel) were carried off along with the evil.
I am so thankful that the position, the absolute need to act, is so clear. Thank God for clarity!
I particularly agree with Stephen Noll’s comment: “The sacred “Instruments†themselves are of relatively recent origin and overlapping in authority and function. A Communion Covenant is a good thing, but only if it addresses the issues and structures that have led to the present disruption.”
The “Instruments of Communion” do not make the Communion. Common faith and practice make the Communion. These are what is lacking.
#1 frianm–The Hebrews passage is even more relevant today. When I read it this morning in Church, I was a bit shaken. Because we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we are the only institution in which the “dead” get a vote. It it very sad that we in TEC live on dead people’s money, but fail to acknowlegde the faith as handed down from the Apostles to, them; but somehow in TEC, no longer to us.
Anglican Christianity and the more recent global Anglican Communion have each evolved and changed enormously since their inceptions. We may well be on the brink of yet another watershed moment in the evolution of both. We should not be afraid of the changes which may well be upon us. The Lord has promised us He is with us — He always has been, and always will be. Let us trust in His faithfulness and never forget that constant refrain of both the Old and New Testaments: “Be not afraid!”
One of the charming things about slipping out of the “West” used to be entering a “place” where schedules and clock-watching were not a driving part of culture. One culd just drive south of the border to enter such a place. Services began when they began and older people -the respected ones- chatted of days past, some of them marked by us in centuries, others by us in minutes as if they were all “now” and yet not immediate.
Now all we hear is talk about “ten years” or “seven months” or September 30th as if it had been vouchsafed to us that God is going to stick to our timetables, endorses our schedule and will act as expected. Even men and women of enormous faith are sucked into a process which sounds more like the pre-election season in the United States than a contemporary Acts of the Apostles.
People of faith really know that one cannot hurry God -or slow him down- and seek to walk with God with a certain respect and a tentative schedule. When it comes to strategy, planning, moves and counter moves we need to be very careful, need to make sure that what we do is Gospel and is good, and be prepared to be shocked and surprised as God acts. We know there will be trials, will be death and of course resurrection. We know what tools we may use, and what we may not use.
A specific criticism. Someone has commented that the old Colonial days are over and that the newer churches now take the lead. On one level this is an obvious statement which we’ve known now for years. Yet on another level stating the obvious sounds a good deal like the nonsense the House of Bishops of TEC waffled about in their statement in reply to the APO requirements of the Primates Communique. All Christian leadership is servant leadership, whatever the geographical location of the leader -or of the led. Whatever the shortcomings of the “colonialist missionaries”, they brought the Gospel and they brought Anglicanism to Africa and Asia sometimes at the cost of life itself. Lets not be sucked into using the term “colonialism” as a weapon.
Colonialism and imperialism with finances, the ECUSAn model for the Church, is pretty clearly being rejected by all the signatories of The Road to Lambeth. The Faith once delivered is the standard, not the finances. ECUSA/TEC still needs to catch up with reality.
Somehow some lines got missing in the released document. They have been reinserted and include;
We now confront the seriousness of their actions as the year for the Lambeth Conference draws near. Sadly, this Conference is no longer designed as an opportunity for serious theological engagement and heartfelt reconciliation but we are told will be a time of prayer, fellowship and communion. These are commendable activities, but this very Communion, however, has been broken by the actions of the American and Canadian churches. The consequence is most serious because, even if only one province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity. The convener’s status as an instrument or focus of unity also becomes highly questionable. Repentance and reversal by these provinces may yet save our Communion. Failure to recognize the gravity of this moment will have a devastating impact.
Scorned Opportunities
Following the 1997 warning, the 1998 Lambeth Conference issued Resolution 1.10 that affirmed the teaching of the Holy Scriptures with regard to faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union and declared that homosexual practice was incompatible with Biblical teaching. At their meeting in Porto, Portugal, in March 2000 the Primates reaffirmed the supremacy of Scripture as the “decisive authority in the life of our Communion.†[ ] [ ]
The General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA responded in July 2000 by approving Resolution D039 acknowledging relationships other than marriage “in the Body of Christ and in this Church†and that those “who disagree with the traditional teaching of the Church on human sexuality, will act in contradiction to that position!†The Convention only narrowly avoided directing the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to begin preparation of official rites for the blessing of “these relationships … other than marriage.†[ ]
Since others noted the NT and Gospel readings, I thought I’d take note of the OT lesson, which I found significant:
23 “Am I only a God nearby,”
declares the LORD,
“and not a God far away?
24 Can anyone hide in secret places
so that I cannot see him?”
declares the LORD.
“Do not I fill heaven and earth?”
declares the LORD.
25 “I have heard what the prophets say who prophesy lies in my name. They say, ‘I had a dream! I had a dream!’ 26 How long will this continue in the hearts of these lying prophets, who prophesy the delusions of their own minds? 27 They think the dreams they tell one another will make my people forget my name, just as their fathers forgot my name through Baal worship. 28 Let the prophet who has a dream tell his dream, but let the one who has my word speak it faithfully. For what has straw to do with grain?” declares the LORD. 29 “Is not my word like fire,” declares the LORD, “and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?
Jeremiah 23:23-29 (New International Version)
Fr. Jake has a good critique of this mendacious piece of false witness at his web site: http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/.
Father Jake has a degree in newspeak, it seems. History has too many sources to validate the timeline ++Akinola elucidates for even reappraisers to be able to change it. Not that Jake+ doesn’t give it a try.
Who ignored the last Lambeth? Who refused the warnings of the emergency meetings of the Primates? Who continues in their wanton reappraised cultural accomodation?
As the Church Lady would say, “Isn’t that special?”
ECUSA/TEC and ACCanada continue to say we have no need of you very loudly and very clearly.
It is interesting to observe that when orthodox/traditionalist leaders and thinkers like ++Akinola write about Anglicanism and the current situation in the Anglican Communion, they most often do so in well thought-out pieces that include quotations, footnotes and citations that are specifically relevant and difficult to challenge.
On the other hand, the revisionist/progressive supporters of ECUSA generally respond to such well thought out writings with derision, attacks on the authors, diificult to substantiate assertions, unsubstantiable assertions, political diatribe and spin, etc. and little else.
Who to believe, who to believe?
For the objective and thoughtful person, it is obvious that the orthodox/traditionalists speak with substance and authority and that the revisionists/progressives are speaking some sort of revolutionary political ‘cant’ directed toward the secular issues of contemporary society.
I’m glad to see that the original, somewhat mangled version that was posted has been corrected. (Although many of the footnotes still seem to be missing.) We have enough barriers to communication as it is; we don’t need technical problems with uploading documents to the web on top of it all!
I do think it’s interesting that ++Akinola describes the crossroads that the Anglican Communion is coming to, and says that there are two paths, one of which the “orthodox” cannot take… but he doesn’t say what, in practical terms, they plan to do in order to walk the other path. Boycott Lambeth? Recognize an alternate Anglican province in NA? Split off from Canterbury and form a GS-centered “Anglican Communion South”?
It may well be that he’s simply waiting until Oct. 1st to declare what he plans to do. It does seem that he’s not willing to wait until after Lambeth ’08.
Interesting times.