The Covenant process is, in practice, by-passing these questions, acting on the implicit assumption that we already have the answers ”“ that they are known and must be obeyed; so all we need to do is to set up the slow inexorable process of exclusion of those who question the traditional understanding of the answers. The Primates are demanding that ECUSA give assurances that they will cease giving any sanction to practices which go against Resolution 1.10 (Lambeth 1998) (Note 3), and the Archbishop of Canterbury in his letter to the Primates (5thMar 07) refers again to this requirement.
What has happened to the vital consideration of issues raised in the Windsor Report concerning ”˜essentials and non-essentials’ (”˜adiaphora’) ”“ core doctrines as opposed to other teaching? (Windsor paras 36f, 49, 87f). All this is in practice being put to one side. Why are we not, as a Communion seeking to find common ground regarding methods and principles of biblical interpretation, which are common to those involved in biblical scholarship across denominational boundaries? Or at very least clarify where we differ in regard to our hermeneutical criteria? Instead we are avoiding these crucial matters.
4) Covenant Design sets up procedures for exclusion
This is no exaggeration, because it must be known that ECUSA and the Canadian Province cannot be expected to ”˜back down’ from the convictions that they have come to over decades, in their understanding, in good faith, of how the Holy Spirit has led them in seeking answers to the above two fundamental questions. Yet Section 6 of the Draft Covenant makes clear provision for their exclusion if they fail to ”˜fall in line’: note the injunction “to heedthe counsel of the Instruments of Communion (para 4) and the reference to the Primates as giving direction (para 5.3). But far more specific is para 6, of this section: “where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.” To what else can this possibly refer, but to excluding Provinces which believe they are called to affirm committed same-sex partnerships? And yet this is being proposed while avoiding any further rigorous theological and hermeneutical debate on the matter, let alone a serious listening to our gay brothers and sisters in the Communion who long to be affirmed in their committed partnerships.
5) The Communion needs to acknowledge the reality of a re-assessment of certain teachings
Concerning the two crucial questions which connect us all in this wrestling debate, there are two realities: there is the reality of the traditional teaching which the majority still hold to, and there is the reality of a reassessment of the traditional teaching which many believe to be prompted by the Holy Spirit. It is these realities which need to be respected. It is the challenge of the above two questions which need to be addressed. How can the Communion set in motion what is in practice a ”˜process of exclusion’ when the theological and hermeneutical questions are at best being shelved, if not being deliberately avoided.
“How can the Communion set in motion what is in practice a ‘process of exclusion’ when the theological and hermeneutical questions are at best being shelved, if not being deliberately avoided.” They are not being avoided – one of them it being REJECTED.
To respect revisionist teaching is to concede the pre-eminence of revisionist presuppositions regarding Truth. This has implications far beyond homosexuality. Liberals are primarily interested in establishing that truth be determined according to liberal epistemology. So long as that foundation is laid, and all agree to build upon it, liberals will tolerate dissent. This is precisely why liberal teachings much not be respected, but instead must be driven out root and branch. Conservatives presuppositions must undergird the church. But then, that is the essense of the whole fight.
carl
If you want to change things, go start your own communion, your own church. It’s a free country. Ironically, because the orthodox were so tolerant for so long, they may find themselves in the position of having to start their own church to maintain 2000 years of consistent Christian teaching.
Rejection is such a terrible, awful, horrible, very bad thing! Like, if your eye offend thee, pluck it out. If your hand offend thee, cut it off. WHAT WAS JESUS THINKING? How could he have so misunderstood the “holy spirit” leading these folks today? It must be that terrible, awful, horrible, very bad Dominical hermaneutic! It must be rejected, er, um, ……….
#2 Carl,
Please elaborate.
The possibility of a change in teaching is not being shut out. However, actions that occur before new consensus are not prophetic actions, they are schismatic ones.
That Bishop Russell considers moral teaching to be adiaphora is telling indeed. If we are going to change the teaching of the Church on this, then we need to have scriptural and traditional warrant to do so.
So, make your arguments based on Scritpure, Tradition, and Reason. If the Communion rejects it, then it is settled until new arguments can be brought to bear. But, personally, I think we should move on. Constant focus on sexuality is taking away from the Mission of the Church to reconcile the world to God through Jesus Christ. The Sexuality Issue has been decided over and over again. The ACC has spoken. Lambeth has spoken. The primates have spoken. The Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken. Perhaps its time we start the listening process and listen to the Instruments of Unity.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
RE: “What has happened to the vital consideration of issues raised in the Windsor Report concerning ‘essentials and non-essentials’ (‘adiaphora’) – core doctrines as opposed to other teaching? (Windsor paras 36f, 49, 87f). All this is in practice being put to one side.”
Well . . . if you read the Windsor Report, it stated quite clearly that the issue of same gender sexual activity was not at all “adiaphora” . . . so no, it has not been set aside at all. The Windsor Report is being adhered to.
[#2]
Back when I still frequented Fr Jake’s site, I observed quickly a tendency to separate “true conservatives” from the “neo-puritans.” The former believed the traditional teachings. The later asserted everyone else was supposed to believe them as well. Jake had no problem with the former, but could not abide the later. It was a curious strategy because the “true conservatives” exist only in his imagination. To believe the traditional teachings is to believe all people are bound by them. Jake however was assuming the existence of a conservative who accepted liberal epistemology – someone who views truth as does a liberal, but arrives at conservative conclusions.
A conservative understands Truth to be sufficiently knowable. God created us to communicate, and can communicate with us despite our limitations. The means of that communication is the Scripture, which itself is sufficient to accomplish the take for which it was given. We can therefore say with sufficiency that many questions are closed. God has revealed His will, and all men are responsible to submit to it.
Liberals on the other hand believe the modern world has successfully destroyed biblical epistemology. Liberal religion is largely an attempt to salvage Christianity from this presumed shipwreck. They no longer believe the Scripture has divine authority, or indeed that God has reliably communicated anything to man. Instead they view truth as the outcome of a anthropocentic process – never achieved but always sought after. No questions are closed. Man seeks after the will of a patially-hidden, mostly silent god, and many find partial truths in the quest.
This explains (for example) why liberals chafe under the assertion that Jesus is the Only Way. It presumes a sufficieny of knowledge which they deny exists. To be able to make such a statement requires access to knowledge which man simply cannot possess. It is true liberals talk endlessly about the “leading of the Spirit”, but let them once stand forth and establish with sufficiency that they have in fact been led by the Spirit. They cannot do it, and will refuse to even try. I have asked this question – many times.
So to respect a liberal position on homosexuality is to tacitly admit that many questions are not closed with sufficiency. It tacitly denies that God has revealed anything to man. This of course is where liberals begin. And that is why they wish to establish it as the foundation. If a man begins from a liberal foundation, he must eventually reach liberal conclusions.
This is also why liberal teaching must be driven out. For this same logic will (and in fact already has) consumed the fundamentals of the Faith – the nature of God, the nature of man, the person and work of Christ. Our understand of each rests upon the authority and perspicuity of Scripture. But it is precisely the authority and perspicuity of Scripture which liberals reject. They offer only themselves as a substitute. This is way along the wide road.
carl
Beautifully put, carl. Thank-you.
#9
It’s not beautifully put: it’s virtually illiterate.
Carl: could you at least begin by using the SpellCheck?
[#10] You are right about the typos. I probably should have used Word instead of Notepad, but you live and learn. I was thinking this morning how nice it would be to have the ability to edit posts. As for the rest, how shall I ever recover from the scars of your stinging rebuke?
carl
The active brain can read through typos and understand substance, JS.
Or was the substance a little too close to home for your comfort?
I stand by my comment – nice job, Carl.
MJD_NV
Tnaks … Oh drat … I meant, Thanks for the kind words. 🙂
carl
RE: “how shall I ever recover from the scars of your stinging rebuke?”
I am sure it will be difficult. Perhaps therapy?
;> )
Hi Carl,
I am really appreciating what you are writing here.
To summarize how I am understanding it, the “liberal position” carries the underlying assumption that God has not clearly communicated through Scripture and Tradition,
This helps me understand why they will pantomine confusion and befuddlement at the most obvious passages. This is part of establishing the necessary foundation that Scripture is too hard to understand.
With regard to the claims that they are being led by the Holy Spirit, my understanding of what you are saying is that they have no discernment process other than congruence with their own desires.
Orthodox Christian discernment relies on congruence with Scripture and Tradition. For liberals to use such discernment methods would undermine their foundational claim that God has not clearly communicated through Scripture.
Is there a reason you use “liberal” instead of “progressive”?
Deja Vu
Not really. I tend to use “progressive” on liberal blogs because that is the title they choose for themselves. I wish I had a word without the political overtones. “Heretic” is accurate, but people think it carries negative connotations for some reason. 😉
Except for the fact that I would never equate Tradition with Scripture, I thought your summary quite adequate. But I appreciate your kind comments. Now I must retire to my therapist in a hopeless effort to restore my shattered self-esteem.
carl