The difficulty is that the two opposing viewpoints are based on non-compatible reference systems: one is based on human reasoning and feelings, the other on the revealed Word of God. One is right, the other is not, and you can’t compromise and cut the baby in half, so that each belief system has half of what they wanted. The consecration of Mary Glasspool is representative of the determination of TEC to do as it pleases with regard to the faith and morals of the church, and coupled with prior statements by many of the leading bishops of TEC disputing the claims of Jesus to be the only way to the Father, and disputing the claims of authority for Holy Scripture, it is a reconfiguration of what it means to be Christian in the Western world, and an opportunity for an aggressive evangelism of this new gospel to all parts of the world, but especially targeting Africa.
It would be interesting if folks could provide some documentation for the “charm offensive” that +David Anderson refers to here, especially the attempt to bribe African or GS dioceses into silence or public neutrality in this Anglican civil war. I’m not so sure as he is that companion relationships between dioceses in TEC and orthodox ones overseas are so bad. At least not always. But I am suspicious of them all the same, and particularly when the provinces the dioceses are from are in a state of imparied or broken communion.
I was certainly proud of ++Daniel Deng Bul of Sudan when he stunned TEC’s leaders, who had waged a protracted “charm offensive” in his case, by scolding and rebuking them so publicly at Lambeth in 2008.
Just as the AAC has been documenting the unjust depostion of faithful priests who’ve left TEC for another Anglican jurisdiction, I hope that the AAC staff are also seeking to accumulate evidence that proves how TEC has been quietly seeking to buy the silence of orthodox bishops abroad. Not very edifying stuff, but it’s important. As Scripture enjoins us, we’re to [i]”Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them”[/i] (Eph. 5:11).
David Handy+
Very interesting. I think he is correct. What is often explained as a simple difference of opinion on the interpretation of a few passages of Scripture is in reality two completely different conceptions of the Christian faith with regards to the nature of…
Jesus (fully God, fully man, Lord and Savior v. a good teacher/enlightened one)
The Gospel (forgiveness, redemption, adoption, and sanctification through the life, atoning death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus v. infinite inclusion and unconditional love by way of Jesus’ example)
The Creeds (the true summary, foundation, and essence of our faith v. a show of solidarity)
Salvation (Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life v. Jesus is my way, my truth, and my life…but you might have another)
The Church (the elect community of the redeemed and redeeming v. a safe place for all sorts of people to work out their various spiritual journeys as they see fit)
The Sacraments (the gifts of God for the people of God v. optional baptism & open communion)
The Scriptures (Inspired Revelation v. Inspiring but frequently flawed Story)
Sexuality (as dictated by Scripture, Tradition, and Reason v. as dictated by my feelings and desires)
Priesthood/Bishopric (a calling and gift from God on His terms v. a “right†to be fought for)
Etc.