The text does not mention same-sex partnerships. It is worded to apply more generally to any future controversy. Whenever an innovation by one province is opposed by another, the standing committee’s judgment will become the Anglican teaching. Step by step Anglicanism will accumulate teachings to which all are expected to assent. We shall be turned from an inclusive church into a confessional one.
Defenders of classic Anglicanism prefer the opposite. We should allow differences of opinion as signs of growth; it is the intolerant who are being un-Anglican. Our Christian duty is not just to accept inherited dogmas but to acknowledge our errors and welcome new insights, using the full range of God-given faculties ”“ so that our faith will continually be made new, creative and exciting.
Why should Anglicans or even Christians believe any thing in common?
The Standing Committee decides doctrine and teaching. That’s rich. Mephistopheles is proud. Good thing they don’t trust the bishops. LOL.
[blockquote]The Elizabethan theologian Richard Hooker argued instead for a balance between scripture, reason and tradition, because all have limitations.[/blockquote]That is not what Hooker taught. The stool has three legs (to use that much later metaphor), but Hooker’s legs are not equal. Tradition and reason are quite clearly subservient to scripture:
[blockquote]“What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever†( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).[/blockquote]
This piece is one massive rewriting of the history of Anglicanism to suit a particular agenda. The church that counts the 39 Articles among its foundational documents has no confessional basis? Pull the other one please.
[blockquote] This willingness to question everything and disagree without expelling each other made progress possible in 17th and 18th century England – not only in religion but also in science.[/blockquote]
[url=http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/free_to_think_caroline_crocker036671.html]Science is not so open to debate anymore …[/url]
That’s a doozy. So according to Clatworthy, defenders of ‘classic Anglicanism’ embrace and bless porneia? Classic something, perhaps, but his arguments bear little resemblence to classic Anglicanism.
🙄