….Dr. Radner takes issue with our description of a consensus: that a few should not be able to prevent an action representing the wish of the vast majority. He seems to imply that the conscience of the few should count. If so, then what does he make of those people, priests, Dioceses and Provinces who cannot go along with the supposed “virtual unanimity” in the communion? His claim validates positional authority, vested in the current Instruments of Communion, to override the eddies underneath the surface. We acknowledge that the Christian tradition has opposed homosexual relationships of any kind. It is a strong tradition which must have its respected voice. From our pastoral engagement, however, we realise that the received tradition on homosexuality no longer holds sway over significant number of people in our Diocese. We respect that it still has authority over many among us, and within a vast majority of Anglicans in the world whose contexts are not ours. But what of those who in good conscience, like the homosexually inclined person described by Rowan Williams, do not agree with it? They, too, are caught between holding together their loyalty to their conscience and their loyalty to the Communion, and in parts of Canada and elsewhere, loyalty to their bishop. This is certainly a difficult tension, but hardly a new or an impossible position in which to be. We ask again, but will they be given the same protection and freedom customarily extended to theological minorities in the Diocese of Toronto and is extended again clearly in the Guidelines? All too often majority is invoked to force compliance. When that happens we are not talking about authority, only power, and it frequently backfires. When the majority fails to listen to the real needs and pains of the minority, and when they do not help work out a legitimate way to accommodate, the minority often act inappropriately. We, as bishops of Toronto, by these Guidelines aim at foreswearing coercion and are willing to live in the tensions created while continued discernment is engaged. We appeal to others to do the same.
But neither will we be coerced. This can come from many directions, from those who believe we are too timid and from those who believe we are too bold. In the end, those who have power in the Communion will decide what to do with Dr. Radner’s accusation and do with us what they will, or not. We on our part are happy to maintain the bonds of affection with all members of the Communion, and eager to collaborate in Christ’s mission with any who are willing. We are also eager to continue the dialogue and listening that Professor O’Donovan commends and have committed ourselves to those processes across the Communion. While ready to make an account of our actions, we do not make a habit of answering every charge in public, but a person of Dr. Radner’s stature warrants an exception.
Read it all and note that Dr. Radner has responded to their response.
“But what of those who in good conscience, like the homosexually inclined person described by Rowan Williams, do not agree with it? They, too, are caught between holding together their loyalty to their conscience and their loyalty to the Communion, and in parts of Canada and elsewhere, loyalty to their bishop.”
Maybe folks should be more concerned with being “loyal” to the scriptures.
I don’t seem to find the full text through the link.
They seem to be really scared. I like the line “violates positional authority”. This ongoing trainwreck has utterly destroyed any kind of deference I once had toward positional authority. I can no longer pull the wool over my own eyes as I once did. I don’t respect ecclesiastical office any more, but rather relate to it pragmatically and based on personal relationships.
“We acknowledge that the Christian tradition has opposed homosexual relationships of any kind. It is a strong tradition which must have its respected voice. From our pastoral engagement, however, we realise that the received tradition on homosexuality no longer holds sway over significant number of people in our Diocese”.
And that’s a reason to flout tradition?
How about an edit:
“We acknowledge that the Christian tradition has opposed adulterous relationships of any kind. It is a strong tradition which must have its respected voice. From our pastoral engagement, however, we realise that the received tradition on adultery no longer holds sway over a significant number of people in our Diocese”.
Oooo, I’m calling my husband to let him know I’m calling my boyfriend–news flash: We are blessed!!!
They’ve got to be kidding me…No wonder Dr. Radner is frustrated. Prayers for all concerned…
A Senior Priest said,
” I don’t respect ecclesiastical office any more, but rather relate to it pragmatically and based on personal relationships.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Is it possible that the gay rights issue has been a secondary issue all along?
Is it possible that a primary goal of the revisionists has been to destroy the credibiloity of ECUSA, and more broadly the Anglican Communion, and thus destroy episcopal hierarchy that they see as ‘constraining’ and ‘archaic’ and an ‘impediment’ to establishing a ‘populist’ church in which the ‘secular will’ of the transient whims of an ever shifting majority molds the faith in accordances with current secular social forces?
A traditional Anglican church, i.e., episcopally run church, should by definition ‘control’ and ‘lead’ its clergy and laity in accordance with both Scripture and the “…the Faith once given…” by the Apostolic Church.
Yup, AnglicanFirst, anything hierarchical is grossly out-of-date. Everybody’s just supposed to do what they want and run their own show.
The discussion between Dr. Radner and the Bishops of Toronto is fascinating. If you step back, it seems like part of a much, much grander current of history. Since 1500, in the West, while the Catholic Church has remained a (the?) major Christian institution, a lot of energy and talent have gone into the dissenting churches–including the Anglican Communion. I assume most Protestants would believe that this has been a good thing. But the problem with dissent and separation is where, if any where, does it stop? Neither a static, monolithic church nor a completely chaotic, atomized church seems like a good idea. The Anglican Communion seems to be in something of a crisis, and we are grasping for doctrine and instruments of doctrine which we have never had (or have always been very weak). Ironically, the TEC has it toughest: insisting on its unconditional right to dissent within the Communion, while trying to play hardball with its own dissent. Certainly, the hand of God must be at work. Bismarck: “A statesman… must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events, then leap up and grasp the hem of His garment.” Thy will be done!
Really insightful post, Old Guy. I like Margaret Thatcher (PBUH)’s quote, “Never make a decision until you absolutely must.”
Kudos to “Old Guy”, who says it all:
“Ironically, the TEC has it toughest: insisting on its unconditional right to dissent within the Communion, while trying to play hardball with its own dissent”.
It seems like when you are lost, you try to back up to where you were not lost and then try to get back on track. When I was confirmed, over 40 years ago, I had to memorize the Apostles Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments. While I tend to flinch at some churches that require members to sign a “personal covenant”, I must admit that–after all this time, after all my different experiencs–I am still comfortable with all three of these statements of faith, I think word for word. For eternal purposes, I am happy to leave to God who are really Christians and who are saved; but maybe, for human purposes, we need to focus on “catholic and apostalic” churches. I have taken, several times, the oath to defend the U.S. Constitution (with all its vagueness and disputes)–and can live with the rule that I can’t hold certain positions if I refuse to. Likewise, if someone does not want to be “catholic and apostalic” that is okay and maybe they can still claim to be Christian or even true Christians; they just should not be in a position of leadership in a “catholic and apostalic” church if they don’t. That probably does not resolve 80% of what we Anglicans currently argue about, but it seems to be going back to our roots, back to a good, solid beginning. And there may still be divisions–for very good reasons–between catholic and apostalic churches (think Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox), but it still might help to re-establish a core that can be built around by like minded (apostalic) Christians. Maybe just the Apostles Creed is sufficient. I suspect those early Christians adopted it to help them with the same problems we face now. I suspect it would be a mistake to try to increase ASA at the cost of anything stated in the Creed.
“Likewise, if someone does not want to be “catholic and apostalic†that is okay and maybe they can still claim to be Christian or even true Christians; they just should not be in a position of leadership in a “catholic and apostalic†church if they don’t.”
Very logical and sound reasoning, Old Guy….Problem is, the term ‘sexual orientation’ has been written into the TEC canons so that unrepentant homosexuals have a right to both membership and leadership in the church. Scripture does not recognize homosexual desire as a separate identity or exempt anyone from the call to repentance, confession and obedience to Scripture, or to sexual purity/chastity outside of heterosexual marriage as a careful reading of Romans 1:18-32 and I Corinthians 6:9-20 will show.
[blockquote]”In the end, those who have power in the Communion will decide what to do with Dr. Radner’s accusation and do with us what they will, or not. We on our part are happy to maintain the bonds of affection with all members of the Communion”[/blockquote]
Unfortunately, this seems be the Bishops of Toronto’s gotcha statement. Tradition (not to mention Scripture and theology) seems to provide an entertaining discussion point and provide an opportunity to claim minority status but the bottom line seems to be that decisions will be made by those who have quietly worked their way into positions of power in what is left of the Anglican Communion.
Yes, bettcee, I also read it as, “we are happy to maintain the bonds of affection, do with us what you will, but we’re still going to do what we want”.
So much for anything that remotely resembles a vow of obedience…
IRT 11. Confessor. Good point, and I agree that the Apostles Creed would not resolve the sexual orientation issues. However, I think the real problems of the church go much, much deeper than the sexual orientation issue–and go back decades. If so, we all have some responsibility. Sexual orientation may be a very motivating issue (on both sides), but I think it is of a deeper concern that a Presiding Bishop could publicly state that the world is the body of God and refuse to say that there is anything unique about Jesus (both contrary to the Apostles Creed). I think pantheism clearly puts you outside the faith, but apparently the TEC leadership and its membership does not. If this is not the position of the TEC, doesn’t the Presiding Bishop need to withdraw her statements or resign?