Quite bluntly, Presiding Bishop Curry is resurrecting a 20 year old term to further dilute the teaching of the Anglican Communion. The message from TEC is that if it’s not part of the “Core Doctrine” of the Christian faith everyone should agree to disagree and just move on. You see, “core doctrine” is yet another attempt by TEC to refashion Anglicanism into something that is entirely other than Biblically faithful.
This is the problem with the term “core doctrine” and how Presiding Bishop Curry is using it. It can mean anything you want it to mean, or need it to mean, for your purposes. It has no objective standard or rule against which it can be measured””other than the thin gruel the Righter Court stated in its bullet points.
It is clear that Curry is using a flawed definition of “core doctrine” that has its roots in the Righter trial judgement. I wonder if they teach this in seminary? The poisonous ideas of twenty years ago continue to eat away at the Episcopal church.
According to the Revised Revisionist Dictionary,
[blockquote] DOCTRINE: What we choose to teach and believe. “That “consubstantial with the Father†stuff may be your doctrine, but it’s not mine.â€[/blockquote]
I will accept your submissions for inclusion as the definition of “Core Doctrine” to the [url=http://lowly.blogspot.com/2013/01/revisionist-dictionary-revised-and-re.html]Revised Revisionist Dictionary[/url].
I’d classify Lambeth 1.10 as “core doctrine” and would note that TEC has no written explicit doctrine to the contrary.