A final comment about the significance of the covenant and the process of its adoption is in order. For many, if not most, the covenant will be viewed simply as a means of dispute settlement. It certainly is that, and for this reason the Appendix containing procedures for dispute settlement is an essential part of the document. Failure to include such a procedure renders the covenant ineffective from the outset. However, to focus primary attention on the settlement of disputes is to miss the significance of the process and its outcome. The basic issue before the Communion as it struggles to adopt a covenant is that of the identity of the Anglican Communion as an expression of catholic Christianity. How is it that Anglicans propose to negotiate the passage of time in a way that both remains faithful to the apostolic witness and bears witness to the Christian Gospel in ways suitably adapted to time and place? The St Andrew’s Draft makes clear that the Anglican way is not that of the Roman Catholic Church with its focus on papal authority and a uniform juridical system. As articulated in the draft, the Anglican way is also not the way of the Orthodox Churches with their focus not on pervasive synodality but upon ecumenical councils (which now seem impossible to assemble). I have indicated as well that it ought not to be the way adopted by the confessional churches of the Reformation.
The way proposed by the St. Andrew’s Draft and WR is that of common belief and practice expressed in common worship, common ministry, mutual support, and open hospitality, all sustained by the practice of mutual subjection expressed by forbearance and restraint over time within a conciliar polity. This way is the way that indeed pervades the witness of the New Testament, but it is a way that cannot prevail through time unless commonly understood and commonly supported.
I have written this response in large measure to make this final point. I can only hope and pray that in the midst of the push and pull of politics and ideological difference it will not be forgotten that Anglicans are in this debate giving identity to themselves. In its “Introduction” (#4), the St Andrew’s Draft mentions a special Anglican “charism among the followers and servants of Jesus”, but does not actually say what that is. Taken as a whole, however, the draft in fact puts that charism on display and in so doing asks that we take notice of it, cherish it, and offer it to the Christian churches for testing.
[blockquote]
VOL: Will a Covenant ultimately bring us altogether?
Venables: Since we don’t stand together on Scripture or the creeds, it is unlikely that a covenant will do what they (Scripture and creeds) have failed to do. If we don’t stand on these two basic foundations, we are unlikely to stand on a Covenant regardless of how many drafts are written or how long it takes. The likelihood is that the language will be so nuanced that even orthodox folk will think that something has been said to satisfy them, when in fact it hasn’t.[/blockquote]
We have incompatible viewpoints. One simply has to choose between the two. Trying to hold them together will only produce anguish and the work of the Gospel of Christ, on the one hand, and the work of the gospel of the homosexualists will both suffer.
Unfortunately, this important article by Dr. Phil Turner seems to be attracting little comment here. That’s too bad, as his thoughtful and perceptive observations and pleas are always worthy of careful consideration.
But like robroy above (#1), I find Dr. Turner’s assessment completely unconvincing. To get to the heart of it, the basic problem with this eloquent and moving but flawed appeal for patient “mutual submission” begs the essential question. That is, such mutual submission is only appropriate WITHIN the Christian community, among fellow believers and disciples. But are the earnest proponents of the “gay is OK” delusion my fellow Christians? I say a resounding and emphatic NO. They are deluded heretics. Hence mutual submission is simply ruled out from the start.
Dr. Turner, like the Windsor Report, loves to cite the grand cosmic vision of Ephesions, where the Church is the sign and insturment of God reconciling all things to himself in Christ (e.g., Eph. 1:10), as the controlling text in this endless dispute. And Ephesians does call for mutual submission (in 4:1-3 and not just among husbands and wives, as in 5:21). But we dare not take this call for patient forbearance and humility and “making every effort to maintain the unity OF THE SPIRIT” out of context, as so many have done. For the unity spoken of here is not merely a superficial institutional unity, but a real unity, including a genuine unity in faith, that comes from the Holy Spirit.
If you’ll pardon this mini-sermon, it seems to me that Dr. Turner, and the noble team at ACI and Fulcrum, have fallen into this common trap of taking certain appealing parts of Ephesians out of context and thus abusing the sacred text. And alas, this also applies to the drafters of the illustrious but severely flawed Windsor Report, including +Tom Wright.
For besides there being just “one Body and one Spirit, one Lord, …, one baptism, one God and Father of all,” there is also just “one faith” (Eph. 4:4-6). And that faith has definite doctrinal limits and content. That is, of course, to admit that I am an unashamed “confessionalist” (in Turner’s terms).
David Handy+
Continuing my little homily from #2,
To elaborate a bit more, Dr. Turner’s call for patient forbearance and mutual submission begs the all important point, are the advocates of the pro-gay gospel in fact fellow Christians? Yes, they are Anglicans, but are they Christians?? For it is only to fellow believers and disciples that mutual submission is appropriate and indeed necessary.
That is, recall more of the context of Ephesians as a whole. “The truth” that Christians are called to speak to one another (Eph. 4:15) has a definite content, and that content is doctrinal. For the preceeding verse makes it very clear, that “the truth” we are to speak to each other here is in stark contrast to “every wind of DOCTRINE” by which people then, as now, were being blown to and fro (Eph. 4:14).
And we must take to heart the stern call in Ephesians 5 to stop associating with those who promote loose and ungodly moral standards within the Church. We Anglicans desperately need to heed these unsettling and disturbing words:
“But sexual immorality (i.e., porneia, the generic Greek word for all sex outside of marriage and not just “fornication” in the usual sense) and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you” (Eph. 5:3).
“Be sure of this, that no sexually immoral person…has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient” (Eph. 5:5-6). That is, homosexual behavior is not only a communion-breaking issue, it’s a salvation issue. Those who engage in it, however sincerely they may be deluded into thinking it’s morally permissible, are indeed at severe risk of losing their eternal salvation.
And finally, the clincher. “Therefore, DO NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM” (Eph. 5:7). This precludes any “mutual submission.” Or sharing eucharist. Or exchanging the Peace of Christ (which the self-decieved advocates of the “gay is OK” delusion don’t have to give in any case).
The WR, ACI approach is wrong-headed. It aims to preserve a false and shallow unity. “A house that is divided against itself cannot stand.”
The organizers of GAFCon who absolutely refuse to share communion with heretics like the PB are absolutely right. Ephesians 5:7 trumps 4:3 here.
Mutual submission is only appropriate among Christians. Sadly, the PB and her tragically deceived ilk don’t qualify.
David Handy+