If the work of the Lambeth Conference is in fact to strengthen rather than weaken the Communion in the days and years to come, we are firmly convinced that the bishops there assembled must find ways to address in a constructive manner several key issues.
First and foremost among these is the already announced intention of a significant number of bishops within TEC to allow clergy within their dioceses to bless unions between members of the same gender. This course of action is patently contrary to Lambeth resolution 1:10, the Windsor Report, the Dar as Salaam Communiqué, and the positions of all the Instruments of Communion. Further, the dioceses in question are well known, having made their intentions quite public. To ignore what can only be understood as defiance of the mind of the Communion will serve only to increase the jurisdictional battles now being waged. It will also weaken both the credibility and moral authority of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops and the integrity of the Anglican Communion as a whole.
A second issue that requires immediate attention is the vulnerable state of those Anglo Catholic dioceses and parishes in TEC that do not believe that the ordination of women is in accord with catholic tradition….
Standard ACI dribble – “Can’t we all just get along?”
The train has already left the station – the handwringing is heartrending, but a complete waste of time.
Do not cut the baby in two and be done with it, but rather cut out the cancer of TEC and the AoC and quite likely the CoE and move on with GAFCON.
#1 this statement is hardly a just “can’t we all just get along?” missive. I am anxious to see the resolve of the Communion Partners (is that the special interest group in line with ACI?) when and if these issues are addressed at Lambeth. What will the ACI and the CPs say if Lambeth proves to be inadequate to the task? More importantly, what will they do?
#2, my comment was principally directed at the tone of moral equivalence struck by ACI. As to the CP players, most just aren’t there having recognized this Lambeth for the sham it is.
#1 I am unclear as to how you came to the conclusion that this article is referring in any sense, to a claim that we “all might simply get along?” Could you please explain your comment?
Move on with GAFCON? How. As this article itself pointed out, what has been articulated at GAFCON are ideas. If we are to move on, we must have some idea of how that would take place. How would we be ordered? “As a federation or as a Communion?” This matters very much. How would authority within this new structure work? You might want to take a closer look before you call for us to leap.
We’ve spent the last 500 years leaping. I have the truth, no I have the truth, no I do – a few thousand denominations later we seem no closer to the truth. Instead of witnessing to the pursuit of truth in a tension of unity, a unity to which God calls us, we’ve instead reveled in self defined pursuit of truth that has simply witnessed to sin: division. Quit advocating for schism, or acceptance of schism. You do not have the truth, nor do I, nor does GAFCON, nor the Roman Catholic Church, nor the Eastern Orthodox. The more we divide, the more our truths become shaped after our own particular ideologies. The truth is found in the whole Church as Christ and the Spirit were given to the whole Church. But of course we’re divided therefore we only see a piece of the truth as is. The more we divide, the less we can see and hear the truth and the more we become shaped by our own ideologies whether conservative or liberal. As I have said before in other posts: stop leaping, stop dividing or seeking to cut out the sinful part of the body, rather serve where you are; there is no ‘pure church and we can’t create it.
The good and thoughtful folks at ACI are unfortunately still under the badly mistaken impression that Lambeth is supposed to “address” anything. It’s purpose is JUST the opposite, to obscure, not to address with frankness. Thus, ACI’s analysis is wide of the mark.
OP, perhaps you could tell us some things that are or are not the truth. For example, is Jesus Christ really THE way, THE truth and THE life with NO OTHER WAY available for us to come to the Father or are there other viable options because God isn’t’ really cool on small boxes? Are the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds good to go in toto and unaltered and without fingers crossed behind one’s back during recitation or are there fine points to be considered?
It is well documented significant players in TEC have real trouble embracing our Saviors plain words and those of the Creeds which have defined the Christian faith for centuries. The differences are really pretty stark and not terribly nuanced. If we can weed out a few of the really big untruths we might very well find quite a bit of common ground and potentially move forward in true discussion rather than play at the sparring tactics TEC favors in the exercise of raw power politics.
But trying to find just the right key in which to sing Kumbaya is the old and wrong answer when vainly hoping to mix oil and water.
#5 It may turn out that it does obscure; however, to suggest that Lambeth is not intended to “address” anything and that its purpose is to obscure seems quite wide of the mark.
Shall we simply continue to walk away from the things that do not work as we believe they should? I’m very curious as to what you might propose as a superior alternative? As I have said, I find that these continual efforts to seek out ‘more truthful expressions’ of our faith have simply led to continued division – which of course to the world just looks like typical human bickering; not faithful witness. I am open to hearing your thoughts about how we might faithfully go about a practical way forward given where we are at present.
#6 Yes, I would certainly hold to Christ’s death and resurrection as being solely and sufficiently our means of salvation and of our coming to the Father. I would also hold to the Creeds unaltered and without fingers crossed behind back. I would indeed hold to these things as truth; what I would not do however, is walk away from those who do not share these convictions. Why? Why not cut off the “cancer?” Because I don’t know how God may use my witness to what I believe are these truths to help shape and form those whom I don’t agree with in TEC (or in my case the ACofC). I mean, look at what God did with Peter when Peter denied Jesus; look at how Peter then played just a minor role in our Church.
Yes, this makes sense. But to weed out untruths, I would argue that we cannot abandon the field no matter how weeded it gets.
The Covenant Agreement offers a way forward that seeks to maintain our traditional faith. We have a proposal for a Church structure, that if exercised, would enable for the discernment of Scripture across time. What I don’t see from GAFCON is any means of going forward, theoretical proposals yes, but no practical means. My guess would be that the extreme right and left, TEC and the ACofC, and extreme conservatives will never sign onto a Covenant Agreement; they will simply cut themselves off. The Covenant calls for a structure that would call for adherence to truths of our historical faith and a faithful way (accountable both to God and to one another) of discerning Scripture as we face new issues and challenges.
But we must allow for this process to work. We need to wait and allow God to shape the outcome, not try to force it ourselves. And this is of course the hard part; the part that almost seems as though it isn’t faithful. Let us not go rushing off to try and form a structure according to GAFCON which would divide us yet again, but according to our own effort. Let us instead wait; time is not ours, it is God’s and we need to submit to that reality (doing otherwise is a trait rather typical of the liberal TEC and ACofC movement). We have a process in motion to develop a structure that could enable us to ‘hear’ what God is saying through diverse voices held together in mutual accountability and entered into through the willingness of its members. This would seem to me a more fruitful way forward, and one in keeping with Christ’s obedience to the Father.
Another observation. Perhaps it is not ‘truth’ per se that is at issue; rather it is the means of articulating, discerning, living, teaching and discipling according to the truth that is my concern. As identified above, there are particular truths to which we do hold according to our historical faith; the Trinity, Christ as sole and sufficient sacrifice for our sins, creeds, marriage and sex between a man and wife. There are most certainly very clear Scriptural directions concerning many issues. Others, i.e. women’s ordination, are not as Scripturally clear. So the key issue then, is how we go about discerning the diversity of issues, new and old, that we face. I should have been more clear about that above. My apologies. Peace.