We are beginning to see the thrust of the controlling theology here at Lambeth.
First, all views should be represented. There is a continual knawing at the bone that over a quarter of the bishops invited are not here. This has been raised by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his welcome address, and Bishop de Chickera in the opening sermon. Archbishop Philip Aspinall commented on this at length in answer to a question at the opening press conference. His answer is illuminating.
He said in answer to a question: “I am greatly saddened by Archbishop Jensen’s decision not to come. Sydney comes from the evangelical tradition ”“ a vital part ”“ and that perspective will be weaker because they are not here. We will have to find other ways to engage that perspective. It will delay us. Other bishops have important things to say that they (the Sydney bishops) need to hear. There is sadness among us all.”
In other words, the liberal vision is to have all views expressed at a meeting. However, this will always be in the controlling framework of being on a journey and never being able to settle on an answer.
At the end of his article, Chris Sugden – for although the Anglican Mainstream article is anonymous, the style is clearly recognisable – states:
[blockquote]In that case the most effective counterargument to the imperialism of ideas is simply not to turn up.[/blockquote]
I disagree. I agree with Kendall Harmon that it is a strategic mistake for conservatives not to attend the Lambeth Conference in numbers. The Conference will be discussing the future shape of the Anglican Communion.
I also agree with David Gitari, former Archbishop of Kenya, that it is better to argue your case in court rather than to be powerless and try to hold a protest on the steps outside.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Presidential Address to the Lambeth Conference today, 20 July 2008, is available [url=http://www.aco.org/vault/Lambeth opening address.pdf]here.[/url]
His address does not seem to me to be carrying the ‘controlling theology’ or the ‘imperialism of ideas’ mentioned in the Anglican Mainstream article. It is worth reading in full.
The link I gave in my last comment to the pdf file does not seem to be working.
The link to the article on the Lambeth Conference site referring to the address is [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/daily/news.cfm/2008/7/20/ACNS4440]here.[/url] At the end of the article is the link to the text.
The following quotation from the Presidential Address by the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to me to provide considerable hope for a Covenant which will be more robust than bland.
[blockquote]There will undoubtedly, in our time together, be some tough questions about how far we really want to go on in promising mutual listening and restraint for the sake of each other.
That’s why a Covenant should not be thought of as a means for excluding the difficult or rebellious, but as an intensification – for those who so choose – of relations that already exist. And those who in consciense could not make those intensified commitments are not thereby shut off from all fellowship; it is just that they have chosen not to seek that kind of unity, for reasons that may be utterly serious and prayerful. Whatever the popular perception, the options before us are not irreparable schism or forced assimilation. We need to think through what all this involves in the conviction that all our existing bonds of friendship and fellowship are valuable and channels of grace, even if some want to give such bonds a more formal and demanding shape.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]In other words, the liberal vision is to have all views expressed at a meeting. However, this will always be in the controlling framework of being on a journey and never being able to settle on an answer.[/blockquote]
This is the major problem with theological liberalism. We are to journey together, but never be “able to settle on an answer.”
I have settled on an answer – Jesus Christ. The problem is that so many versions of “Jesus Christ” are being presented. One is the “vehicle to the divine” for Christians. Another is a Jewish “guru” or good teacher. Another is a person who is just more intouch with the divine within himself than we are. Another is the person who practices “radical inclusion.”
The Jesus Christ that I take for the answer is the unique Son of God – Very God from Very God. He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Jesus Christ is the one whom death could not contain. Gurus are not stronger than death. People who practice “radical inclusion” are not stronger than death. Vehicles to the divine are not stronger than death. Jesus Christ, the one through whom all things were made, is stronger than death. We know this Jesus (as opposed to the other versions being proclaimed) through Holy Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church. While I do not know all truth, I am in personal relationship with The Truth and I am part of the body that has been said to be a continuation of the Incarnation – the Church. When the Church is in relationship with its head – Jesus Christ and follows the teachings of the Apostles (is catholic and apostolic), then it is one and holy. Theological liberalism does not want to settle on an answer because it does not like the answer given.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Five comments I read as I clicked on this link. FOUR I find are from Graham Kings are less than convincing, but it was definitely worth clicking on this link to read Phil Snyder’s comment. Thank you Phil.
Inspiring stuff. I’m powerfully reminded of the councils of the church fathers, how they got together in their groups after a retreat and shared peacefully together, determined to attend to the rich variety of each other’s truths and not rush to bring out statements, resolutions and anathemas.
Or indeed with the newtestamentical indaba process where Jesus respectfully listened to the truths shared by people ranging from the Pharisees to the adulterous woman who was almost stoned, holding them wonderfully together with the truths of the Father in one, big, broad new covenant community.