The just-completed Lambeth Conference opened itself to instant ridicule by doing little more than talking and keeping a formal split at bay for the moment. Liberals refused to declare an ultimatum that would force the dissenters to stay or go. Some were angered by what they saw as Lambeth’s toothlessness. Conservatives didn’t quite defect, though many scoffed at Lambeth as a waste of time and $12 million, and proclaimed their readiness to quit.
But to dismiss the conference as a failure of nerve would miss the point that is so vividly illustrated in this crisis: that Christianity itself, in all of its varieties, is a fragile thing indeed. There is every reason to believe that Anglicanism is beset by as many serious moral and theological problems as any church body. The distinctions arise in how denominations meet those challenges.
The Anglican way of openness to opposing views and a decentralized form of government that allows for broad deliberation has much to commend it. Like democracy with which it shares much, Anglican decision making is messy and inefficient, but it comports well with what many leading historians believe to be the method used by the churches of early Christianity. It allows for considerable diversity in belief and practices but sometimes an issue like homosexuality becomes divisive and demands attention.
The archbishop of Canterbury more resembles the Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople as the “first among equals” than he does the pope. He can do almost nothing by himself. At every level, from parishes to dioceses to regions to the world conferences, Anglicans argue and vote. The question is whether this is a God-given means of deciding church teaching. In some form or other, it appears that the early church believed it to be.
[blockquote]The archbishop of Canterbury more resembles the Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople as the “first among equals†than he does the pope. He can do almost nothing by himself. At every level, from parishes to dioceses to regions to the world conferences, Anglicans argue and vote. The question is whether this is a God-given means of deciding church teaching. In some form or other, it appears that the early church believed it to be. [/blockquote]
But the Orthodox have a very solid core doctrine which their bishops actively enforce. No one will accuse the Anglicans of that these days. You can deny virtually any aspect of Christian core belief and still be confident you won’t be held accountable.
“The question is whether this is a God-given means of deciding church teaching. In some form or other, it appears that the early church believed it to be.”
Pardon me for asking for historical proof of this assertion. I am aware of none, zero, zilch. From the Jerusalem conference of the Acts of the Apostles, no vote noted. Paul did not require the Corinthians to vote but opposed their latitudinarianism. There is not a single text to support this voting business assertion until Nicea and then it was the bishops assembled. After knock-down argumentation and physicality, according to some reports.
But the Lame-beth shambles was DESIGNED to prevent any such voting because the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC and ACCanada would have been out on their glutes in a single session! So, where is the historicity in this appeal to allegations about early church mannerisms?
This is a liberal article in a liberal (read: dissident) paper. No one I know of from NCR except John Allen, (who works hard to be fair at least), is really worth reading except the way you would read Sherrod to find out how the other side thinks. And I agree, #2, he pulled that comment about the early church out of his hat!
Ummm…do the Orthodox laity “vote” in determining doctrine and discipline?
“You can agree with or disagree with the archbishop, but please dont claim he is a powerless bystander. He has a lot of power, and he uses it to support the side of the dispute that he favors, while making concessions to isolate, of if possible, appease or the other side. ”
This post from another blog shows the truth about ABC, he has spoken, with his own beliefs and betrayed God and the Communion. By inviting Robinson’s consecrators, he has approved what they did, and slapped every orthodox Anglican in the face. GAFCON should seperate now and let ABC and Queen Katie and the boys do their own thing on their own.