The publication of the communiqué from the recent London meeting of the GAFCON Primates’ Council (report, page 1) marks a further development of what is termed a “movement” within Anglicanism. The development is particularly significant because of the impetus given to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) and because of the formation of a secretariat. One thus sees three strands to this formalised, traditional Anglican movement: first, a Primates’ Council; second, a wider body (the FCA) which is open to membership of individuals, Churches, dioceses, provinces and parachurch organisations; and third, a secretariat. A further and most significant aspect of the GAFCON Primates’ communiqué is the reference to the possible formation of a province in North America for the Common Cause Partnership. This would very probably have serious funding implications for The Episcopal Church, USA and possibly also for the Anglican Communion itself and its Communion-wide organisations.
All of this witnesses to a structured Anglican realignment, although the GAFCON constituency remains in communion with the See of Canterbury. However, what is happening all round is certainly not bringing everyone together and, as we know, there are those bishops now who simply will not receive Holy Communion with fellow bishops. Nor does the proposal to have an Anglican Covenant fare well in the GAFCON Primates’ communiqué.
The fact of the matter, however, is that the traditionalist point of view in relation to same-sex relationships – and that, after all, is the real presenting issue leading to all of this confusion – is eminently reasonable and, indeed, eminently traditional and scriptural, but it is unfortunate that the GAFCON Primates use somewhat emotive language in their communiqué (e.g. “sinful practices”), however justifiable they may consider such terminology to be. Yet the 1998 Lambeth I.10 resolution did call for sensitivity, and effectively calling good people sinners is not a sensitive approach. That, however, is not the core issue. The core issue for Anglicans is that the consecration of bishops and the ordination of clergy in active same-sex relationships and public rites of blessing of same-sex relationships are all simply so lacking in consensus within Anglicanism that we have come to this very sorry pass, which has witnessed a Lambeth Conference boycotted by one-fifth to one quarter of those bishops invited. Unity-in-diversity just cannot cope in this case.
Church of Ireland Gazette Editorial, circa A.D. 30:
“…it is unfortunate that Yeshua bar Yosef uses somewhat emotive language in his preaching (e.g. “brood of vipers”), however justifiable he may consider such terminology to be….”
William, I think you make the point very clear. They are sinners, and there’s just no way around it. So are we all sinners. The problem surrounding the “gay” issue is plainly that the church has become apostate and is now condoning such behavior as not sinful and wishes to consider it a “gift” from God. Blasphemy is the only way I can discern such measures.
As to schism? Well, only a fool would not be able to see clearly that it’s already happened. What’s happening now is the determination of where the pieces are to fall. Who’s to lead those who don’t wish to follow the dark path into further apostacy? The cards have been on the table for a while. Rowan Williams chose to ignore them. Now, the cards are being arranged. Rowan Williams has lost his opportunity to do anything to preserve the unity of the church. He’s blatantly disregarded the trust of many. Now the consequences must be faced.
What is God’s plan in this? Time will tell. I just urge everyone to read Scripture, to take it seriously, and to respect its authority. Jesus has the final say on who overcomes satan and enters His kingdom, NOT Rowan Williams, or any earthly institution!
Mugsie, You said it well:
“The problem surrounding the “gay†issue is plainly that the church has become apostate and is now condoning such behavior as not sinful and wishes to consider it a “gift†from God. Blasphemy is the only way I can discern such measures.â€
This is what happens when the hierarchy of the TEC a Christian Church and too many of its Bishops and seminary teachers believe a social gospel prepared by them can supersede the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They preach the love of Jesus without the Faith that Jesus requires us to live by.
“But experience has surely shown that within the Anglican Communion there is currently no positive, general reception for the consecration of bishops and the ordination of clergy in active same-sex relationships and public rites of blessing of same-sex relationships.”
Yeah?! Tell that to the NorteoAmerican-istas – Schori und Hilz und volk. They will no doubt be taken aback and refer to “their Spirit-guided” actions of prophecy. They have already decided and the rest of the AC can just catch up; the quicker the better. As in
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8944.html
Viv la moratoria Lame-beth 2008!
It is not nice – shame on us – to call anyone a sinner. I can never sing Amazing Grace again! Jesus died on the cross for good people and he was simply having a bad hair day when he took on the Jewish authorities of his day. I’m OK, you’re OK – who needs a Savior?
When women were first ordained (in Hong Kong), the Anglican Church was still of the opinion that women should not be ordained. So, I believe that the women in questions eventually reqlinquished their priestly function and functioned only as deacons.
By the mid 70’s the church was comming to a different mind and the Lambeth Conference and the ACC stated that the ordination of women was not a communion breaking issue.
There is a huge difference between ordaining women and ordaining people involved in sexual relationships outside of marriage. The first difference is ontology vs function. Women don’t just function as women, they ARE women. People who experience homosexual attractions have a choice on whether they act on those desires or not. Second, the Communion has spoken with a loud voice that the blessing of same sex unions and ordination of people involved in sex outside of marriage [b]is[/b] a communion breaking issue. It just seems that many in the Church do not care what agreements are reached or what the Church teaches.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder