{"id":114361,"date":"2022-08-02T08:00:45","date_gmt":"2022-08-02T12:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=114361"},"modified":"2022-08-02T08:48:51","modified_gmt":"2022-08-02T12:48:51","slug":"aac","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=114361","title":{"rendered":"(AAC) Embracing Good Disagreement For Real Change"},"content":{"rendered":"

The decision announced Friday that the Global South bishops will sit during Holy Communion during all of Lambeth\u2019s Eucharistic services sent shock waves through the Anglican Twitterverse. It was bold. It was clear. It was divisive. But is division truly a bad thing? It is often assumed that it is, in all forms and at all times. To say it can actually be good<\/em> is controversial. Archbishop Justin Welby stated at Lambeth that \u201cdivision doesn\u2019t matter,\u201d that essentially, you can disagree and yet still be united. At other times he called division downright unacceptable and wrong. But the scriptures and reason point to the reality that often division, if not an end in and of itself, is good if it leads to a greater good: true<\/em> unity.<\/p>\n

This true unity is both created by and expressed through Holy Communion. It is a unity set in \u201cone faith, one Lord, one baptism.\u201d Certainly Abp. Welby would say all these things are true of the various churches together at Lambeth, that Communion should be taken by all because, despite our disagreements, we do<\/em> share one faith, we do<\/em> have one Lord. But can those bishops who worship with Muslims or engage in pagan ceremonies or deny the physical resurrection of Christ be said to worship the same Lord as those who hold to a biblically orthodox view of God? Or can those who deny the validity of the Scriptures or the Creed or who allow for sexual immorality in the Church be said to hold the same faith as those who continue in orthodox dogma and praxis? Reason would say no. At times one has to wonder how much reason is left in Canterbury.<\/p>\n

If our faith can be expressed only by the most minimal of qualifications, what was the point of synods and councils in the Church\u2019s past? Why all the effort? Would Sts. Peter and James have had to facilitate a disagreement between Jews and Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem? Why wouldn\u2019t St. Paul simply accept Judaizers along with orthodox Christians, saying that, though they believed different things, they were really all one? What was the point of the Ecumenical Councils? Should the Arians and the orthodox simply have communed together? After all, both parties called Jesus \u201cLord.\u201d They both believed He was divine. They just disagreed on how<\/em> divine he really was.<\/p>\n

Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

"Today in Canterbury, we may be \u2018gathered together\u2019, but we most certainly cannot \u2018walk together\u2019 until provinces which have gone against Scripture-and the will of the consensus of the bishops-repent and return to orthodoxy." Abp Badi: https:\/\/t.co\/9qDXlJ2RPX<\/a>#LambethConference<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/PbguW7OMDy<\/a><\/p>\n

— Lambeth '22 Resource Group (@LCResourceGroup) July 30, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n