Although Dr. Atherstone devotes most of his report on ACC-17 to matters of church order, he does note that \u201cour deep doctrinal disagreements as Anglicans rumbled along in the background,\u201d because provinces \u201chave changed their doctrine of marriage.\u201d It would appear that he considers \u201cdisagreement\u201d on marriage to be among the issues requiring \u201cdiscipline, differentiation, and even separation.\u201d<\/p>\n
His discussion of the 3-year set of restrictions \u2013 a.k.a. \u201cconsequences\u201d \u2013 imposed on the Episcopal Church in 2016 is curious. He notes that these restrictions have now \u201ctimed out,\u201d that \u201cthe situation is farcical,\u201d and that the \u201cconsequences\u201d need more substance, but he refrains from framing the issue in terms of repentance.<\/em> What makes the situation farcical indeed is that fact that Communion \u201cInstruments\u201d did not require TEC to change<\/em> its teaching or practice, and now they are talking about moving on to the \u201chealing phase.\u201d Common sense parenting teaches that you do not send a child to a \u201ctime-out\u201d without requiring on his return an apology and a promise not to do it again!<\/p>\n Dr. Atherstone apparently considers this failure of discipline a reason for differentiation, personally at least. Hence he declined each day to take Communion with TEC delegates at ACC-17 and suggests that this practice should be offered at Lambeth 2020 because \u201cwe are all part of the Anglican Communion but we are not all \u2018in communion.\u2019\u201d While one can sympathize with his dilemma, his response is strangely individualistic. Did he commend his position to others at ACC-17? He argues that by allowing separate eucharistic gatherings at official Anglican meetings, \u201cit becomes possible to meet together and discuss our differences and common concern, without pretext\u2026and the pain of our disunity motivates us to renewed efforts toward unity.\u201d As I have argued (see here<\/a> and here<\/a>), sitting at table with false teachers at a church council is just as problematic as sitting at the Lord\u2019s Table (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:12). Certainly the early church councils saw it this way (yes, Arius attended Nicaea but was defrocked and exiled from there).<\/p>\n Giving formal recognition to false teachers at a church council, even if it is on the pretext of \u201clistening,\u201d serves to legitimate their position (some call this \u201copen reception\u201d). This is precisely how revisionists advanced their innovations within the Episcopal Church and took them on to the Communion level.<\/p>\n Dr. Atherstone seems strangely na\u00efve about how the game is played. He contrasts the \u201cinformal\u201d way the meeting in Hong Kong was conducted with the tightly controlled agenda and autocratic rule by the chair, the table groups gagged by long lectures, and the avoidance of sensitive subjects (\u201cwe don\u2019t do doctrine\u201d). But this contrast is not a bug in the program, as they say, but a feature. Welcome to indaba!<\/em><\/p>\n His own attempt to bring resolution to the divisions at ACC-17 is revealing. On the key resolution concerning membership in Anglican bodies, he thought his \u201cOxford\u201d amendment \u2013 that LGBTQ advocates should be \u201cwelcomed\u201d rather than \u201cincluded\u201d \u2013 would make peace, and he was surprised when the Africans \u201cfound their voices and stood one after another to denounce the resolution.\u201d Why should this be a surprise? Meeting after meeting for twenty years, they have strongly defended Lambeth Resolution I.10 and its normative statement that homosexual practice is \u201cincompatible with Scripture\u201d and \u201ccannot be advised.\u201d<\/p>\n