Justin is right, I'm Barnabas.
Doctrinally, I find myself more in alignment with GAFCON, but the process that has been undertaken by this group is subversive and boldly arrogant. Call me skeptical, but I don't think there's anyway you can bill GAFCON as anything but an alternative to Lambeth, or, at the least, a loud protest before it.
The bishops of GAFCON are rightly concerned about recent developments in the Anglican Communion, but the key word here is recent. In the scope of church history, the current crisis is young. Try comparing it to combating Arianism. To make the claim that Anglicanism is at a crossroads never before seen is too set aside history and ignore the nature of the church. The church is always facing issues, but it seems as if this generation has the hubris to think it's experiencing something unique. Calm down, please. Pray for the ECUSA and attempt to bring them back into communion. Ten years is not enough time or effort to excommunicate a body.
If we believe that the Church is the bride of Christ, we should make every effort to avoid divorce. Avoiding any form of schism is worth the (admittedly frustrating) talking and persistence in faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Thanks for this bit of perspective, I strongly agree. Being away from school and thus my usual Episcopal church, I hadn't even heard of GAFCON until a couple of days ago, and found the whole thing quite alarming.
But anyway, yes. Homosexuality is, to my lights, far less important than the nature of Christ or the Trinity. I believe we shall survive this one, but it's a pity that it's blown so far out of proportion.
Robert Hamilton (I believe you visited my blog? Not sure how you ended up there but it's nice to find other intelligent Anglicans ...)
Actually, I was being a bit cheeky using that text. The issues are bigger than taking John Mark on a Missionary Journey.
Re Second Reformation. Yes, maybe its hubris. But there is no excommunication. And no way to excommunicate.
It is worth saying that all crisis' have had their painful moments. Without it, it isn't called a crisis. And things like GAFCON may provide some of the future dialogue that creates a healthy Anglican church in the future. A short circuit, if you like.
See how it plays out...
Robert-- i don't know you. But I'm genuinely interested how you decide who is an 'intelligent Anglican'? How did you discover that you were one?
The developments that are reaching a head here are not new, nor are the concerns involved. They go back a couple of centuries. We need to remember that the Anglican Church is not 'THE CHURCH'! Its very identity depends on that non-equation.
GAFCON is not as schismatic as it appears. The schismatic step has already been taken. Out of proportion? Not at all. The presenting issue is actually representative of a much deeper set of divisions at work.
yes... how is the ANGLICAN COMMUNION = the 'bride of Christ' exactly? This seems to me a dubious equation, theologically speaking. And I think you are unfair to call the GAFCON organisers arrogant and subversive. Whose cavalier and flagrant disregard for the feelings of the majority of the communion precipitated the crisis?
Justin - Sorry for not catching the humor :), but I still think the metaphor works, even if the issues are more serious.
Michael- I'll avoid (well, save for a more approperiate time and avenue) a discussion on church authority. But suffice to say, I think Anglicans (in particular Bishops) have an obligation to the communion to mantain unity. And, to my eyes, it seemed like that obligation was being taken lightly.
I was encouraged (see the most recent post) with GAFCON putting down the idea of schism. I think that's a beautiful statement that GAFCON bishops want to work inside and with the broader communion.
I'm not that well versed in church history, so when you say the issues go back a couple centuries do you mean the issue of homosexuality? Or something broader that the current crisis is merely a result of? In your opinion, is it more a dispute over authority (whether church or scriptural)?
Last, to try to clear up an issue. I didn't mean that the Anglican communion was exclusively the Bride of Christ. I just meant that the Church universal is the Bride of Christ, the Anglican communion is part of the universal church, etc. It was simply a plea to not take schism lightly.
Thanks for your comments :)
Oh, and Justin. I didn't mean excommunicaton in a literal, legal sense. Poor word chocie on my part. Seperation might have been better and not as loaded.
The role of a bishop? Maintaining 'unity' at any cost is very low on the list. Check the BCP service of consecration, where the bishop promises to 'be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word; and both privately and opnely to call upon and encourage others to the same'... That is, to divide the church where necessary, in fact.
Yes I think the presenting issue - 'homosexual behaviour' - is a coming together of a set of issues that have divided CHristians since the beginning of the 19th century, and they have to do with authority, experience, scripture and tradition. So, it is not a new division, not really.
For the sake of fairness, I never claimed that "unity at any cost" was what should be adopted. Saying we should value unity, doesn't imply that unity is the only thing to be valued.
Bishops aren't supposed to mantain unity? What about 1 Corinthians 1:10? Do you not think a bishop should try to see through Paul's plea? What about Ephesians 4:1-6? Paul charges Christians to make every effort to keep unity. What about Jesus' prayer in John 17:11?
Post a Comment