There is no via media between incompatible Convictions
A brief comment about Lambeth 2008
By Bp. John Rodgers
8/9/2008
In the present, there seem to be three distinct groups in the Anglican Communion, each thinks out of a key presupposition, and believes that it is the true bearer of the Anglican Vision or Spirit. There are the Revisionists who interpret Scripture, tradition and institutional authority in the light of culturally dominated reason. There are the so called moderates or corporatists who accommodate their view of and interpretation of Scripture, tradition and reason to secure their supreme value of institutional unity, by seeking a middle ground and moderate change. And there are the historic Anglicans who view things in the light of the Apostolic Faith as set forth in Scripture, read in the light of the Catholic Creeds and the Anglican Formularies. Given these key assumptions, most of the actions of the groups are rather predictable, as is also the result of a gathering of all three i.e. the 2008 Lambeth Conference.
The truth of the matter is that these three positions are incompatible and the sooner that we in the Anglican Communion face that fact and take the responsible action to negotiate a godly and charitable separation, the better off all of us will be. To continue to be formally bound together, while struggling for dominance while calling it unity, fools no one, hinders each group from expressing its vision and from carrying out its mission, with whatever effectiveness the Lord of history will allow. It also kills serious ecumenical discussion with the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and faithful Reformation Churches. In addition, it spends a great deal of money, time and effort, which could be put to far more productive use.
As one reads the lengthy Lambeth 2008 Statement, with its stating the obvious, vagueness in key terms, additional commissions, utterly unrealistic demands (moratoria), and the lengthy approval process, one can only wonder and sigh at the slowness with which we Anglicans face the inevitable. Consider the protracted pain which the delay will cause, the loss of membership it will produce and the damage to mission that will ensue. To value unity above the revealed Truth of Christianity is, of course, utterly wrong, and aiming for unity between incompatible visions is entirely futile. There is no unifying via media between incompatible key convictions, even as there is no escaping our Lord's clear teaching that "a house divided cannot stand".
Surely the GAFCON Statement is correct. It is the historic Anglicans who bear the faithful Anglican Vision and who call all in the Communion to return to faithful Anglicanism. While it is a hard saying, I concur with the senior British Bishops who called for such charitable separations from the Anglican Communion as will save the Communion. Such an action would allow those corporatists and revisionists who have no interest in repenting to find their distinct place outside of the Communion. The problem is to envision how that could be done, and to find the willingness in all groups to face the inevitable, instead of trying to make compatible the incompatible. It may be that Primates at their next meeting will have wisdom from above for us. Let us pray that they do.
---The Rt. Rev. John Rodgers is a bishop with the Anglican Mission in the Americas. He is the former Dean and President of Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge, PA.
| Poster | Thread |
|---|---|
| jfmckenna | Posted: 2008/8/10 2:10 Updated: 2008/8/10 2:10 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/2/4 From: Posts: 495 |
Eminent good sense.
|
| quissum | Posted: 2008/8/10 9:57 Updated: 2008/8/10 9:57 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/2/18 From: Posts: 337 |
A voice of clarity and reason formed by godliness.
God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) |
| ACLins | Posted: 2008/8/10 13:12 Updated: 2008/8/10 13:12 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2005/3/31 From: Kentucky Posts: 234 |
Thank you, Bishop Rodgers, for clarity and truth, as painful as it is.
|
| sactohye | Posted: 2008/8/10 13:46 Updated: 2008/8/10 13:46 |
Just can't stay away ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/10/19 From: Fresno, CA, Anglican (and only) Diocese of San Joaquin Posts: 73 |
Bishop Rodgers is right. Truth and error cannot co-exist. The sooner we orthodox separate from the others, the better for all concerned.
sactohye |
| cuervoria | Posted: 2008/8/10 16:06 Updated: 2008/8/10 16:06 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/6/15 From: College Station, Texas Posts: 537 |
Quote:
. . . stating the obvious, vagueness in key terms, additional commissions, utterly unrealistic demands . . . Oh dear, where's the nuance? It seems that the only English being spoken anymore is by those who follow historic Anglicanism. Thank you, Bishop Rodgers. de la Cuervoria |
| daveball | Posted: 2008/8/11 0:10 Updated: 2008/8/11 0:10 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/12/18 From: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 2281 |
I would define Bishop Rodgers' groups a bit differently. There are those who seek to conquer, to impose a new "prophetic" and un substantiated position on others by force and by litigation since reason and appeal to Scripture won't do it. There are those who are unable to see evil for what it is and who are afraid or unable, for various personal or political reasons, to take a firm stand. There are those who subscribe to the historic faith and affirm the principles defined and honed over the millenia.
The first group is perfectly welcome to decide they no longer believe in Jesus as Savior and no longer accept the authority of Scripture. It is their souls that are at risk. They are not welcome to attempt to hijack a communion and impose ungodly and heretic beliefs on others. The fence sitting undecided must decide whom they serve. Indecision and waffling don't gain them anything. No decision is the wrong decision no matter which side they may eventually end up on. These people need to decide, and decide quickly, whether they truly confess Jesus as Savior and accept all that Scripture teaches, not just convenient parts of it. They must decide how to say the words "sin" and "evil" and "repent". The latter group, those of the historic faith, are certainly not without sin and blemish. This group must figure out exactly what it is that does define their historic faith, state what "membership" in the historic faith requires of those who say they are members, decide how accountability will occur, and then actively and aggressively go forth to all nations and peoples and proclaim the Good News of Christ. My biggest fear for the historic believers is that they will not learn from history and will succumb to creeping innovation of their own. Just so no one feels I am being vague here, I refer to women's ordination, abortion, divorce and remarriage, the 1979 Book of Alternative Theologies and corruption of the liturgy and sacred music - for openers. May God have mercy on us, sinners. |
| MichaelA | Posted: 2008/8/11 1:08 Updated: 2008/8/11 1:08 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/5/29 From: Posts: 869 |
Thank you +Rodgers for taking a faithful stand for truth. Each person who does so strengthens the whole body.
|
| MichaelA | Posted: 2008/8/11 1:30 Updated: 2008/8/11 1:40 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/5/29 From: Posts: 869 |
"The latter group, those of the historic faith, are certainly not without sin and blemish. This group must figure out exactly what it is that does define their historic faith..."
Hmmm, after all these millenia, don't they know? "...and then actively and aggressively go forth to all nations and peoples and proclaim the Good News of Christ." Yes, but I would have a minor quibble with the words "and then". We should be "going forth and proclaiming" right now: After all, we already know what the historic faith is - our Lord has told us. Of course it is easier to go forth and proclaim if we are a member of a like-minded bunch of individuals (a congregation), and easier still if that congregation is part of a larger gathering of congregations with an authority system (a diocese, arch-diocese or province). But fundamentally, a lack of (or impairment of) any of these things does not absolve us from the Great Commission. When Jesus told the Gadarene man to stay behind and preach to his countrymen, he didn't leave him any other fellow-christians - just himself. The reason I write this is not because I like minor quibbles, but to make an important point: any Anglican congregation or diocese that agrees with the Gafcon statement should not be waiting around for further decisions to be made about what precisely constitutes the new North American province or whatever; rather, it should be actively preaching the gospel, just as enthusiastically as it would be doing if all issues of jurisdiction etc were fully resolved. That is what non-Canterbury Anglican groups like REC, APA or Holy Cross have been doing for many years. It is also what faithful Anglican dioceses overseas have been doing for many years, my own archdiocese (Sydney) being an example. "My biggest fear for the historic believers is that they will not learn from history and will succumb to creeping innovation of their own. Just so no one feels I am being vague here, I refer to women's ordination, abortion, divorce and remarriage, the 1979 Book of Alternative Theologies and corruption of the liturgy and sacred music - for openers." Don't think that Satan's subtle assaults on the doctrine of the church will ever cease. Even in the Apostles' day, they had to fight constantly against false doctrine. Our time is no different. New heresies will constantly arise. Each of us can only play the ball that is in front of us at the time. |
| daveball | Posted: 2008/8/11 10:49 Updated: 2008/8/11 10:49 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/12/18 From: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 2281 |
MichaelA,
I don't think we disagree on anything. When I say that the orthodox group must figure out what it believes, I mean this in the collective sense. There are many parts to the body, so to speak, and each seems to have a slightly different take on what it means to be orthodox. The whole effort will self destruct if commonality is not achieved. No easy task. "And then go forth" - this is future tense because I would ask "are we really doing that now"? We need to restart in exactly the manner you suggest. And no, Satan will never cease his assault on the doctrine of the church. My statement is simply that "building in" old and known heretic innovations to the "new structure" is a guarantee of future failure without Satan's involvement. The Apostles fought false doctrine by returning to the true source of teaching, not by holding "indaba groups" and listening to whatever their equivalent of "Integrity" was. |
| gregory | Posted: 2008/8/11 13:27 Updated: 2008/8/11 13:27 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2004/8/4 From: Nflorida Posts: 4423 |
Daveball, Thank you for posting.
Surely, we would have been better off if we had stayed with the Orthodox protesting the RCC innovations. Today moving closer to orthodoxy is still the best approach as item 3 of The Jerusalem Statement rightly states; 3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Orthodoxy and the Conversion of England http://www.westernorthodox.com/chitty.html humbly, gregory |
| MichaelA | Posted: 2008/8/11 23:33 Updated: 2008/8/11 23:33 |
Home away from home ![]() ![]() Joined: 2006/5/29 From: Posts: 869 |
Daveball,
Very good points, as always |
















