The Lambeth Conference wades on while Down Here I read what I can find to read, and none of it is looking very good. My own little hunch is that they have the wrong agenda. Rather than trying to find a way to hold together that which does not properly fit together, the discussions need to be on how to separate with the least amount of acrimony possible. In other words… it is over, in all but name.

OK, so I have just put myself in the category of the separationsts as opposed to the reformers (who think they can “convert” the other side over) or the new paradigm-ers (who want to create a new way of us all hanging out together, loosely connected but connected somehow all the same).

My experience of debate with those adhering to positions permeated by liberal theology is that, no matter how polite and congenial, we are diametrically opposed and unable to “give” in any meaningful manner on the fundamentals of our respective faiths. Yes, respective faiths… we do not hold to the same gospel. We might use the same words and terms, but we use them quite differently and talk past each other. We do not engage… because we cannot engage. A round peg does not fit the square hole. We simply wear each other out, and must end up “agreeing to disagree” for sanity’s sake. So I’m not hopeful of converting others to my position - the traditional one - when they do not want to be converted, and likewise they cannot do the same to me. I see the reformers position as something of a lost cause. If there is no en masse “Road to Damascus” experience, then we are totally stumped.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, despite what was reported that he said last week, according to his public writings, personally believes that while the ongoing innovative actions of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (the ordination of a gay bishop, and the blessing of gay partnerships) are provocative and ecclesiologically irresponsible, they are not profane. This view makes it impossible for him to appreciate and understand why so much of Christendom, including a clear majority within the Anglican Communion, are so deeply scandalized by the revisionism coming from a highly politically active part of the Communion intent on sanctifying the gay lifestyle. The argument is over what is sacred, and what is not. To call sacred something that is profane is as much blasphemy as to call profane something that is sacred. It is about Biblical authority and Biblical truth. You do not compromise the truth when you know it is God’s truth, the Apostolic faith handed down to us. Secular humanism and cultural innovations absolutely do not change what is God’s truth, and no amount of revising the way Scripture is read can truly replace what is sacred with what is profane. No compromise is possible. Truth is truth.

The new paradigm? This is a weird one. Under a new paradigm, Anglicanism would become a global network, but remain locally distinctive, church or community-based, and centred on the biblical mission of evangelism and discipleship. Something holds it together loosely… the name “Anglican” perhaps. But we would have different faiths, preach and teach different gospels, and hope not to step on the toes of each other. Nope. Not for me.

So altogether, and with a heavy heart, I come out on the side of a breakup - a complete split into two separate churches. Unity cannot be held up as the supreme virtue when Truth is at stake. It is a superficial unity at best, the Visible Church being a mixed crop of both wheat and weeds. It is only within the Invisible Church where the saints are truly united, belonging (or having belonged) to many different churches down through the ages. That is where we have unity, and it is also where we have Truth.

Postscript: The Church Cannot Heal This Crisis of Betrayal ~ from The Most Rev Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Uganda.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has finally said it!

He would appear to have modified his previously held liberal position - although being known for his obtuseness one can never be sure exactly what he is saying at times - to that which is in line with traditional Biblical teaching. But these words certainly do look perfectly clear.

Dr Williams said: “I do not believe that sex outside marriage is as God purposes it.” And he said he remained “committed” to the Church’s official stance against gay sex, which aims to preserve Biblical norms.
Source

[A recent comment to that article has since cast a credibility shadow on the report, and unfortunately neither author provides a reference that can be followed up for context and validation. However that does not effect the rest of this journal entry.]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is head of the Church of England, is not the head of the Anglican Communion - not as the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church - but he is looked towards as an influential leader in all affairs Anglican. The Anglican Communion itself, the family of Anglican/Episcopal churches, consists of an estimated 80 million Christians who are members of 44 regional and national member churches (that is: 34 provinces, 4 United Churches, and 6 other churches) spread around the globe in over 160 countries. Every ten years there is a meeting of the 800+ bishops and archbishops of the Anglican Communion held in England to discuss Anglican matters. The 2008 Lambeth Conference is happening right at this moment.

Back in 2003 The Episcopal Church in the USA consecrated an actively homosexual bishop. This action, along with the subsequent blessings of gay partnerships and the ordination of unrepentant gay priests, has lead to a huge rift in the Communion. The traditionalists (such as myself) know that Scripture teaches that sex outside marriage is sin, whereas those embracing liberal theologies hold to the more secular persuasion that homosexual practice is not immoral and God does not call it sin. Although all humans are sinners, an ordained clergyman must repent of sin and strive to lead a righteous life. Probably those who hold either position will be in agreement that it should be so of an ordained clergyman, but the disagreement concerns whether or not gay sex is a sin. Given that it occurs outside marriage, and marriage is regarded as that which can occur only between a man and a woman, it is hard to argue that it is not sinful - except that it would be said we could resolve the matter by changing our laws to allow “marriage” between same sex partners. But the issue goes far deeper than societal rites and sanctions. Societal rites and sanctions have absolutely no authority nor power to change God’s moral law. The traditional and orthodox exegeses of Scripture has always taught that same-sex sex is a sin. Those who dispute this are also denying the authority of Scripture as God’s holy word.

I very much like the words of another Anglican clergyman who has written the following…

Not quite right to say Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality.

When he talked about a man being united to his wife, he meant just that. He gave his disciples two options - either to be married or to be single. I could rehearse the detailed arguments many times before, but my point is this: there are a lot of assumptions out there which are commonly held and are blithely taken as read, and we need to read what the Bible (in any version) actually says.

Of course, the next argument when I point this kind of lazy thinking out is to accuse me of homophobia, as if a phobia is a failure to accept uncritically somebody else’s behaviour. This is neither a medical or a theological correct use of the term. And indeed it is out of a deep, deep love for the other person that I point out this kind of teaching, and comparison with rabid, right-wing fundamentalists is way wide of the mark.

Jesus spoke about the need to love, but he taught more about hell and judgement than any other person in the Bible. You have to decide how to reconcile these two facts, unless you want to chop out the parts of the gospels which mention the latter, and only include the former.

Love as defined by the Bible is deeply bound with the concept of God’s holiness, and unless we recover this doctrine of holiness, we will never understand the use of this term “love”.

Also, check out this very clear Biblical exposition on the situation here.

So often those who hold to the traditional Biblical view are labelled in a derogatory way - “homophobe” or “rabid, right-wing fundamentalist” being just two examples - but no amount of name calling has the power or authority to change God’s moral law either. This is the Apostolic Christian faith. Like it or lump it, but that’s what it is, and any challenge to that is one mounted against our Sovereign Creator, no less. I personally am not willing to take Him on, knowing already I will come out the loser. Anyone who does is far crazier than I.

And yes to the recovery of the doctrine of holiness. Jesus said that if we would love Him, we are to follow His commands. Unless our own righteousness surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees (who were already diligent observors of the law despite their unholy self-righteousness) we are not doing enough… hard words from our Lord.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)

I shudder to think of what Bishop Gene Robinson is doing, and those who support and push the gay agenda. The finger is pointed at him as the one who is responsible for this huge rift in the Communion, but that is really unfair. He would never have been consecrated had the heresies that have allowed it not been driven out in the first place. But they are insidious and creep like a cancerous growth to distort Christian truth, and many are fooled in their own ignorance and disobedience.

A number of the comments to the TimesOnline report show just how Biblically and theologically illiterate so many folk are, in the same manner as somebody claiming that (a + b)² is equal to a² + b². There is little understanding of God’s covenants with His people, nor knowledge of Church history, nor appreciation that God is not subject to secular cultural innovations. Where does one even start to respond? And even if I did, how soon before their unbelief and disinclination to know have them crying out those tiresome words… homophobe, rabid rightwing fundamentalist …and more?

This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury will not suddenly heal any rift, the whole thing being far greater than that, and the Anglican Communion groans on with its struggles.

Two things happened recently, separately, but on the same day. Coming together their impact was more pronounced than either would have been on their own.

The first thing was that I sought and received advice from a NZ Anglican organization concerning where I might find a “church home”, a place to belong and worship within the NZ Anglican province, but one that upheld the conservative, Biblically orthodox and traditional teachings of the early Church fathers, just as Anglicanism did at the time I was baptised and confirmed in that church.

The advice I received confirmed my own search. The NZ Anglican province has gone largely liberal in it’s theology, that is, inclined towards secular humanism, egalitarian feminism, revisionism, and an anthrocentric view of what is Christian belief. This has become an obstacle for me in finding a church where I fit with any sense of feeling at home.

The second thing is something that happened on an official Anglican forum, one with a “conservative” ethos. A member of the forum claimed his right to “call a spade, a spade” which is all very well… provided the spade really is indeed a spade. He and I do not agree on some important matters of theology. Being considerably more liberal in position than I, matters unfortunately became just a little heated. I don’t feel too comfortable about that.

But to change tack just a little…

In an article published recently in The Daily Telegraph of Sydney, Australia, the following was reported:

Reverend Sue Emeleus, a deacon at St George’s Church, Paddington, said Sydney Anglicans take a very literal view of passages in the Bible that forbid women to have leadership roles over men.

“But given the way Jesus listened to women went against all cultural mores at the time, I think he would do the same now in encouraging women to speak up and let their opinion be known,” she said.

Source

The interesting thing is that nowhere in Scripture justifies this idea that Jesus considered the opinions of women, or anyone for that matter, over and above the immutable will and word of God. In all things the words and ways of men were measured against the wisdom and truth that came from the Father - not the other way around. Jesus spoke to us that which He heard from the Father, and those were His teachings. (John 14)

I would say this is a human-centred speculation (anthrocentric), not an insight revealed by the Spirit of God. And as such, it gives an example of how liberal theology creeps in to separate us from Spiritual wisdom and contaminate one’s understanding of Biblical truth.

Puritan Lad, of Covenant Theology blog fame, links to an article headed Church of England to consider introducing “super-bishops” to avert crisis over women and asks the so simple and most sensible question:

Why not just obey the Scriptures to begin with?

Yes, why not indeed?

I could go on with so many examples of how abandoning the plain truth of Scripture has lead to such a mess in Anglicanism at present, but this will do for the time being.

And now back again on my previous tack…

It seems I don’t have a “home” in Anglican circles, or not for just now. There are other good people on that forum, ones who are faithful loyal servants of Christ, but a forum is not a church - not the visible church although its members may well be a part of the invisible church. I find it profoundly sad that Anglicanism is struggling the way it is due to the “enemy within”, the influence of liberal theology (and those priests and bishops who subscibe to it) that makes a mockery of true Christian belief and turns fruit totally rotten. Liberal theology is nothing short of disobedience and idolatry leading to unbelief. There seems very little that I can do personally but pray.

But there is considerable hope in some recent happenings, such as GAFCON (Global Anglican Future), and the true faith of the Global South and Southern Cone provinces of the Anglican Communion. They remain true to orthodoxy and are encouraging and supportive of those other faithful Anglicans in otherwise heterodox parishes and provinces elsewhere. So in spite of all the press to the contrary, it should be made known that there are still Anglicans faithful to the true gospel everywhere, often just “getting on with the job” in spite of the ecclesiastical politics going on around them. Good things are happening.

I was raised an Anglican, not a Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, or anything else, and while the Invisible Church has no denominational barriers and in that sense nor do I, I still wish to remain as one of the faithful in my own church inheritance… if that can be possible.