With everything happening in the anglcian communion around the world, like “crisis in the communion”, I’d like to ask what we should do with members of the anglican communion who not only depart from the historical and traditional anglicanism ( the Bible as the authoritive word of God, 3 creeds, 39 articles, 3 orders of clergy, 2 sacraments, communion called communion, and evangelical, like what Cranmer attempted to reestablish), but also from Christianity? Can we continue to employ people in the anglican church if they are obviously not Christian, and fundamentally not anglican?

Matt you wrote,

Can we continue to employ people in the anglican church if they are obviously not Christian, and fundamentally not anglican

I’m sure it’s not intentional, are you putting “Anglicanism” above “Christianity”?

Yes I agree don’t employ non - christians, I for one though would not touch the Bibshop of Hampshire or even perhaps Peter Carnely with a barge pole even though they are fundlementally Anglicans.

Moore College employs many fine Christians from other denominations, would that mean that we no longer employ them because they are not Anglican?

craig

Ah, yes I thought that might happn. In no way did I intend to put anglicanism above christianity. Allow me to rephrase it; can we continue to employ people in the church, such as in the clergy, whose beliefs are not christian? And on the other issue, should the anglican church have ministers that are not anglican?

I’d like to ask what we should do with members of the anglican communion who not only depart from the historical and traditional anglicanism ( the Bible as the authoritive word of God, 3 creeds, 39 articles, 3 orders of clergy, 2 sacraments, communion called communion, and evangelical, like what Cranmer attempted to reestablish), but also from Christianity?

What WE should do? Who is we?

And is it anyone’s place to “do” anything with “members of the Anglican Communion”? Is it YOUR place? I’d suspect not. (Even supposing you or anyone else could do something with members of the Anglican Communion.)

And who or what decides who is and who is not Anglican? Let alone Christian…

Herein lies the very problem of the communion (which is also a strength): we do not have the structures necessary to combat heresy or diversity of opinion.

Liberals who don’t believe in a six-day creation, who accept those who are gay, who believe the bible has important things to say in terms of guidance, who are happy to call communion “mass”; Anglo-Catholics who say the rosary and get off on ritual and smoke and music; evangelicals who would like to see everyone who doesn’t worship the bible chucked out of the church; charismatics who pray in tongues in the general prayer times… All have a place in the Anglican Church and it is noone’s place to say that any particular group should be “dealt with”. [Note: these are generalised and non-specific descriptions not designed to be taken personally...]

It is a huge assumption for anyone to come into any forum online and ask what “we” should do. Not all of us share the opinion that those you describe should be ousted. not all of us are Anglicans coming from your perspective.

And I think your question belies the real problem: maybe you meant to ask whether and how the Anglican Communion can decide on what makes one Anglican? As I’ve said, I think one of its fundamental flaws is that the Anglican Church has never had the internal mechanisms to stomp out and quench heresy (or dangerous differences of doctrine). But then, if it had those mechanisms, it would merely be a protestant version of Rome with a highly codicised belief structure… One thing I am very thankful for which it is NOT.

Oh and by the way, most of the folks in this diocese don’t call communion communion anymore. It’s Lord’s Supper if you’re lucky, alternating with “meetings”. And it’s hardly a sacrament - it’s just a symbol. But I think I am entering into other territory here… Add to the fact that you’re lucky if you get one of the historical creeds occasionally in a “meeting"… And that the diocese would like to abolish bishops (except as mere administrative assistants to the chief dog in the diocese), while priests are just “presbyters” (I mean, really. *rolleyes*), and deacons are pretty irrelevant except as the stage before being ordained as a priest…

One last thing: I think it’s a bit rich for anyone to assert that the Church of England was “evangelical”. “Reformed” maybe, but not evangelical. Evangelicalism as we know it today had its roots more in the 18th Century with the Wesleyan Revival.

I don’t even think one could assert the CofE was “reformed” thoroughly. There remained different strands of belief and practice; some clerics retained vestments (as per the 1549 BCP - it was never negated in subsequent prayer books). Others retained a modified catholic outlook. Still others were puritan in their outlook. And there have always been those who have been middling, neither hot nor cold. This is one of the things: the English Reformation was for the most part a top-down thing. Because it was enforced (wrong word, but I can’t think of the appropriate one) and codified as law, it can be assumed not everyone would have been either happy with the changes, or happy to comply fully. (And there is evidence from private devotional material that the new measures were NOT applied in the same way across the board, but that there was some freedom in the interpretation of the new measures.) Indeed, the puritans seceded from the Anglican Church precisely because they felt the reform had not gone deep enough. Other puritans chose to stay in the hope of working further reform. But it was never the intention of ALL of the church of England’s leaders to reform in the same way or to the same extent as some of the continental groups…

I find it disappointing that the Jensens don’t feel the reformation went far enough - actually, I don’t understand the drive for further reformation… But maybe that’s another thread.

The Anglican Church has moved on and diversified. I would suggest that most of its members would hold that we need Revival, but not necessarily “Reform”.

Nunc you seem to have a rather harmless type of liberal in Sydney:

Liberals who don’t believe in a six-day creation, who accept those who are gay, who believe the bible has important things to say in terms of guidance, who are happy to call communion “mass”;

In other parts of Australia, liberals don’t believe in the incarnation or the resurrection, they celebrate gay sex, and they pick and choose from the bible bits to support their own beliefs.

As for calling communion “mass” - is that a liberal thing?  I’ve never noticed it.  In fact, the liberals I have met are very keen to call things by their proper name and do everything in a proper manner:  the form of godliness, sadly, can mask the lack of substance.

Not all liberals are like this, but it does seem to be the doctrinaire extreme sort which is gaining headway in the Anglican Church in places.

Alan, I dont think liberals of any variety can be characterised in a blanket term. Some liberals outside of Sydney deny all sorts of things. It’s no reason to write them all off.

As for communion being called mass - that’s more an anglo-catholic thing. But from what I understand, and from my experience, liberalism is often catholic, and catholics are often liberal…

Thanks Nunc for your opinion, as I wasn’t actually asserting anything, merely searching for other people’s opinions.
But since you ask where do I get off, and this is going to raise the whole question of “DO not judge lest ye be judged,” I’d have to answer the Bible, God’s revealed word ot mankind. YOu see Nunc (thats not terribly in the vernacular, something the Anglican church has asserted since it moved towards reform, and the truth, particuarly between 1547-1553), and this is probably Rev. Ian Powell can explain more eloquently than I can, but we are actually commanded by Jesus, such as in the sermon on the mount, to judge, against false teachers and what have you.
Basically, I am a Christian, and so assert that Jesus Christ is King and Saviour, (cf John Chapman) a the one and only God, a loving and righteous judge, and I find it difficult to have not just one particular demnomination, but the whole universal and apostolic church full of wolves in sheeps clothing, people who bend God’s love to conform to human depravity and waylaid unweary souls, people who claim to be of christ, but according to His teachings, are not. That is where i get off “Nunc.” I have no claim on God, I cannot set down nay conditions with him, rather, He has a claim on me, and so to his Word-to deny the infallibility and authority of the Bible is to deny Christ (cf j. I Paker).
And that is where I get off!

deep breath nunc, walk around the room, smell some incense, listen to some soothing music. ;)

Hey Rowen. I’m calm. I’m cool. :P

Thanks for replying Matthew - but I’ll confess I don’t quite understand what you’ve said…

Basically, I am a Christian, and so assert that Jesus Christ is King and Saviour, (cf John Chapman) a the one and only God, a loving and righteous judge, and I find it difficult to have not just one particular demnomination, but the whole universal and apostolic church full of wolves in sheeps clothing, people who bend God’s love to conform to human depravity and waylaid unweary souls, people who claim to be of christ, but according to His teachings, are not. I have no claim on God, I cannot set down nay conditions with him, rather, He has a claim on me, and so to his Word-to deny the infallibility and authority of the Bible is to deny Christ (cf j. I Paker). 

I find the audacity of this statement a bit offensive. In fact, it is downright rude. Matthew, you know full well that there are liberal/progressive posters on these discussion boards, who are no less followers of Christ than you are. What you seem to be saying is that you have a monopoly on scriptural interpretation. Am I correct or have I missed something?

Furthermore, at no point has Christianity, either in the scriptures or in the creeds suggested that to deny the “infallibility and authority” of the scriptures is to deny Christ. The creeds make next to no mention of the scriptures, and the scriptures do not make that claim for themselves. The 39 articles state that the scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, but certainly never mention anything about “infallibility and authority”, much less claim that to deny it is to deny Christ.

Your assertion that the church is full of wolves in sheep’s clothing, “bending God’s will to suit human depravity” is also offensive. You seem to assert that because certain people do not conform to your expectations, their motives must be suspect. This is, in fact, not the case. Many people to whom you would apply these labels are people of the utmost faith and integrity. I know, because I happen to know lots of them.

Alan, you wrote:

In other parts of Australia, liberals don’t believe in the incarnation or the resurrection, they celebrate gay sex, and they pick and choose from the bible bits to support their own beliefs.

Which is equally offensive, given what I have stated above about the diversity of people in this forum. I do not know of a single “liberal” Christian who denies the incarnation or the resurrection, or who chooses to ignore bits of the bible. Rather, there are those who understand incarnation and resurrection in different (but no less valid) ways, and who have a different (but no less valid) way of understanding scripture.

In reply to the OP, I do not know of a single non-Christian who wants to be “employed” (by which I imagine you mean ordained) by the Church. Those people, whom you would deem unworthy for their failure to conform to your narrow understanding of Christianity, are very often the ones at the forefront of the much ignored aspects of Christ’s mission - caring for the sick, the lonely, the oppressed, the hungry and the poor. One could just as easily ask what we should “do” with those who depart from this vital part of Christ’s mission - such as the Bishop of Harare. Strange how we get our knickers in a twist about someone whom we don’t deem doctrinally pure enough, but nobody speaks of excommmunicating a pig like Bishop Kunonga .

Hi Chris,

[quote author="Chris"]Matthew, you know full well that there are liberal/progressive posters on these discussion boards, who are no less followers of Christ than you are. What you seem to be saying is that you have a monopoly on scriptural interpretation. Am I correct or have I missed something?

I can’t speak on behalf of Matthew but I think it is fair to say that evangelical Christianity claims that scripture can be intepreted correctly and incorrectly - that is, that there are right and wrong ways of understanding God’s word (both on the verse by verse level and on the broader level of biblical theology). As individuals we don’t always get it right (obviously) and so have no right to personally claim monopoly on truth but our ability (or inability as the case may be) to understand the word of God does not negate the essential truth that it holds.

Two completely opposing understandings of God’s word cannot both be equally valid at the same time. They can both be wrong, certainly. But both cannot be true at the same time whilst still retaining an understanding of truth and untruth (ain’t postmodernism grand?). I think we can try and talk our way around it as much as we like but unless we would like to do away with absolute truth in every respect then we are really talking nonsense.

[quote author="Chris"]You seem to assert that because certain people do not conform to your expectations, their motives must be suspect

Hmmm. This sounds remarkably similar to another recent thread. Just in reverse.

Two completely opposing understandings of God’s word cannot both be equally valid at the same time. They can both be wrong, certainly. But both cannot be true at the same time whilst still retaining an understanding of truth and untruth (ain’t postmodernism grand?). I think we can try and talk our way around it as much as we like but unless we would like to do away with absolute truth in every respect then we are really talking nonsense.

Hmmmm, I suppose if one is a muslim then what you say might be the case, Dani. Mercifully, we do not believe that the scriptures are the precise words of God, communicated by passive receptacles.

You seem to be treating the scriptures like a construction manual here, in which there is effectively a right and wrong method, and its all clearly laid out. If you get it wrong, you’ll end up with a set of bunkbeds that look like a bonfire. Thus, the logic follows that, with the bible, there are clear instructions about how its all supposed to be done, and you either conform or… well… end up in a bonfire. (Clever analogy huh?)

Evangelicalism basically takes a position which says “We’ve got it all worked out - here are the answers”. Sure there are some discussions around the periphery, but the core remains inviolate. Now, to me, who sites elsewhere on the spectrum, I can look at that attitude and say “Well, it all seems a bit simplistic to me, but whatever floats your boat”. In an academic forum or this Forum I’m happy to discuss and explore evangelicalism (bearing in mind I spent 15 years in an evangelical church) and to recognise its validity. I suppose the term “liberal” means that I am willing to accept that there will be diversity.

Trouble is, it doesn’t work both ways. To someone like me - who seeks to be an authentic servant of Christ, a faithful student of the scriptures and in relationship with the living God - evangelicalism says “We love you, but you’re wrong”. There are no ifs buts or maybes. And time after time we hear it trotted out “There is only one truth, so one of us is wrong” (with the implied statement that I’M wrong.)

From the “outside”, one can see that evangelicalism is simply one way of interpreting the Christian mystery. Same as Roman Catholicism, or Orthodoxy or whatever. But evangelicalism (and I have no wish to offend here) seems to be driven by a pride-filled power struggle to win, to win as the sole arbiters of truth at any cost. I was remarking to a friend recently that speaking to some evangelicals is increasingly like speaking to members of another religion. It is no longer sufficient, apparently, to have faith - it must be the “right” faith.

In short, I DO reject an understanding of absolute truth. At least, there is no absolute truth that can be articulated objectively for all people. Absolute truth is God - and God is so mysterious and complex and exciting that to claim that a particular interpretation of theology is “right” would limit God. I believe that God can cope with different people understanding God in different ways - in fact I would venture to suggest that our multiplicity of interpretations reflects the all-embracing love of God.

[quote author="Chris"]It is no longer sufficient, apparently, to have faith - it must be the “right” faith.

No. It must be faith in the “right” thing.

Of course its faith in the right thing. cranmer wrote that we are not justified by faith alone, we are justified by faith in Christ alone. (see homily on Salvation). And that is why I can claim the word of God, the bible (God-breathed) as absolute truth. Either God is a terrific liar, and in that case not God, or what he breathed is true.
John Stott wrote of evangelicals:

They are committed to scripture in advance, whatever it may be shown to say.

Why, because the bible is, like Jesus, fully human and fully divine (see Hebrews 3-5), and as Christ rested his entire teaching upon the scriptures (never he ever said contradicted it, but rather upheld it), if the scriptures are not true, then neither is Christ, and then, as I have no hope for salvation, I’ll be off to go pillage university.

[quote author="Chris B"]In short, I DO reject an understanding of absolute truth. At least, there is no absolute truth that can be articulated objectively for all people. Absolute truth is God - and God is so mysterious and complex and exciting that to claim that a particular interpretation of theology is “right” would limit God. I believe that God can cope with different people understanding God in different ways - in fact I would venture to suggest that our multiplicity of interpretations reflects the all-embracing love of God.

I find your rejection of absolute truth difficult to reconcile with your unequivocal statements about God and absolute truth. If you consistently maintain the position you appear to articulate here surely you ought to be more agnostic in all your statements.

Clearly you have not fully articulated your position, and so I think you would need to explain it more fully so we can understand where you are coming from. You seem to endorse the following points:[list=1][*]There is no absolute truth about God to which we have access.

[*]To affirm any particular beliefs about God as true to the exclusion of others “limits God.”

[*]God does not intervene in the universe (according to what you’ve written in this post).[/list:o]Is this accurate? If so, how do you claim to know this with any certainty?

Why, because the bible is, like Jesus, fully human and fully divine (see Hebrews 3-5

The bible is fully human and divine??? You mean, it’s alive and breathes? What planet are you on? Last time I looked it was a book with paper pages and print. Not human. Not divine.

Only Jesus is human and Divine. I would go so far as to say because he is the Living Word, the bible is subject to him, it is NOT him, himself.