GAFCON seems to me to be about standing aside until the wayward lot decide to put their wrong behavior aside and return to the true fold.

In what sense are the GAFCON clergy “standing aside”? Rather than standing aside, it seems to me that GAFCON signals an intention to engage even more deeply with the whole communion, for the sake of reform.

Hi John (Sanderman),

The interview whose link to GAFCON I was calling “tenuous” wasn’t that of Howard Ahmanson, but Thomas Oden.

I was aware of the links between Ahmanson and OCMS, as I once worked for a Christian organisation with links to OCMS. I was aware of the funding that Howard Ahmanson provided to OCMS, and gatherings of Anglicans that OCMS co-ordinated before the 1998 Lambeth Conference. His “Christian Reconstructionism” theology, if true, is something that I’d have to disagree with Ahmanson over.

The problem with your assertion, Mike, that those outside of GAFCON “call themselves followers of God, but aren’t” is that it puts you in the position of God - judging who is in and who is not. 

Yes we are to discern God’s mind in our reading of Scripture, but the Judging is God’s business. 

I would suggest that those whom you may think are unrepentant of their sin do not see themselves as such at all - they, too, have sought the mind of God in the Scriptures, but they came up with different answers than you do.  Indeed, my guess is that they would see themselves as faithful followers of Jesus.

There are many aspects of Christian teaching over which we have a diverse range of interpretations, and there are many moral issues over which we have a difference too, but we do not use the langauge of sinner and repentance for those who disagree with us - drinking and smoking, remarriage after divorce, termination of pregnancy and more.

As to Dianne’s question, I am not suggesting that we can’t know what God thinks on these matters, rather it is my view that there are a range of interpretations that people have arrived at as they have sought the mind of God as revealed in Scripture.  This will always be the case.

Roger,
The Religion report Stories smacked of the “there’s a real story here, but I haven’t quite got it” flavour did’t it? But as I am in a glass house I won’t throw stones.

john clapton - 03 July 2008 06:58 PM

The problem with your assertion, Mike, that those outside of GAFCON “call themselves followers of God, but aren’t” is that it puts you in the position of God - judging who is in and who is not. 

Yes we are to discern God’s mind in our reading of Scripture, but the Judging is God’s business. 

I would suggest that those whom you may think are unrepentant of their sin do not see themselves as such at all - they, too, have sought the mind of God in the Scriptures, but they came up with different answers than you do.  Indeed, my guess is that they would see themselves as faithful followers of Jesus.

But John - isn’t that exactly what 1 Cor 5 demands of us?  It seems that the sinner in 1 Cor 5 didn’t feel they were sinning - and so it was up to the congregation to remove the sinner from amongst them - in the hope they would repent and return.

How would you suggest we implement 1 Cor 5?  Or are you suggesting we should ignore it?

Mike

john clapton - 03 July 2008 12:14 AM

You imply that liberals have no respect for the authority of Scripture.  This is a view I challenge.  I am no champion of John Shelby Spong, and I disagree with many of the positions he proposes, but one thing I do know is that he, and many others you might regard as liberals, is a deeply committed follower of Jesus and believes firmly in the Bible as something we need to fully understand.  It is not something that can be discarded or disregarded.

Hi John

First of all let me say that I have been uncomfortable with some of the interaction between you and Gordon.  I think that sometimes Gordon’s biting tone is unhelpful to these discussions.  Having said that, I don’t disagree with the content of his posts (along with those of others, such as Tim Foster).

I do want to take issue with you on your comment quoted above.  Liberals are undoubtedly a broad group, whose “respect for the authority of Scripture” does vary considerably.  But as I understand it, a liberal theologian is by definition someone who elevates human reason above the Bible.  Therefore any respect they have for Scripture is always a qualified or conditional one.  This is surely the essential difference between evangelical and liberal Christians (even if the boundaries are blurry at points).

At some point, furthermore, we have to recognise that whatever labels people choose to apply to themselves - liberal, evangelical, Christian - their claim may prove to ring hollow.  This is my assessment of John Shelby Spong, an assessment which does NOT put me in the place of God, but rather puts me in submission to him and to his word.  How can a man who denies so many of the clear teachings of the Bible be considered “a deeply committed follower of Jesus”?  To say so is to empty the phrase of any meaning!

Let me be clear about this:  I have no knowledge of what his eternal state will be - that is a matter for God, and will not be known to us until his life is over.  But there is no question in my mind that, in accordance with what God has said to me in his word (1 Cor 5, 1 John) I should regard this man not as a brother but as an unbeliever, until such time as he repents of his sin.

Regards,

Bob

john clapton - 03 July 2008 06:58 PM

There are many aspects of Christian teaching over which we have a diverse range of interpretations.

Hi john - sorry for pestering you with another question....but something just struck me.  You’re suggesting there is a diverse range of possible/correct interpretations of scripture.

Is homosexual acts as sinful one of those possible correct interpretations?

Is expelling the unrepentant sinner (1 Cor 5) also a possible correct interpretation?

If so - surely you should be defend the actions of those at Gafcon?  Surely what they are doing is just one possible correct interpretation of scripture?

Or is their interpretation of scripture the only wrong interpretation?

Mike

While there is no doubt that Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians was addressed to very particular circumstances, there is indeed a great deal of wisdom in much of what he says - wisdom that some might regard as “the Word of God.”

As a result the words from chapter 5 in the first letter seem very plain and unequivocal.  Paul is talking about dissociating from fellow believers who continue in immorality, and indeed regarding them as no longer believers.  But I ask the question to those who wish to apply those words absolutely to their interactions with fellow Christians whom they regard as continuing to live immorally, “Do we apply all the other things that Paul said to the Corinthians with the same absoluteness?”

Chapter 7 deals with marriage and prohibits remarriage.  Yet we frequently allow for Christians to remarry - even priests and do not consider that they are living as adulterers.

Chapter 11 calls on women to cover their heads in worship.  Social custom these days seems to have discarded this one.

How often do we look out for the gifts of the Spirit in Anglican churches when they come in the form of speaking in tongues, or gifts of prophecy to women?

Much could be said along similar lines from other writers in the NT

Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians seems to be on a much more positive flavour in which he emphasizes the importance of forgiveness, faith, grace and the fact that yes, we have a great Spiritual Treasure to share, but we do so from the brokenness of earthen vessels as he puts it.

He said to the Romans that we are all sinners, and Jesus reminded us that there is no real hierarchy of sin, so to tell a fib is as great a sin as to commit adultery.  In this context I prefer to walk together with my Christian brother or sister who may be struggling with it, not dissociate myself from them until they have taken a good look at themselves and said sorry.

John

You seem to me from your numerous other posts to be an intelligent and thoughtful man.  So I find it surprising that you would reduce this issue to “either obey everything 1 Corinthians says at face value” or “treat it all with a certain degree of ‘grey-ness’ “.  (If you feel that this is a caricature of your argument, I apologise - but that’s how it strikes me.)

I’m sure you know that there are well-established grounds for regarding some specific instructions / statements as speaking to a particular issue in a particular time and place, while others are seen to be enduring.  While you may disagree with others as to which instructions / statements fall into which category, at least acknowledge that some of us think these things through, and do not just arbitrarily reject the bits we don’t like and maintain the bits we do (which appears to be the sub-text of your last post).

Bob

Hi John,

Chapter 7 deals with marriage and prohibits remarriage.  Yet we frequently allow for Christians to remarry - even priests and do not consider that they are living as adulterers.

I don’t know if you realise that Sydney Diocese has a very high standard with regards to marriage and clergy. Also I do believe that 1 Corinthians 7:15 does allow for divorce and remarriage in cases where an unconverted spouse leaves the believing spouse (the believer is not bound).

Chapter 11 calls on women to cover their heads in worship.  Social custom these days seems to have discarded this one.

How often do we look out for the gifts of the Spirit in Anglican churches when they come in the form of speaking in tongues, or gifts of prophecy to women?

I have no problem with this, as long as we have 3 only per service, and if in tongues, then with intepretation. Are you asking if it is the seeing of this in women, or if it is for tongues & prophecy to anyone?

One of the joys of taking the Bible seriously is that when we look and study and preach expositionally then we are challenged to keep reforming our ways in line with God’s teachings through Jesus and his prophets and apostles.

While there is no doubt that Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians was addressed to very particular circumstances, there is indeed a great deal of wisdom in much of what he says - wisdom that some might regard as “the Word of God.”

John this is a very disturbing argument that you have presented. Disturbing because as Australian Anglicans we are bound to holding the 39 Articles in our Constitution. Through the Articles, the Bible is referred to in several ways, such as holy Writ (XX, XXVIII), holy Scripture (XVIII, XXI), Scripture (XX), the Scriptures (XXV), Word of God (XX, XXI), God’s Word written (XX).
Then in XXXV it lists the homilies in the second book of homilies which “contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times...” and they are to be read in the churches for people to understand. The 10th homily is on the reverend estimation of God’s word. It has a very high view of the Scriptures (including the apostle Paul’s writings) as being the word of God and containing all things necessary for our salvation etc.
The position you summarised as

wisdom that some might regard as “the Word of God.”

is certainly not in line with the 39 Articles. I note that you have distanced yourself from that position… but that position disturbs me, for it seems to me to fall outside the understanding of the 39 Articles, and thus not in our constitution as Anglicans.

While there is no doubt that Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians was addressed to very particular circumstances, there is indeed a great deal of wisdom in much of what he says -

Would you venture to identify what particular things he wrote in 1 or 2 Corinthians which may not contain a great deal of wisdom?

There are many Godly Evangelicals who believe that divorce and re-marriage is the sin of adultery.
Until the 1950s the Diocese of Sydney held the traditional Church of England position.

However I feel saddened when the GAFCON declaration and “ THE WAY ,THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE “ are unable to even mentin the words of the Lord jesus Christ pon this subject as they would be too divisive...like female ordination yit is simply left out for political and not theological reasons.

It is tragic as affirming the 39 articles and accepting into GAFCONIAN circles men who purposefully disobey them.

This is the serious flaw in GAFCON, and eventually the liberals will have a field day.

Gordon Cheng - 30 June 2008 02:48 PM

It will be interesting to see where [NT Wright] goes with his response to GAFCON. I’m predicting a fair bit of ‘yes buttery’. Or, he may be a lot angrier than that. Time will tell.

Looks like we’re covering all bases and getting the angry response as well:

Dr Tom Wright, a traditionalist himself, said Gafcon’s plans to let parishes break from liberal bishops were ridiculous and “deeply offensive”.

From here.

The man’s got future Archbishop of Canterbury written all over him.

UPDATE: Here’s the comment from Stand Firm:

Does Bishop Wright really think that he’s being “bullied”? What thin skin for a bishop. Does he usually whine like this when challenged?

Bishop Wright used to be a hero of mine. I will always be grateful for his masterful work on the historical Jesus. But his responses and general attitude toward evangelicals more conservative than himself has been both irrational and graceless.

From here.

Peter Jensen writes for the SMH today, here.

Peter Jensen is right.  It is not the issue of homosexuality that distinguishes those who attended GAFCON from the rest of the Anglican Communion.

The real issue is a very different view of ecclesiology.

It places the primary locus of power in the hands of congregations who can pick and choose who they will receive episcopal oversight from.

This is at odds with the history of diocesan churches for nearly 2000 years, but completely in accord with those who have followed a congregational form of government.