It is clear that Archbishop Jensen is right - there will be significant change in the way the Anglican Communion is structured following the consecration of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.

Personally I have tended to understand the Anglican Communion as being a bit like a family. We are not similar, we fight, we disagree, but we love one another. I personally value being part of a church which accepts solemn high mass in one parish, and a gospel meeting in the one next door - not to mention those crazy liberals down the street. One of the reasons I became an anglican was because of the diversity and depth of traditions present. It is a source of great joy to me that the spirit of God is present in the Anglicanism of both Archbishop Jensen and Bishop Sp*ng. It thrills me to see people across the world proclaiming Jesus is Lord in their many and varied ways as part of the Anglican Communion. But that’s just me.

I recognise that there are those for whom this enormous diversity is unacceptable - who feel that there are limits to diversity and that the truth of the gospel must be guarded at all costs. I realise that the word “inclusive” is taken by many to mean “anything goes” and the word “tolerance” is taken to mean “condoning sin”.

To me, the Anglican Communion, whilst not the “whole church” nevertheless represents a profound symbol of the all-embracing love of God - whether it is our inherited and oft-maligned parish system, the diversity of ecclesial styles, the barriers of race and language and colour and sexuality which are destroyed and the commitment to world-changing issues of justice.

It may come as a surprise to many who read these boards ;) that many of my own attitudes are at odds with those of the prevailing view in the diocese of Sydney. Yet despite constant frustration, I would despair if we were to splinter into boutique churches. I think it is possible that we can stick together - even if we vehemently disagree.

I think it would be easier and more comfortable if we were to split. Then we could all do our own thing - you in your small corner and me in mine. I think, though, that ease and comfort are not hallmarks of the gospel - so I must commit myself to unity.

Is it possible that we can continue to exist as a family of churches, warts and all? Or has it gone too far? And if it has gone too far - how can we make a transition that is peaceful and loving? Is there any chance of the first “bloodless” schism?

Good evening Chris,

Is it possible that we can continue to exist as a family of churches, warts and all? Or has it gone too far? And if it has gone too far - how can we make a transition that is peaceful and loving? Is there any chance of the first “bloodless” schism?

I think there are many areas where different stances do not justify schism; such as lay presidency at communion, one common cup or individual cups and things like that, but there are Godly, Biblical limits on conduct and when these limits are exceeded schism is a must for a healthy Church to continue its mission.

The Ordination of; indeed continued fellowship with a person whose lifestyle puts him (or her) into direct conflict with clear Biblical teaching can not work to the good of the Church.imo
Take as an example Paul’s direction to the Corinthian Church regarding that fellow who had his father’s wife. 1 Cor 5:1-5.  Note the swiftness and decisiveness of action required by Paul.  Would it be correct to say that Paul acted without a peaceful and loving spirit?

Consider the almost certain result of Paul’s earlier tough love: 2 Cor 2:5-11.

There had to be a resolute stand made first.  Then came repentance and finally reconcilliation. 
Take the stand Paul prescribed and apply it to those who are being disobedient and we can all pray for a 2 Cor 2: 5-11 outcome.  Gloss over things and we can watch the white ants have a banquet.
And when we dismiss the lessons from Scripture as being antiquated and naive; the banquet has already begun.

Well that’s as I see it

Doug

G’day Chris B,

Thanks for your well-crafted and clearly expressed thoughts - it helps me understand your position more clearly. A few questions/offerings:

[quote author="Chris B"]I think it is possible that we can stick together - even if we vehemently disagree ... so I must commit myself to unity ... Is it possible that we can continue to exist as a family of churches, warts and all?

So what would this unity or family be based upon, if we so vehemently disagree on fundamental points of theology and doctrine?

[quote author="Chris B"]I think it would be easier and more comfortable if we were to split. Then we could all do our own thing - you in your small corner and me in mine.

I feel this may be an oversimplification of the situation. Most Christians have the majority of their “Christian” involvement at their local church, as part of Sunday meetings, smaller midweek groups, social groups, etc. Parish life is generally the mainstay of Christian gatherings. To that extent, what the church in the next suburb or the church on the other side of the world (both from the same denomination/organisation as the local church) are doing is not a primary concern, although it is obviously of substantial interest. We are already, schism or no, all doing our own thing in our small corners.

Thus, splitting is not likely to effect overmuch the day-to-day business of the local churches - it doesn’t give each local church any more ease or comfort in its struggles to be the bride of Christ in a fallen world. What any split will do is allow those local churches to not be associated in their minds, and also the minds of the wider public, with other churches with whom they have irreconcilable conflict in matters of faith and doctrine.

Splitting will not help nor heal the warts and all in the family - it is a way of helping protect everyone’s consciences by not forcing them to have some token association with another point of view that they cannot in all good conscience affirm. In this understanding, I think the transition is already grounded in love - as for it being peaceful and bloodless, that’s really up to each and every one of us to remember that the human tongue “is a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (James 3:8)

Timbo

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your post. I personally appreciated the sincerity that you expressed.

I agree with Doug and Tim’s posts. Doug’s post particularly struck a chord with me, having just finished studying 2 Cor in church and Bible Study and been enormously challenged by Paul’s firm rebuke on the unrepentant sin of the Corinthian church and the way in which he challenges and undermines the authority of the false apostles within the church.

I’m waiting to see what the fallout of all this is but just wanted to make one comment for the time being

I think it would be easier and more comfortable if we were to split. Then we could all do our own thing - you in your small corner and me in mine. I think, though, that ease and comfort are not hallmarks of the gospel - so I must commit myself to unity

Unity seems to the reigning catchphrase of the worldwide Anglican church at the beginning of the 21st Century. It seems that Evangelicals are condemned at every turn for placing unity second to their understanding of ‘truth’ or God’s will according to Scripture. The liberal arms of the church have repeatedly called for worldwide anglican unity, have repeatedly pleaded for evangelicals not to ‘rock the boat’ but to focus on that which unites all of us (even though as Tim has already said - the differences are so extensive that a basis for unity is often hard to find).

However, as I type this, Gene Robinson, although one of the loudest in his call for unity in recent weeks, is the protagonist in one of the most divisive acts the worldwide anglican communion has even seen. The disunity that this act has already caused is clear… as is the disunity that will come as a result of it.

And after he has been conscecrated he, and those who support him, will once again call for unity despite the fact that the majority of the Anglican Community worldwide strongly disagrees with and refutes the ordination of a practicing and openly homosexual man on the basis of Scripture.

Frankly it seems like a case of having your cake and eating it to. I would even go so far as to call hypocritical. It seems unity is bandied around when it is convenient and tucked away when it is not. If Gene Robinson, and those who support his ordination, were as committed to unity as they claim then this consecration would not have gone ahead.

I’m not saying that I believe Gene Robinson should not have been consecreated as bishop on the basis of worldwide anglican unity (because the basis should always be Scripture and I think it speaks clearly on this). But I think it is highly hyprocritical to stress the need for unity, to then deliberately create enormous disunity by your actions and then on the other side of it all once again say “Please! Can we all be united!”.

Anyway, they are just my thoughts. As I said i’m waiting to see where everything falls on this issue…

I’ve often heard it bemoaned that tolerance is the greatest (only) virtue in society.  Could it be that Unity is the equivalent response in christian circles?

The Ordination of; indeed continued fellowship with a person whose lifestyle puts him (or her) into direct conflict with clear Biblical teaching can not work to the good of the Church.imo

A suggestion, I believe, was raised in the Sydney Diocesan Synod that the current “crisis’ was linked to issues around biblical interpretation, not those around biblical authority. This seems to be a core issue. There are those who see a rejection of biblical teaching - full stop, no questions asked. There are others (like myself) who see a difference in biblical interpretation. I suspect that this is the root of the problem.

I who am not a conservative evangelical, nevertheless respect the right of another to be a conservative evangelical. I do not ask you to interpret scripture in the same way I do (although all methods of scriptural interpretation will challenge on another). On the other hand, in my experience, conservative evangelicalism tends to link the concepts of biblical interpretation and biblical authority. One must not only accept the authority of scripture - that authority must be as the written word of God, interpreted in a literal way. There is, in my experience, a tendency to write off “critical/historical” biblical scholarship as “revisionist” or similar, and to claim that those who are informed by such thinking reject the authority and value of scripture. This is clearly not the case - most “liberal” scriptural scholars are passionate about the scriptures and commit their life to the study of scripture - yet their insights and attitudes are deemed unworthy because they do not work from the same base assumptions.

Is it not possible fo us as a church to say “this is how we do biblical interpretation, and that’s how they do biblical interpretation, but we still accept the scriptures as authoritative”? I am conscious that people will wish to argue that there can only be one truth - and we can’t all be right. I would like to suggest that our concern as Christians is not to be right, but to be faithful. Thus, what is most important is a shared journey towards truth, not the exclusive possession of truth.

From Dani:

Unity seems to the reigning catchphrase of the worldwide Anglican church at the beginning of the 21st Century. It seems that Evangelicals are condemned at every turn for placing unity second to their understanding of ‘truth’ or God’s will according to Scripture.

I agree - but bear in mind that the opposite also applies. In the case, of, say, the various battles ove homosexuality, those who have taken drastic steps are also acting on the basis of what they believe to be ‘truth’ or God’s will according to scripture - albeit using different methodology. In many cases “progressives” (for want of a better term) are told to hold back on decisions for fear of rocking the boat also. I think it is a two-way street.

I am intrigued by Archbishop Jensen’s analogy at the start of the Synod charge to do with families. In a world in which families break up and fall to pieces on a whim - surely our family should stand as a sign of wholeness in a broken world. Just a thought.

Chris, to be honest, I think the method by which one comes to a position is less important than the position itself.  2 people can thoroughly disagree with each other and can fully appreciate the intellectual process that caused them to arrive that their positions.  But if their positions are mutually exclusive then there is no amount of “unity” that can smooth over that fact.  This isn’t a debate over methods. 

To stretch the point, that allows any position to be acceptable in the church provided one can demonstrate intellectual rigour.  I can even deny that God exists and answers prayers and cares for his people, and so long as I can say it’s from the bible (n times removed and with a dash of humanism for good measure), I can still call myself a Christian and a part of the church.  Not that I would be the first.

The Church is just a shadow of the heavenly Church (the real church).  The earthly church is much wider and broader and more inclusive than the heavenly church.  It has more members.  it has more priests and bishops.  it has a much broader unity (even though it’s paper thin).  However, on the final day, when the Anglican Communion turns to ash, along with the uniting church and the presbyterian church and all of the other denominations..  and all that will be standing is the bride of Christ.

That is the only unity worth pursuing.

[quote author="Galatians 3"]"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

G’day Chris B,

[quote author="Chris B"]A suggestion, I believe, was raised in the Sydney Diocesan Synod that the current “crisis’ was linked to issues around biblical interpretation, not those around biblical authority ... I suspect that this is the root of the problem.

I agree - but the interpretation you come to is delineated (or even constrained) by the degree of authority you are willing to concede to words of scripture.

[quote author="Chris B"]On the other hand, in my experience, conservative evangelicalism tends to link the concepts of biblical interpretation and biblical authority.

[quote author="Chris B"]One must not only accept the authority of scripture - that authority must be as the written word of God, interpreted in a literal way.

No offence, Chris, but this is getting to be a rather tiresome caricature. If you can show me where any conservative evangelical (or any fundamentalist, for that matter) interprets Matthew 5:29-30 in a truly literal way, I’ll concede this point. Otherwise, it is inaccurate to the point of being offensive to claim that evangelicals insist only on a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

[quote author="Chris B"]… most “liberal” scriptural scholars are passionate about the scriptures and commit their life to the study of scripture - yet their insights and attitudes are deemed unworthy because they do not work from the same base assumptions.

That only stands to reason. If the base assumptions are flawed, it follows that the conclusions are likely to be flawed as well. It is interesting to note that many liberal scholars do not share your qualms, denouncing the approach of conservative evangelicals as out of date, meaningless and unworthy.

[quote author="Chris B"]Is it not possible fo us as a church to say “this is how we do biblical interpretation, and that’s how they do biblical interpretation, but we still accept the scriptures as authoritative”?

Yes, it is possible, but clearly the two approaches will show the differing levels of authority that they are willing to ascribe to the Bible. Some will see the scriptures as eternally binding upon all people, others see them as binding only for the people and era in which they were written, and others will see them as binding only where advances in science, philosophy and psychology confirm them as correct. All claim the scriptures are authoritative, but place that authority in different places in relation to other sources of authority.

[quote author="Chris B"]I would like to suggest that our concern as Christians is not to be right, but to be faithful.

Faithful to what? This is like the unity statement/question - what workable basis do you envisage here?

[quote author="Chris B"]Thus, what is most important is a shared journey towards truth, not the exclusive possession of truth.

Again, what is it we are sharing? If we can’t agree on which road to take, which vehicle to drive, what we should wear or what the destination looks like, what are we actually sharing in? Where is the commonality?

Cheers,

Timbo

[quote author="Chris B"][quote author="Dani"]
Unity seems to the reigning catchphrase of the worldwide Anglican church at the beginning of the 21st Century. It seems that Evangelicals are condemned at every turn for placing unity second to their understanding of ‘truth’ or God’s will according to Scripture.

I agree - but bear in mind that the opposite also applies. In the case, of, say, the various battles ove homosexuality, those who have taken drastic steps are also acting on the basis of what they believe to be ‘truth’ or God’s will according to scripture - albeit using different methodology. In many cases “progressives” (for want of a better term) are told to hold back on decisions for fear of rocking the boat also. I think it is a two-way street.

Whilst it may indeed by a two-way street (for example the Primate’s statement regarding the ordination and consecreation of openly, non-celibate homosexual people) my point is that trend of liberalism today is to place unity over the desire to correctly interpret and understand the Bible and to subsequently act upon it… until which point unity hinders the progressive agenda at which point the concept just get’s further twisted!

Liberalism likes to shrouds everything in ‘unity’… in shared experiences, in some sort of common bond which supposedly is meant to unite us but which at the same time has already undermined any common and shared foundation (as illustrated by the posts above).

Even what is possibly the most divisive action in the Anglican communion to date is paraded as some pathway to unity!

But the consecration sermon by New Hampshire’s retiring Bishop Douglas Thunder was interrupted twice by vigorous applause as he defended Robinson.  Bishop Robinson “will stand as a symbol of the unity of the church in a way none of the rest of us can”, he said - BBC

What church does he think he is talking about? Who does he think this is going to unite? Certainly not the ECUSA to the vast majority of the rest of the Anglican communion who strongly disagree.

It is a pure manipulation of the concept of unity… to deliberately create a situation of great dis-unity but to then claim unity has and will be brought about because of it. The bible talks about unity of faith, unity of the Spirit, unity of mind. The unity that liberalism or progressives speak of is some vague unity formed upon some vague spirtuality.

For example what kind of unity can I, an evangelical christian, have with Bishop Spong who believes almost nothing I believe? Some sort of vague unity based on the fact that he is a retired bishop from the same worldwide communion as the church I attend?

What is this unity??? Because frankly I have no idea.

[quote author="Dani T"]It is a pure manipulation of the concept of unity… to deliberately create a situation of great dis-unity but to then claim unity has and will be brought about because of it. The bible talks about unity of faith, unity of the Spirit, unity of mind. The unity that liberalism or progressives speak of is some vague unity formed upon some vague spirtuality.
...
What is this unity??? Because frankly I have no idea.

But you see, the ability to be stretched to cover all facets of the human experience is what gives Unity it’s power.  A small Unity might be able to cover Christians that believe the same thing and act in the same way, but to have a Unity that can encompass all beliefs and experiences whether right or wrong, whether orthodox or radical, whether bible based or reason based is truly a Unity of power.  So by creating something that may cause dis-unity, and then modifying Unity so that it is not broken in any way is it to reveal it’s true power.  “Look, my Unity can even stop bullets!!  not even a dent.” A Unity that can unite both Dani and Spong..  That is a Unity one can really believe in, a Unity you can put your trust in.  A Unity that powerful must be something to be feared, to be in awe of.  Unity like that must have the power to change people’s lives. 

Of course you can’t break it, because attempts to break it only make it stronger.  But it gets thinner and thinner as it moves to accomodate every heresy thrown at it.  So thin that what started out as a blanket of unity, soon moved to a tea-towel of unity, and is now closely resembling a fishnet stocking of unity.

Gah.  it’s so perfect, that if only Unity had any power to save us from Hell, we’d be set.  Still, at least we’ll all be going together…

I have just picked up and finished reading in two days, Francis Sahffer’s book, “Death in a City”

He speaks against the idea of the church joining with the world as being compatable with true Christianity.

This is really what the whole idea of what worldly unity has done, those who are for it are siding with the world, and making the Gospel message so watery that it does not even resemble truth any more.

This is what the church has done, there is though a sense of Godly unity, that is those who are unified by the truth of the Gospel scattered around the world and it is with those we are unified with. As the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit are one, those who truly believe and are one with God are truly united with one another.

Where to from here we ask?

We need to ask ourselves, are we sitting in the chair with the world, having a form of Godliness with out having any compassion for the lost, enjoying our materialism, enjoying our self righteousness, denying the lost world the power of God?

Or are we truly as individuals truly conscrecrated to God, walking the path he would have us walk, denying ourselves, carrying the cross he would have us carry, do we truly believe that our God is there, are we really in proper relationship with him, are we in practice mourning for the lost, do we really mourn for our sinfulness, do we really cry out to our living God to change me!!

Where to from here is asked, - lets go right back into the arms of our Father, let us truly be known as Gods people, let us truly be known as men and women of prayer, let us truly be known as men and women of the word, let us truly be known as men and women empowered by the Holy Spirit, let us truly be known as men and women who stand up for truth, for righteousness, stand up and walk the Holy life God would have us, let us gather around us, like minded individuals.

The evangelist DL Moody said

“The world is yet to see what can happen when a individual is totally yielded to God”

What will happen to our world when Gods people are totally yielded to God? Where to know you ask?

It starts right here with me, it starts right here with you - THATS WHERE!

craig

I too, Chris B, am fond of the diversity of worship in our Anglican Church.  I grew up in one of those places where the Anglicans are the only church in the town; at Uni I divided my time quite happily between the chapel services of compline on week nights (the Biblical “two or three gathered in my name"); Sunday mornings at my local parish (Sydney-style evangelical), and the occasional sung Evensong at the Cathedral or University Chaplaincy.

I would love that diversity to continue.  It meets my various needs for worship from time to time.  It is also a great comfort and ease to travel around the world, enter a church, and feel like I am a distant cousin in the same family.  I know I should feel like that with all Christian churches; but the familiar types of worship and prayers you find in Anglican churches make it easier.  I think we will all miss that, if it goes; but sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the sake of the gospel, because God’s kingdom is more important than our feeling comfortable.

Unity itself is no virtue, if it is not unity in Christ and in the gospel.  The scriptures describe and condemn ungodly kinds of unity - the tower of Babel is a good example, where mankind unites AGAINST God and His kingdom.

It is the unity of all who truly repent and believe that is what Christ prayed for.  If we cling too strongly to the Anglican Communion, our communion with other churches will be jeapardised - as it is already happening with the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and other churches already.

I read in our provincial newspaper on the weekend an American cleric expressing pride in the fact that the Episcopal Church was the only church in the USA which did not split over slavery.  I think that says everything, doesn’t it?

It has been clear for many years that parts of the Anglican church had really begun to teach a new religion - one in which there is no heaven or hell; Christ is not God incarnate; there is no judgment, no second coming; Jesus came to make us feel better about ourselves; not to die for our sins and transform us into children of God.

I am only sorry for the poor impression it must make on gay people looking to our Anglican Church for Christ’s love and truth, that having tolerated all manner of contradictory teaching over the years; we would appear to have settled on gay bishops as the occasion for the split.

The camel’s back ought to have given way a long time before this straw was placed on it.

Is it possible that we can continue to exist as a family of churches, warts and all? Or has it gone too far?

What’s the point of such a family?  Will the Anglican Church then become like the British Commonwealth - once a genuine fellowship of nations with common ideals and values; now just a talking shop between liberal democracies and maniacal dictators.

And if it has gone too far - how can we make a transition that is peaceful and loving? Is there any chance of the first “bloodless” schism?

I think we all need to pray for the work of the Eames Commission which the AB of C has set up.  But I fear it is a fruitless endeavour.

The Americans will ignore its recommendations, just as they ignored the primates’ request not to proceed with the consecration of Gene Robinson.  A church which has embraced the culture of divorce and remarriage and now homosexual activity so wholeheartedly, will not baulk at ignoring Christ’s injunction against taking our brothers to court.

I’m not that big a fan of unity for its own sake.  When I became a Christian (as opposed to a nominal Roman Catholic) I was accused of “breaking the unity of the family” and “spreading dischord among [my] cousins”.  Weighing up that kind of unity against the truth of the gospel was a no-brainer for me then, as it is now.  Of course it would have been easier not to make waves and fit in with whatever made other people most comfortable, but easy isn’t the same as right. 

Thank the Lord that Athanasius and Luther were not committed to this kind of unity.  Like I said, not a big fan. 

SJK.

Brothers and Sisters,

So much talk about unity.

I think the key area of disagreement revolves around the idea that common structure is unity. It is not.

Church unity takes place in the context of the Spirit, not the denomination.

I am united with brothers and sisters in the Uniting Church, the Baptist Church, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Presbyterian Church and the ECUSA - regardless of what structures do or don’t bind us together.

And I am not united with those people who have not truly turned to Christ, or who have despised the Spirit of grace and so rejected Christ, even if they attend my own parish.

The disintegration of the Anglican Communion (if it happens) is a tragedy I think all Anglicans feel profoundly. No-one really wants it to happen (at least not that I’ve encountered). But sadly, any split is not an act of disunity. It is a recognition of a disunity that has already eventuated. And it is a recognition that after these issues explode, time does not bring us closer together again, in spite of Rowan Williams’ admirable optimism, but only sees us running further apart.

Perhaps this discussion could look at the implications of the key biblical passage about church unity, Ephesians 4:1 to 5:20, for the present situation. Paul has just outlined God’s plan to sum up everything in Jesus Christ and under his Lordship, and explained that the church is the method through which God is doing that, and that the church is God’s testimony to the spiritual and physical realms of the wisdom of God in doing that. Then he draws the implications for the way the church should conduct itself.

All my following comments (and indeed the ones above) are borne out of this passage.

1. Paul sees unity as something to be pursued passionately, using humility, gentleness, patience, love, and bearing with one another.

2. Unity is in the Spirit, in our common faith, baptism, Lord, God and Father.

3. Diversity to be celebrated in the church is diversity of gifts, (not diversity of doctrine, though I’m sure diversity of style ought to be accomodated) (4:7-11)

4. Those gifts are to be used to build up the body of Christ for ministry

5. That ministry has the object of ‘unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God’.

6. That ministry also has a protective function: ‘We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.’

I’m not sure what else to make of Frank Griswold’s actions in signing the primates’ statement and then officiating the consecration himself. That is not an action of integrity. That is deceit, even outright lying. How can he be respected in the church again? This is driven by a scheme to force the greater part of the Anglican church to accept something which in conscience it cannot. Finally, it looks as if the broader church will refuse to accomodate their deceitful scheming any more.

7. Integral to unity is ‘speaking the truth in love’ (v15). Not muffling the truth under love. The clarity with which the truth is spoken is not altered. But the heart from which the truth is spoken is vital.

8. Our unity is fundamentally tied to the ‘new life’: not as the world around us lives, because they are ‘darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God. They have lost all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. That is not the way you learned Christ!...You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.’ (4:17-24)

That, for me, is the crux of the issue, and why it is a communion-breaking issue in a way women’s ordination was not. This is the first time the church has endorsed a bishop parading his decision to reject the ‘new life’ (as explained in the scriptures). He is leading many others by example to retain the mantle ‘Christian’ while refusing the renewal of Christ, and while maintaining his greed to practice impurity and licentiousness.

When ‘no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God’ (5:5) what unity do I have with him? Why maintain a structure when the unity quite clearly does not exist underneath it?

And then I find Paul confirming that sentiment in the following verses:

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be associated with them. For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light - for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true. Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”

Expose the works of darkness. Do not be associated with those who are disobedient.

I suspect as it has been bandied around the Anglican communion in recent months, ‘unity’ has now become an ‘empty word’. Real unity exists outside of our associations, however many pieces they are in. And disunity exists within our structural associations. Eventually, this particular association may be forced to give way by the ECUSA’s celebration of disobedience. But the true unity of the obedient survives any splintering of our charades.

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

Hi everyone…

A comment which I am sure will inflame, but never the less - I would like to ask it. 

Why now??

Robinson has been a priest for years and years...a canon for the last 10 or so...and now a bishop.  Why wasn’t the conservative wing of Anglicanism threatening to schism when this guy first made his sexual preference known (years ago).

Is the AAC and other conservative wings of the Anglican church worldwide guilty of a litle bit of hypocrisy (or by default, heresy...as silence in opposition is often taken as condoning behaviour/actions) by speaking up only now...and threatening to schism...when they should have been campaigning and talking about this same situation when he became a canon, or a priest....????  This enforces to anyone outside of the church that the rank and file within clergy can do whatever they like...but when it comes to a bishop????!!???

For instance, looking at Jeffrey John.  Is anyone still jumping up and down about him now that he has slipped back into obscurity as a canon (or soon to be dean of Norwich I believe).  There just seems to me to be a lack of consistancy in the Anglican church over whatever issue arises.  If its a ‘hot potato’ jump up and down, but if its a cold potato (a serious issue but not the flavour of the month), then let sleeping dogs lie.

Looking at the flipside… I thought it was ‘very’ rich from Robinson to make comment about ‘those that disagree must be welcomed back into our churches’ (or something along those lines)...as if he and his views represented the majority of opinion in the Anglican Communion.

Forever in the middle....Mike

By the way, let me just clarify something.  I hold to celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage as God’s standard for sexuality, and am as worried as the next person by the events not only in New Hampshire, but in New Westminster. 

Sorry - I re-read my post, and it sounded a bit like I was in favour of Robinson as a bishop.  I am not.

Hope that clarifies a bit.