The question raised in your post is how the actions of synods and councils are received by the Church. Even though the House of Deputies did not concur with the junior house on the Quadrilateral, it is clear to me, at least, that it has been received by the Church as having some level of authority. However, the more important point about it is that it sets forth four points on which there has been agreement in the Church - and not just churches in the Communion. I am not fond of the references to adiaphora in the discussions of this issue because it suggests this is a matter of indifference. I do, however, believe that differences of Scriptural interpretation are not of the same significance as, e.g., abandoning the Creeds.

If the Quadrilateral has some authority because it has been accepted by the Bishop both in Lambeth and in the HoB and because it has been rather long standing, then the teaching of the Church on homosexual relationship has even more authority because of its long standing within the Church Catholic.  That is what +Cantuar is saying.  This new innovation has not yet become part of the teaching of the Church regarding our moral behavior. 

It is not up to us, as people who have vowed to “continue in the Apostle’s teaching” and to be loyal to the “Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Christ as this Church has received (not may construe) them,” to determine which teaching we will uphold and be loyal to.  Until the new new teaching is approved, it is not the teaching of the Church.  To teach in contravention of what the Church teaches is to be heretical in our teaching.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 29 July 2009 01:36 PM

The question raised in your post is how the actions of synods and councils are received by the Church. Even though the House of Deputies did not concur with the junior house on the Quadrilateral, it is clear to me, at least, that it has been received by the Church as having some level of authority. However, the more important point about it is that it sets forth four points on which there has been agreement in the Church - and not just churches in the Communion. I am not fond of the references to adiaphora in the discussions of this issue because it suggests this is a matter of indifference. I do, however, believe that differences of Scriptural interpretation are not of the same significance as, e.g., abandoning the Creeds.

If the Quadrilateral has some authority because it has been accepted by the Bishop both in Lambeth and in the HoB and because it has been rather long standing, then the teaching of the Church on homosexual relationship has even more authority because of its long standing within the Church Catholic.  That is what +Cantuar is saying.  This new innovation has not yet become part of the teaching of the Church regarding our moral behavior. 

It is not up to us, as people who have vowed to “continue in the Apostle’s teaching” and to be loyal to the “Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Christ as this Church has received (not may construe) them,” to determine which teaching we will uphold and be loyal to.  Until the new new teaching is approved, it is not the teaching of the Church.  To teach in contravention of what the Church teaches is to be heretical in our teaching.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,

We could go around on this for weeks, repeating ourselves - as I find myself doing - and I’m not sure that is good stewardship for either of us. Heresy is a serious charge to make - and you seem to be making it about me. If you think my position on same-sex intimacy rises to the lev3l of heresy, I think even Dr. Williams would disagree with you. I may well be wrong, but it isn’t heresy.

Yours in Christ,
Daniel

Canon Weir. I agree with your statement to Phil: “Heresy is a serious charge to make - and you seem to be making it about me. If you think my position on same-sex intimacy rises to the level of heresy, I think even Dr. Williams would disagree with you. I may well be wrong, but it isn’t heresy.”

As someone from an evangelical background, I read with interest a June 2005 statement by J.I. Packer and other Canadian Anglican conservatives. They gave this view of the category of error under which the blessing of same-sex unions falls: “Certainly it does not fall into the category of apostasy. Neither is it heresy in the technical, theological sense, since it does not violate a particular, authoritatively defined dogma of the undivided Church.” They concluded, “It is a type of heterodoxy, false teaching.” [Anglican Essentials Canada. “False Doctrine, Heresy, and Schism.” A posting signed by various scholars including J.I. Packer and “offered to delegates of the ‘Open Door’ conference in Toronto, June 16-18, 2005.” Formerly posted at ]http://www.anglicanessentials.org/readarticle.php?article_id=59]

So, from the perspective of biblical and Anglican Communion teaching, you are contending in this matter under the banner of heterodoxy.

Dick Wire

I agree that heterodoxy would be a better word to use.  I am sorry that +Daniel was hurt by my words. 

The point is, though, that clergy take vows to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Christ as this Church has received them.  That homosexual sex (in any context) is blessed is not part of the received teaching of the Church.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 29 July 2009 06:22 PM

I agree that heterodoxy would be a better word to use.  I am sorry that +Daniel was hurt by my words. 

The point is, though, that clergy take vows to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Christ as this Church has received them.  That homosexual sex (in any context) is blessed is not part of the received teaching of the Church.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,

I would only say that our understanding of what has been received can’t be unchangeable. When I was baptized women were not allowed to serve on vestries or as General Convention deputies. When I was a teen-ager I was not allowed to receive Communion until I was confirmed. When I was ordained women could not be ordained to the priesthood. And those changes in the discipline are just in my lifetime.

Daniel

So the question is this:  Is sexual morality a discipline issue or a doctrine issue?  I submit that it is more than discipline because it involves the issue of authority.  Scripture is silent on the issue of church polity.  The long tradition of the Church was that communion was restricted to the baptized, so removing the requirement for confirmation is actually a return to a more fundamental practice.  The ordination of women has not been considered to be a communion breaking issue - I believe it was the 68 Lambeth Conference that spoke to this, but I could be mistaken.  Church discipline changes.  I admit that the teaching of the church may change and that those who support blessing same sex unions are right.  But, we need arguments from Holy Scripture and Tradition that show this is closer to God’s will than the traditional teaching of the Church.  Until the teaching changes, we should respect, support, and teach what the Church has always taught regarding sexual morality.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Daniel & Phil,

  What do you think about this? I recall seeing Mike Tyson beaten badly by Buster Douglas. Tyson never recovered. He was exposed as being a mere mortal.  I ‘ve always wondered about the psycholgy and sociology behind this.  This phenonmen manifests itself often with humans - a real loss of confidence in oneself or one’s group after a significant failure. I have always believed that the modern civil rights movement was Buster Douglas to the white supremacist thinking (heresy) of American Christianity - the complete rejection of which led many christians not only to question but to eventually challenge the church’s postions on on host of other issues(women, sexuality, poverty, purpose of life, etc..,  and not because those issues were similarly related to the faith as the concept and practice of white supremacy, but because the questioning and challenging of the Church’s tradtional teaching on those issues reflected a real loss of confidence in American Christianity’s ability to speak authoritativeley to them. I believe, St. Augustine responded to this same tendency on the occasion of the sack of Rome in his Civitas Dei.

author=“Daniel Weir” date=“1248926414

I would only say that our understanding of what has been received can’t be unchangeable. When I was baptized women were not allowed to serve on vestries or as General Convention deputies. When I was a teen-ager I was not allowed to receive Communion until I was confirmed. When I was ordained women could not be ordained to the priesthood. And those changes in the discipline are just in my lifetime. Daniel

Daniel,

One of my questions related to your above summary of 20th century church discipline changes is this: are there any boundaries that the Episcopal (or other) Church will observe in its approach to the items you mention.  For example, may anyone be permitted to be ordained?  Do we have any limits at all?  I could of course put up a list of crimes, bizarre behavior, etc. and ask if we would allow someone who exhibited or did these things to be ordained? 

Naturally, if we were having this conversation 50 years ago, such a list might be quite broader than today.  What might it look like 50 years from now?  Will there be any boundaries, and, more importantly, what criteria will we use to decide what is acceptable behavior and mores for the ministries of the church?  Will Scripture even be consulted? 

It still bugs me that if Gene Robinson had been openly living out of wedlock with a woman instead of a man (albeit committed and loving, etc.), I doubt that he would even have been a priest, much less consecrated a bishop.  Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

Rev. David Langille - 27 July 2009 09:56 AM

There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully.

So, Tom Wright and Integrity and most other commentators studied these carelessly!  I’ll take the time to digest the rest after the work of the church today.  But, this was not a great way to start the day.

Hi Fr Langille,
I don’t think this means Bp Wright or Integrity read the resolutions carelessly. I think what we have here is possibly a British/American difference in writing style. On this side of the Atlantic, we might use this word order: “the highest levels [of TEC] have insisted that, if the wording is studied carefully, the resolutions do not have the effect of overturning the requested moratoria”. This is exactly what the the PB and the president of the HoD said in their letters to the ABC. I don’t think he agreed with their evaluation. See section 2: ”...a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges…”.

(Sorry for these delayed responses. It has finally cooled off to a bearable level upstairs and I’m getting out a few of the things I didn’t send earlier in the week. The heat wave topped out at 103 degrees on Wednesday, a new all time high temperature for Seattle.)

Karen

Dale E. Matson - 27 July 2009 11:20 AM

...two styles of being Anglican

(From 24.)
I’m sorry but it is more than a “style” issue as if some wore casual dress and some formal to Sunday services. How can you on the one hand speak of a deep rent in the fabric of the communion and then refer to it as a difference in style?

I think Jordan (5) and Scott (11) have it right, and the two styles the ABC is referring to here are not the two sides of the doctrinal controversy but styles of relationship between Anglican churches, Federation or Communion.  In the Communion style, mutual responsibility and shared decision-making on controversial issues take priority over autonomy, while for the Federated (non-Covenanted) bodies, autonomy trumps Communion when the two clash.

I have no doubt which one the ABC is a proponent of, and very little doubt that he sees TEC as headed toward the other.  But, as he says, “for those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness – existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily”. Those parts of the current Communion which don’t adopt the Covenant won’t be thrown out, rather those which do will draw closer together.

Karen

Michael Russell - 27 July 2009 02:13 PM

Benjamin Guyer - 27 July 2009 12:09 PM

The urgent issue presented by ++Williams is how bishops in TEC who wish to remain in full communion with Canterbury are going to do so, especially in light of recent legal precedent (e.g., against the Diocese of San Joaquin).

This is only one of his problems.  Some Provinces, TEC included may well propose changes to the Ridley draft as part of the ratification process. Presented with the demand to sign Ridley (when it emerges) or be relegated to another “style” of Anglicanism may not sit well in the non-monarchical Provinces.(snip).

Michael
Do you know which ones are the non-monarchical ones? I see your point that not every province has an archbishop whom the other clergy are bound to obey. It looks like the problem of what provision, if any, to make for dioceses etc that wish to give a different answer than their province does not occur only in TEC.

Karen