Anglican Drift: Canadian Dioceses and Same Sex Blessings, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Bible in the Life of the Church Project

…upset with the continuing drift in the Anglican world. 

Canada 

The Anglican Essentials Canada Blog recently reported that the Diocese of Rupert’s Land has now joined British Columbia, New Westminster, Edmonton, Niagara, Huron, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in making the blessing of same sex unions possible. That's a third of the dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada. 

It seems that in deciding not to make a decision on the matter, General Synod 2010 was not so much allowing time for growing consensus as making the way clear for dioceses to go ahead severally. There has been no intention of holding off for the sake of the communion. It's hard not feel duped. 

The Anglican Consultative Council meeting in NZ

Things are not much better on the international level. Canon Phil Ashey, Chief Operating and Development Officer for the American Anglican Council writes: 

In terms of what seems to be emerging, I would respectfully suggest the following as a “pincer” movement that ACC/ACO is going to place upon confessing Anglicans: 

1. Through Continuing Indaba dialogue and stories, bolstered by the work of the Bible in the Life of the Church (BILC) resources, Biblical interpretation of human sexuality and its limits will be rendered value-neutral with no limits on Biblical interpretation within the Communion. Lambeth 1.10 will be declared in effect non-binding; 

2. Then, through the new Code of Conduct and the Safe Church resolution, any objection to sexual expressions that are not Biblical will be deemed “harassment,” chilling any speech and bringing consequences to those who, in Anglican communion meetings, dare to raise the subject. 

I pray I am mistaken, but that is my best look into the future. 

…also from The Anglican Essentials Canada Blog and just as disturbing. 

Bible in the Life of the Church

There was a report from the Bible in the Life of the Church project at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in New Zealand. Why do such projects so rarely call for deeper submission to Scripture in the Anglican world? On the contrary, the authority and reliability of Scripture is constantly called into question. Personal experience, a culture of victimhood and postmodern progressive cultural mores trump the Scripture every time.  

Anglican Down Under comments on the Anglican Consultative Council and the report:

if its celebration of the report on the Bible in the Communion is a guide, any time there is disagreement about truth, we celebrate our diversity instead of mourning our loss of unity. Such response is scandalous, a stumbling block to true Christian "progress"…

Celebrating diversity constantly is a shell game, an avoidance of the hard work finding the truth involves. The point of theology is to seek truth. Stopping when the going gets hard with a celebration of diversity of viewpoint is intellectual laziness. We will only progress as a Communion when we repent of our apathy and move forward zealous for the truth.

But then, there's no longer such a thing as objective truth. All is relative.

Anglican Down Under, also shared this comment on the project: 

After three and half years of worldwide research, the Bible in the Life of the Church project has found that Anglicans around the globe share “a high common ground” over the essential place and use of the Bible in Anglican life. 

How can a communion which can't agree on whether it is even God's Word possibly have a "high common ground"? And that's before we get onto interpretation, criticism, contextualisation etc. The authors appear to have done a thorough job in their research, but it doesn't seem to pass the common sense test. Why is our communion falling apart if we all agree on our foundational text and its meaning for us today?

To me it always feels like the truth of Scripture and the importance and uniqueness of Jesus as Saviour is always being called into question and watered down. I continue to be saddened by it all.

Some Wright Stuff on the Public Reading of Scripture

There is simply no excuse for leaving out verses, paragraphs or chapters, from the New Testament in particular. We dare not try to tame the Bible. It is our foundation charter; we are not at liberty to play fast and loose with it.

My sentiments exactly.

All here. H/T Creedal Christian.

Posted with Blogsy

The Anglican Mess: Kiwis, Yanks, Comprehensiveness, Liberal Theology and the Bible

Both New Zealand's General Synod and The Episcopal Church's General Convention have just taken place. The Kiwis and Polynesians have decided to study the theology of marriage with a view to somehow "progressing" beyond the merely heterosexual. The Episcopalians have approved a rite for blessing same-sex couples and have decided that transgender issues may not inhibit a person from leadership in the church and ordination. There are plenty of Canadian Anglicans who want to go there, too—several dioceses already have.

There has, of course, been considerable commentary on it all. For example, Anglican Down Under (ADU) who works for Bishop Victoria Matthews and the Diocese of Christchurch, feels that these developments threaten the comprehensiveness he believes has been the Anglican advantage up to now:

Personally I would be deeply saddened to find that the comprehensiveness of the church to which I belong, through birth, baptism, conviction and license, is jettisoned. But worse, I see signs that it would be the beginning of the end of this church. As Anglicans used to being the largest and greatest church of the land, we can miss seeing the bigger picture of contemporary Christianity in these islands. In that bigger picture we are increasingly a smaller player. The growth areas in congregational life are in churches of other denominations and even of no denomination. Anglicanism could disappear tomorrow off the face of New Zealand's earth and Christianity would continue to thrive, grow, permutate and develop. In particular, Christianity of the non-Anglican variety is showing itself as particularly adept at winning young people to Christ. And, guess what, most are joining up to a discipleship programme which is not liberal/progressive. 

I see a huge temptation in the GS of 2014 to determine that when most of the rest of Christianity in Aotearoa New Zealand is conservative, traditional, biblical in its orthodoxy and orthopraxy, ACANZP can become the liberal/progressive alternative. My prayer, wish, agenda and campaign here (for what it is feebly worth) is that our church does not take that turn, but determines, whatever re-examinations take place in the next two years, that we will both remain a comprehensive church and be part of the mainstream future of Christianity in these islands.

In that same post (all here) ADU also refers to a New York Times piece on the subject: "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" in which one, Ross Douthat, comments on the headlong Episcopal push to progressive-liberal theology:

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase. 

Traditional believers, both Protestant and Catholic, have not necessarily thrived in this environment. The most successful Christian bodies have often been politically conservative but theologically shallow, preaching a gospel of health and wealth rather than the full New Testament message. 

But if conservative Christianity has often been compromised, liberal Christianity has simply collapsed. Practically every denomination — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian — that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen an Episcopal-style plunge in church attendance.

All here.

There's more! ADU puts his finger the underlying and real issue behind and through it all in another post entitled "Let's change the Bible. No, let's silence it!"

It's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into, Ollie, and that's a fact!

Posted with Blogsy

A Lovely Description of the Bible

I'm reading Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries: the making of the King James Bible. I love this sentence on the Bible:

It was the word of God, an enormous, direct, vastly complicated, infinitely interpretable account of what God meant by and for his creation. 122

Sums it up pretty well.

And to think those secretaries were essentially Anglican. Hadn't thought of that before.

My Grudem Exploration Continues

396 pages in. Enjoying myself.

Chapter 16: God's Providence

A definition:

God is continually involved with all created things in such a way that he (1) keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which he created them; (2) cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and (3) directs them to fulfill his purposes. 315

He then goes on to unpack that very thoroughly from a Calvinist perspective including a lengthy discussion of how God can be in control and we humans have free choice at the same time.

God causes all things that happen, but…he does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing, responsible choices, choices that have real and eternal results, and for which we are held accountable. Exactly how God combines his providential control with our willing and significant choices, Scripture does not explain to us. But rather than deny one aspect or the other (simply because we cannot explain how both can be true), we should accept both in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of all of Scripture. 321

The Problem of Evil

What Scripture reveals to us, …was that God was bringing about his plan through the willing choices of real human beings who were morally accountable for their actions. In a way not understood by us and not revealed to us, God caused them to make a willing choice to do what they did. 326

Here Grudem's section headings in one part of the discussion:

Analysis of Verses Relating to God and Evil.

• God Uses All things to Fulfill His Purposes and Even Uses Evil for His Glory and for Our Good


• Nevertheless, God Never Does Evil, and Is Never to Be Blamed for Evil


• God rightfully Blames and Judges Moral Creatures for the Evil They Do


• Evil Is Real, Not an Illusion, and We Should Never Do Evil, for It Will Always Harm Us and Others


• In Spite of All of the Foregoing Statements, We Have to Come to the Point Where We Confess That We Do Not Understand How It Is That God Can Ordain That We Carry Out Evil Deeds and Yet Hold Us Accountable for Them and Not be Blamed Himself

Furthermore,

Because of our confidence in God’s providential care, we need not fear any evil or harm, even if it does come to us—it can only come by God’s will and ultimately for our own good. 337

The Arminian Position

He then compares and contrasts the Arminian position regarding God's Providence. I was intrigued to find that Methodists, Nazarenes and Assemblies of God tend to be Arminian. The 39 Articles put us Anglicans in the Reformed, or Calvinist, camp. Here's how he describes the Arminian position:

Those who hold an Arminian position maintain that in order to preserve the real human freedom and real human choices that are necessary for genuine human person-hood, God cannot cause or plan our voluntary choices. Therefore they conclude that God’s providential involvement in or control of history must not include every specific detail of every event that happens, but that God instead simply responds to human choices and actions as they come about and does so in such a way that his purposes are ultimately accomplished in the world. 338

In other words, Arminians believe God does not control every detail of our lives while Calvinists believe that He does even though we also are free to make our own choices.

More Grudem on Creation

Grudem's chapter on Creation is a very helpful, engaging and even-handed exploration of the various theories concerning this thorny issue. Some statements that caught my eye:

On "The Relationship Between Scripture and the Findings of Modern Science

We can learn from such controversies as Galileo and the earth travelling around the sun:

…careful observation of the natural world can cause us to go back to Scripture and reexamime whether Scripture actually teaches what we think it teaches. Sometimes, on closer examination of the text, we may find that our previous interpretations were incorrect. 273

On "When All the Facts Are Rightly Understood, There Will Be "No Final Conflict" Between Scripture and Natural Science"

We should not fear to investigate scientifically the facts of the created world but should do so eagerly and with complete honesty, confident that when facts are rightly understood, they will always turn out to be consistent with God's inerrant words in Scripture. Similarly, we should approach the study of Scripture eagerly and with confidence that, when rightly understood, Scripture will never contradict facts in the natural world. 275

On "The Need for Further Understanding"

Then, after a thorough discussion of the pros and cons of Darwinian evolutionary theory, old and young earth theories, he writes:

Scripture seems to be more easily understood to suggest (but not to require) a young earth view, while the observable facts of creation seem increasingly to favour an old earth view. Both views are possible, but neither is certain. 308

I Laughed Out Loud: Grudem on Creation

…while reading Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology! This made me do it:

Instead of the straightforward biblical account of God's creation, the theistic evolution view has to understand events to have occurred something like this:

And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds." And after three hundred eigthy-seven million four hundred ninety-two thousand eight hundred seventy-one attempts, God finally made a mouse that worked. 276-277

This in the fascinating Chapter 15, on Creation, and a section entitled, "Some Theories About Creation Seem Clearly Inconsistent With the Teachings of Scripture," one of those theories being "Theistic Evolution."

Grudem thinks that there is an incompatibility between God's purposefulness in the biblical account of creation and the randomness demanded by evolutionary theory.

No kidding!

Gleanings from a Study Week with Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology"

I'm supposed to take a couple of study weeks a year. This year I decided to take one to read Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Zondervan, 1994). I chose this book because it has been recommended by some people I admire, because I'm intrigued by the fact that someone described Grudem as the Vineyard's official theologian ( I find the idea of a charismatic systematic theology appealling) and because it is a serious work worthy of study.

Yesterday I read the first 260 pages which covered Part 1: The Doctrine of the Word of God and half of Part 2: The Doctrine of God. Here are some things that caught my eye (the numbers at the end of each paragraph are page numbers):

The Christian Liberal-Conservative Debate

First, an insight on why dialogue between liberal and conservative Christians is so difficult:

I do not think a true system of theology can be constructed from within what we may call the “liberal” theological tradition—that is, by people who deny the absolute truthfulness of the Bible, or who do not think the words of the Bible to be God’s very words. 17

This does not mean that those in the liberal tradition have nothing valuable to say; it simply means that differences with them almost always boil down to differences over the nature of the Bible and its authority. 17

…which is the exact situation in which we Anglicans find ourselves these days.

On understanding Scripture properly

…when we are unable to understand some passage or some doctrine of Scripture,…pray for God’s help. Often what we need is not more data but more insight into the data we already have available. 33

…our ability to reason and draw conclusions is not the ultimate standard of truth—only Scripture is. 34

On the Authority of Scripture

A definition:

The authority of Scripture means that all the words in Scripture are God’s words in such a way that to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God. 73

It is helpful for us to learn that the Bible is historically accurate, that it is internally consistent that it contains prophecies that have been fulfilled hundreds of years later, that it has influenced the course of human history more than any other book, that it has continued changing the lives of millions of individuals throughout its history, that through it people come to find salvation, that it has a majestic beauty and a profound depth of teaching unmatched by any other book, and that it claims hundreds of times over to be God’s very words. 78

On the Truthfulness of Scripture:

God Cannot Lie or Speak Falsely




Therefore All the Words in Scripture Are Completely True and Without Error in Any Part




God’s Words are the Ultimate Standard of Truth

And, based on John 17.17, "“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth,” because “truth” here is a noun, not an adjective:

The Bible is God’s Word, and God’s Word is the ultimate definition of what is true and what is not true: God’s Word is itself truth. Thus we are to think of the Bible as the ultimate standard of truth, the reference point by which every other claim to truthfulness is to be measured. Those assertions that conform with Scripture are “true” while those that do not conform with Scripture are not true.

What then is truth? Truth is what God says, and we have what God says (accurately but not exhaustively) in the Bible. 83

On the Inerrancy of Scripture

Grudem shares his idea of inerrancy with the likes of JI Packer. A definition and some comments:

The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. 90

This definition does not mean that the Bible tells us every fact there is to know about any one subject, but it affirms that what it does say about any subject is true. 91

…biblical statements can be imprecise and still be totally true. Inerrancy has to do with truthfulness, not with the degree of precision with which events are reported. 91-92

On the Sufficiency of Scripture

…although the history of the church may help us to understand what God says to us in the Bible, never in church history had God added to the teachings or commands of Scripture: Nowhere in church history outside of Scripture has God added anything that he requires us to believe or to do. 129

…everything God wants to tell us about … [any] question is to be found in Scripture. 130-131

How Reading Grudem Makes Me Feel

This approach fits for me. I like the way Grudem does not avoid the hard questions and the things that don't seem to make sense in the Bible.

Billy Graham describes a day he decided to believe that the Bible is, indeed, God's very word. I, too, have so decided. Rather than calling the veracity of the Bible into question because I don't understand a passage, or because I don't agree with what God said or did, I will pray for more Holy Spirit insight. I choose to believe that God, in His grace and mercy, has provided me with all that I need in Scripture (accurately but not necessarily exhaustively, as Grudem put it) to live best as a follower of Jesus.

Reading and Listening: Goodies from Stephen Carter, Dallas Willard and Wayne Grudem

I have discovered a new writer! Stephen L Carter, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale, no less. I'm reading The Emperor of Ocean Park. His first novel, a "complex and smart mystery," they say, and a first-class read. One of his characters makes this observation in passing about the Episcopal Church:

You know us Episcopalians, ... We love to feel compassion for people. We're never happy unless we're ignoring somebody's sins to show how tolerant we are. (p135)

This is not what the book is about. I just noticed it because of all the hoo-ha we Anglicans are experiencing these days and because some Canadian Anglicans, especially of the Member-of-General-Synod variety, seem to have caught the same bug.

Thank God for MP3. I listened to Dallas Willard speaking at a Church Staff Retreat as I treadmilled recently. Some things he said which I had to write down as I trod:

When anger comes up in our standing for truth, then it's about winning not truth.

Disciplines are about cultivating grace.

God never gives anyone too much to do.

Paradise is already in session. We're already in eternity.

Work a modest day, step back and rest and you will be close to God.

He also spoke of life being a proper balance of family, rest, prayer, meditation and flower-sniffing. He said the disciplines to which he feels particularly called are fasting and memorizing Scripture. Also, on enough stuff:

We will trust Jesus for forgiveness of sins but not for the next sandwich.

Last but not least, from his Scottsdale Bible Church teachings, Wayne Grudem on inerrancy:

What the Bible says about any subject is true.

Inerrancy is to do with truthfulness not precision concerning events and when they happened.

He says each of us need to be reading the Bible, praying and walking with the LORD, otherwise we're starving ourselves spiritually.

The Rev. Dr. Brett Cane: A biblical perspective on human sexuality

Brett Cane is the Rector of St Aidan's Anglican Church in Winnipeg who I met among the Anglican Essentials team at General Synod in May 2004. He is a kind and gentle man who has written a thoughtful piece:

...in speaking against homosexual practice, as I believe the Bible does, we are not isolating it as the sin God is more concerned about that any other. Gossip, for example, is part of Paul’s catalogue of “every kind of wickedness” listed alongside homosexual practice in Romans 1 (verse29). It is not that we should “come down hard” only on sexual sin and “go easy” on other kinds of sin; it is just that no one is arguing for gossip as a good thing, but many are doing just that for homosexual unions. This issue is a focal point, the tip of the iceberg, of the far deeper issues of authority and cultural accommodation that are facing the Church in our generation. This is why we must address it.

I also want to affirm that persons who find themselves sexually attracted to the same gender or who are involved in homosexual practice are deeply loved by God – Jesus was criticized for being compassionate to the sexually broken (e.g. Luke 7:36-50). However, his love for them also meant that he called them away from their sinful practices (e.g. John 8:11). There are many who can attest to the power of God for help in their sexual struggles. However the foundation upon which to base all our struggles against temptation – sexual and otherwise – is the Scriptures.

Read the whole article.

A Bible Bit

We have discovered a way of studying the Bible in which we learn everything about it except what it says. (John Rodgers of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry)

And we have also discovered a way of interpreting the Bible which enables us to avoid doing what it says, especially with regard to sexuality, money and evangelism.

Lord, have mercy.

John Stott: a Word About the Authority God's Word Written

John Stott at a conference in Oxford:

The supreme authority in the church is in God's word. It is the ordered loveliness of the created universe. We believe in natural revelation, revealed supremely in Christ and the fullness of the biblical witness to Christ...

The supreme authority of the church is not the Catholic magisterium or liberals of educated opinion. It is in God's Word written to whose authority we must submit and we must submit in the working of the church today.