New Anglican Church

[ebia]

However I do get the impression that communion with the CofE let alone the ECUSA and Canadian provinces is hugely impaired in many cases anyway. There are increasingly two different churches within the church both teaching opposite things. I would also suggest that a number of Anglican churches are now a good deal closer to various non-Anglican churches than to their ‘other’ Anglican counterparts. I think there is some going through the motions.

It's always been that way. The diversity of the Anglican church is biggest asset over other denoms. When we start to insist that everyone else agrees with us:
a. the Anglican Communion is doomed to not just split, but fragment.
b. it will have lost it's purpose anyway.

 

[ahab]

Hi ebia,

I really can't see how disagreeing on the interpretation of scripture on a single, small, issue of morality could possibly be called "a clear abandonment of scripture".

Well thats because you dont see it as a small single issue of morality or an abandonment of scripture, but others do see it as teaching that ingores not only specifics but that goes against the creation purposes and all the references to sexual immorality in conjuction with sinful desires, thereby being a huge issue. However Bishop Frank Griswold has apprently said "Homosexuality, as we understand it as an orientation, is not mentioned in the Bible." The majority point out that Jesus does know but heterosexual orientation isn't mentioned either.

If ECUSA had abandoned scripture, they wouldn't be trying so hard to follow what they believe it teaches.

Nor would the majority by following 1 Cor 5. The problem is whilst the minority dont think they have abandoned scripture, the majority do.

I can understand that someone might feel the need to split over a significant issue of ecclesiology, but not over a small issue of morality.

But the fact is the issue does cause a split, becuase one side does consider it is a huge issue and cant understand why the minority cant see it.

Peace

 

[ahab]

Hi ebia,

When we start to insist that everyone else agrees with us:

But we are a communion teaching two different things, who agrees with us? The majority insist that Lambeth 1.10 must be adhered to, the minority insist on teaching some different.

peace

 

[ebia]

Hi ebia,

Well thats because you dont see it as a small single issue of morality or an abandonment of scripture, but others do see it as teaching that ingores not only specifics but that goes against the creation purposes and all the references to sexual immorality in conjuction with sinful desires, thereby being a huge issue. However Bishop Frank Griswold has apprently said "Homosexuality, as we understand it as an orientation, is not mentioned in the Bible." The majority point out that Jesus does know but heterosexual orientation isn't mentioned either.
Nor would the majority by following 1 Cor 5. The problem is whilst the minority dont think they have abandoned scripture, the majority do.

This is not the appropriate forum to debate whether or not ECUSA are, or are not, following the will of Christ or the teachings of scripture, and you know that.

But we are a communion teaching two different things, who agrees with us? The majority insist that Lambeth 1.10 must be adhered to, the minority insist on teaching some different.

We are a communion teaching a million and one different things. This is not the biggest difference between us by a long shot.

 

[ahab]

Hi ebia,

This is not the appropriate forum to debate whether or not ECUSA are, or are not, following the will of Christ or the teachings of scripture, and you know that

The very article in the OP link refers to Archbishop Gomez affirming the issue is not the historic faith. We are not debating whether they are or not, we are debating why there may need to be a separation because Archbishop Akinola and the majority believe the ECUSA have abandoned the teachings of Christ on the issue as he has said more than once.

Furthermore if you say its a small issue of morality and you dont believe in schism, you would be prepared to adhere to Lambeth 1.10 to keep the communion together, or are you saying its a small issue but in reality its too great to give in on and so just as big an issue as I see it?
peace

 

[ebia]

Furthermore if you say its a small issue of morality and you dont believe in schism, you would be prepared to adhere to Lambeth 1.10 to keep the communion together, or are you saying its a small issue but in reality its too great to give in on and so just as big an issue as I see it?
peace

Trying to enforce your view on a "small issue" onto the rest of us turns a small issue into a larger one. ECUSA has not told the rest of the communion that they must also consecrate homosexual bishops as far as I know.

 

[Bonifatius]

So I think it’s the minority church who believe people are causing schism, the majority believe it is abandonment of the scriptures and teachings given.

Hi Ahab,

I agree as long as you define minority and majority by the official doctrine of the member churches of the Anglican Communion.
I guess you get another impression when it comes to the people in the pews. Do you know anything about that? Have there been polls or so?

I am a happy C of E member but my position on the "gay issue" differs somewhat from the official position of my church. But of course I do not regard this as a core issue and therefore do not see any need for action. And that is what I think most people in my local church would say.

All the best
Boni

 

[ahab]

ebia,

Trying to enforce your view on a "small issue" onto the rest of us turns a small issue into a larger one. ECUSA has not told the rest of the communion that they must also consecrate homosexual bishops as far as I know.

No 'we' want 'you' to adhere to a big issue because we see it as big. Our position demonstrates we feel its big becuase we wont 'budge' You say its small but you demonstrate its big by not 'budging' Therefore both sides insist equally. You insist that 'your' view is accepted and we insist you abandon it and neither will give way for the sake of the communion.

Peace

 

[pmcleanj]

Closed for moderator review.

Please review the Christian Forums rules on the debate of offensive topics.

It is possible to debate schism and attitudes toward dealing it, without getting into debating the rule-4.2 topics themselves. The inappropriate introduction of that debate into this thread has resulted in its closure.