In what was described to davidould.net as “a very carefully orchestrated plan”, conservative electors for the new Australian Primate have prevented the election of a new Primate who would not uphold the doctrinal integrity of the Anglican Church of Australia.
The conservative strategy, shared with davidould.net earlier in the week, was to go “all in” for Richard Condie, Bishop of Tasmania and also chair of GAFCON Australia. During the election they argued that he was the only realistic candidate who would uphold the doctrine and polity of the Anglican Church of Australia.
Archbishop Smith of Adelaide, previously considered the default option, has increasingly disappointed conservatives with the way that he has managed the Diocese of Adelaide. Anglicans there have expressed their concern about numerous appointments of revisionists to key posts and a failure to deal clearly with the presenting issue of same-sex marriage and related ethics. Australia has had much of that with Archbishop Philip Freier as Primate and so conservatives decided for a different approach.
Condie was preferred.
Condie’s nomination was always going to be controversial. As chair of GAFCON Australia he was a figure that many could not accept. Nevertheless, conservatives maintained the argument that he was the only viable candidate who genuinely upheld doctrine and polity at this crucial time. Conservative strategy was predicated on the requirement to gain a majority in all three houses. 6 conservative clergy votes would be sufficient to hold out against alternate candidates.
The voting took place over 5 rounds. The first round saw every diocesan bishop nominated and produced the following result:
Voting patterns were now already fairly well established. Round 2 simply clarified that this would be a two horse race:
After round 2 there was much discussion over Condie’s suitability. Three clergy electors moved to Smith and the lone votes for Aspinall moved to Condie.
Increasing pressure was put on the conservative block to now accept the reality of Smith’s eventual election but their discipline held over the next two rounds with only one clergy switching to Smith.
At this stage it was clear to all in the room that the conservative group was not going to move. One elector summed it up succinctly:
Well of course. They weren’t getting their way.
Another ballot (Round 6) was prefaced by angry speeches claiming that the house of clergy had effectively wasted $20k in having this process without getting a result”. The final voting yielded the same result (except for one bishop having to leave) and the electors voted to have one last round by a margin of 20 to 19. Round 7 saw one more bishop move to Smith but all other votes stayed the same.
The unwillingness of electors to prioritise the candidate who most vocally and clearly upheld the doctrine and polity of the national church was described to davidould.net as a clear indication that “there is a real issue” – namely that orthodoxy no longer commands allegiance.
The electoral panel adjourned and agreed to meet again before 30 June 2020. Phillip Aspinall will now serve as Acting Primate after 31 May when Philip Freier’s term ends and will chair the upcoming General Synod.
Did I miss something – surprised to not see Bp. Goldsworthy on even the initial list?
Divided they fall.
Bishop Peter Stuart of Newcastle ( or his representative) I presume voted in a revisionist context. What a sellout.
“ the lone votes for Aspinall moved to Condie.” Really?? That would indeed have been remarkable. Defies credibility – actually totally implausible. And “Sydney clergy had wasted $20k in having this process” was never said. That is simply a falsehood.
I expect its a figure of speech describing the result, i.e. that Aspinall’s vote went down one and Condie’s went up one. As I understand it, we don’t know how any individual voted in each round.
“And “Sydney clergy had wasted $20k in having this process” was never said.”
In fairness, David didn’t say it either. He referred to speeches saying that “the house of clergy had effectively wasted $20k in having this process without getting a result”.
On your last, you should know that I updated a previous sentence to better reflect the exact wording. The earlier sentence reflected the sentiment that had been communicated to me, even if not the exact terms used.
Ah okay then, thanks for the update. Apologies to Tim. ;o)
It’s just so sad to see how many don’t want to hold up the Biblical teaching of God’s view of marriage.
With what’s going on in the world, this is the best that you can do? They should be deeply ashamed of themselves
The aim should be to take control of the Anglican Church out of the hands of those who aspire to follow Christ on their own terms i.e. as it is made clear to them by their surrounding culture of unbelief. If believers in the risen Lord are going to stay in this Church, then they should hold administrators to account before God, starting, now, with Mr Aspinall.
It’s not a question of being diplomatic and civil. It’s a question, simply, of being as harmless as a dove and as wise as a serpent.
But we all must ultimately follow Christ on our own terms, given we cannot faithfully rely on what we know honestly to be second and third hand accounts distorted and manipulated through centuries to serve mankind’s own base ambitions.
We can only know Christ through our hearts, and must have faith that those who have taken these steps have acted in good faith and with the spirit of our Lord guiding them.
It saddens me to see those who feign to act in our Lord’s name behaving with such hubris, such lack of humility in the face of His essential enigma. They can no more claim to truly know our Lord’s will by dent of rigorous rote learning of theological dogma, than those they dismiss as apostates.
The orthodox are in no position to throw accusations of apostasy and adorn themselves in a robe of integrity. If our Church is to have any meaningful chance of restoring its ability to bring people to Christ, then we all must act with love and humility in the name of our Lord.
Alfred, that “we all must act with love and humility in the name of our Lord” is beyond question, but it remains always a precious truth to affirm.
It is Christ, Himself, who divides the sheep from the goats. Either you accept Holy Writ or you do not, but you can not act with love and humility should you avoid that He taught us clearly all there is to know pertaining to marriage and sexual ethics.
Thus there is no “essential enigma”. God is not an object of our knowing, but we believe that He has chosen to make Himself known, and surely, saints through the ages have borne witness to His holiness and the way of Christian perfection.
Those who are faithful are following Christ, who is perfect love, when they condemn the wickedness and hypocrisy affecting the leadership of the Anglican Church. In these circumstances, your appeal to love and humility in the name of our Lord indicates what is the real hubris, the real self-righteousness, and what is the real self-adornment “in a robe of integrity”, namely, that which Christ, Himself, was first to condemn (Mathew 7:22). Be careful, my friend.
“we cannot faithfully rely on what we know honestly to be second and third hand accounts distorted and manipulated through centuries to serve mankind’s own base ambitions.”
On the contrary, Alfred, we can faithfully rely on Scripture, which is God’s message to us. In fact it is the only way we can know Christ at all.
“We can only know Christ through our hearts”
Jesus and his apostles teach us the opposite: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9) and “He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:20-23).
“We …must have faith that those who have taken these steps have acted in good faith and with the spirit of our Lord guiding them.”
Why must we? You don’t give a reason.
“see those who feign to act in our Lord’s name behaving with such hubris, such lack of humility in the face of His essential enigma.”
Yes I agree, that well describes the revisionist Bishops.
“claim to truly know our Lord’s will by dent of rigorous rote learning of theological dogma,”
Again, that well describes the revisionists. However it does not describe the orthodox, who follow the clear words of our Lord.
“If our Church is to have any meaningful chance of restoring its ability to bring people to Christ”
Then we should follow orthodoxy, since that is how the church grows. Liberalism/revisionism only leads to shrinking dead churches.
“then we all must act with love and humility in the name of our Lord.”
Agreed. The revisionists should withdraw and cease to be bishops.
Either you accept Christ into your life as our guiding light and saviour, or you do not. But none of us, as much as we love God, can in good faith take Holy Writ as the literal revealed word of our Lord, and it is our mortal hubris to pretend otherwise. Christ has shown us the way of acceptance and love as the path to righteousness, and to bring us all closer to His Kingdom. The most perfect Christian response throughout time has been one of love; it is this which has brought us understanding and reconciliation.
No one but our Lord will judge what is wickedness and what is hypocrisy in this. Christ will know those who have acted with love and acceptance, and those who have sought to use Holy Writ as a bludgeon for base purposes. Love is our foundational rock as Christians, my friend. Take care yourself. Even the most cunning serpent is still prey to a soaring eagle.
Alfred, I have to say that there is not much, in your rejoinder, that should, in itself, appear ultimately disagreeable to a follower of Christ, except that it is baffling to me why you apparently accept the biblical injunction to love as authoritative if we can not “in good faith take Holy Writ as the literal revealed word of our Lord”. There is a bit of wisdom, on your own part, that you appear to throw in i.e. that “acceptance and love” is the path to righteousness, but you would have a lot of trouble finding an unbeliever who would disagree with you.
What, in fact, you are doing, in your comments, is disclosing the secular ethos (spawned by the Angel of Light), which is dominant in the Anglican Communion, and which has largely replaced the gospel of Christ.
The gospel of Christ does not stand on Holy Writ “as the literal revealed word of our Lord”. It stands or falls on the faith that was once delivered to the saints, and that faith is not that “[t]he most perfect Christian response throughout time” is “one of love” which “has brought us understanding and reconciliation”. This, I also have to say, is sanctimonious drivel.
The only acceptable response to God is to believe that He gave His Son for the life of the world, and, for each one of us, to make repentance for remission of sins. I agree with you as follows “No one but our Lord will judge what is wickedness and what is hypocrisy in this”.
“disclosing the secular ethos (spawned by the Angel of Light), which is dominant in the Anglican Communion….”
Hi Chris, whilst I agree with your post, I do have one quibble: The secular ethos which Alfred espouses is not dominant in the real Anglican Communion, i.e. among worldwide Anglicans. The vast majority of the 80+ million Anglicans in the world appear to be thoroughly orthodox.
It is only a small number of western liberal clergy and bishops who follow the secular ethos. They appear more prominent than they really are, because they have worked their way into prominent positions in the institutional hierarchy of the CofE, ACoA and a few others.
Michael, I take your point which is mathematically correct. It is the one bright light on the horizon.
Always good to see bright lights!
I found this comment by ++Venables of South America on the recent Primates Meeting in January very encouraging. It gives quite a different impression to the Lambeth Anglican Communion Office press releases:
“The vast majority of the Primates in attendance were in agreement that we should preach Biblical, saving faith and not embrace innovations that go against the Bible such as same-sex marriage or the blessing of same-sex unions. Those are not the only problematic teachings, but they are often the presenting issue from those who do not conform to Biblical authority and the historic teaching of the Church.
As the meeting proceeded, more and more Primates made it clear that they would not go the way of the innovations, that they believed the ‘faith once for all delivered,’ [a reference to Jude in the New Testament]. I was particularly encouraged that almost all the new Primates – and there were 12 who were new – were very clear that they are orthodox.”
Michael, I find the comments of Phil Ashey concerning the Primates Meeting in January to be far more sobering.
I find them both equally sobering.
Interesting that Ashey says that ++Venables’ account differs from the comments of ++Badi (of South Sudan and head of the Global South) but he can’t actually cite any difference.
I have already stated that ++Venables’ account differs markedly from that of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACO.
Can’t follow you. I thought that you found Archbishop Venables’ account “very encouraging”.
Yes I did. Why would you have an issue with that?
For the same reason as Phil Ashey!
“Many expressed dismay at the outcome of this meeting, specifically at the apparent agreement of Gafcon and Global South Primates concerning the following outcomes:
• No objection to the presence of the Primates of The Episcopal Church USA, The Anglican Church of Canada, The Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Church in New Zealand which have consecrated, are consecrating, or will consecrate bishops in same-sex unions. This is in violation of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998), which upholds the Biblical definition of marriage and the requirement of godliness in Holy Orders.
• No mention of Lambeth Resolution1.10 (1998), a standard of Biblical and moral teaching for Anglicans which Gafcon upheld and promoted in the Jerusalem Declaration (2008) and in every subsequent Gafcon communication since;
• No mention of or concern with the results of the 2016 Primates gathering which imposed sanctions on the Episcopal Church. These sanctions were not upheld in the months that followed and were allowed to expire without any further consequence or comment. Further, they allowed the Task Force formed in 2016 to be subverted for a new purpose—exploring “how we might walk together despite the complexities we face” (para. 12);
• Affirmations of their commitment to “walk together” with these false teachers four times in paragraphs 4, 12, 13, and 15 of the Primates’ Communique;
• Shared Holy Communion “as an expression of our unity” (para. 2);
• An affirmation that the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in July 2020 is a “vital part of the journey of walking together” (para. 13); and
• A reaffirmation of their commitment to contribute financial resources from their provinces to the failed Instruments of Communion (para. 11)”.
Hi Chris, your latest replies don’t have a facility for me to reply, so I will put it here. You haven’t answered my question.
You seem to be assuming that there is some sort of conflict between my finding ++Venables’ eye witness account both sobering and very encouraging. But there simply is no conflict and you haven’t shown any.
There really is no need to cut-and-paste slabs of Ashey’s post – I’ve read it, and it doesn’t provide any facts that contradict ++Venables, nor indeed does it support his assertion that ++Venables contradicts ++Badi.
” You are being forensic, and that’s being inappropriate.”
Chris, please – you queried how I could find ++Venables post both “very encouraging” and “sobering”. You didn’t explain why that should be a problem. And with respect, you still haven’t explained it. If you can think of a reason why there was any contradiction in my posts on this point then let me know. Otherwise I am not going to waste further time on an assertion that makes no sense to me.
“Clearly Venables and Ashey are not “walking together” on this.”
Aparently, although Ashey cannot explain why, and neither can you. ++Venables’ hasn’t disputed the negative aspects of the meeting which Ashey points to. He has however pointed out a number of positive aspects of it, which Ashey doesn’t attempt to refute (and he could hardly do so that since they happened at the meeting, and Ashey wasn’t there).
“There is no set of facts that is important i.e. as to whether Venables contradicts Badi. You are being forensic, and that’s being inappropriate. What is sobering is the fact that Gafcon leaders are not speaking with voice.”
With respect Chris, you aren’t dealing straight here, and neither is Ashey. If you are going to assert that Gafcon leaders (++Venables and ++Badi) aren’t speaking with one voice then its entirely appropriate for others to say: “Please show us the contradiction or variance”. It is precisely at this point that Ashey is very light on detail (in fact so light as to be non-existent).
There are problems with Gafcon and unity, but Ashey’s piece sheds zero light on the subject.
Chris, further to your post below:
“If Venables meets up with Welby later in the year (because he felt it was the right thing to do), it does not augur well for Gafcon.”
Why? Surely that depends on the purpose of the meeting?
“I would then look for another opinion piece from Ashey, likely also to be sobering, even if Venables could put a spin on it.”
Since so far neither you nor Ashey have produced any evidence of “spin” by ++Venables, what is the point of that statement? ++Venables reported the content of conversations that he participated in. That is not “spin”, unless you are suggesting that a Gafcon Primate has been misleading – are you suggesting that, and on what grounds?
So far, the only comment that appears to carry “spin” in it is Ashey’s, as a great deal of it seems to be opinion where the factual basis is not made clear.
Michael, you say: “…I am not going to waste further time on an assertion that makes no sense to me”. Fine, but the problem that you have is that you read assertions the others in a context that makes no sense to you.
“With respect Chris, you aren’t dealing straight here, and neither is Ashey. If you are going to assert that Gafcon leaders (++Venables and ++Badi) aren’t speaking with one voice then its entirely appropriate for others to say: “Please show us the contradiction or variance”. It is precisely at this point that Ashey is very light on detail (in fact so light as to be non-existent)”.
Firstly, it is Gafcon which is not speaking with one voice. Can’t you see that that is the problem? Can’t you see that that is what concerns Ashey, and a fortiori that I should find nothing encouraging in Venables’ comments? Accordingly I queried how you could find Venables’ comments “encouraging” and “sobering”.
Insofar as you do find Venables’ comments to be encouraging, what you need to do therefore is address the matter of the particular questions that Ashey raises, being the evident context which makes sense to everyone else.
• Did the Gafcon Primates and Global South Primates share the sacrament of Communion and Table fellowship with false teachers?
• Why didn’t they reaffirm Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998) as the official teaching on human sexuality, marriage, and leadership in the Church within the Anglican Communion?
• Did they read the Communique at any time before it was issued? If not, why not—especially in view of past misleading Communiques they claimed they had not read?
• If they read the Communique and assented to it, have the Gafcon and Global South Primates concluded that the “complexities that face us” by reason of false teaching are no longer a cause for broken or impaired communion or an impediment to “walking together”?
• Where does this leave the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration (2008), the Gafcon Letter to the Churches (2018), and the Global South “Cairo Covenant” (2019)?
• Given their “considerable discussion” on Anglican identity and their conclusion that it is rooted within the framework of relationship with Canterbury, does this signify that these Gafcon and Global South Primates are moving away from recognizing the very churches they authenticated as Anglican who are not in relationship with Canterbury—namely, the Anglican Church in North America, Brazil (IAB), and New Zealand?
Now, having considered the aforementioned questions, you should address the matter of Ashey’s advice to biblically faithful leaders who would regardless attend any further Anglican Communion meetings, in its deteriorated state, namely:
• Come prepared with an agenda that you wish to address—including confronting false teaching. Be prepared to speak and enlist others to join you;
• Don’t allow Canterbury or the Anglican Communion Office (ACO) to sideline the concerns you are raising. Insist on them until Canterbury or ACO decide to remove them from the agenda. Make sure the minutes of the meeting record that decision over your objection;
• Don’t worship with representatives of TEC, Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC), Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC), Church in Wales (CW) or the Anglican Province in New Zealand (APNZ);
• Don’t participate in photos at events when representatives of TEC, ACoC, SEC, CW, or ANZP are present. These photos will be used, as they have, to mislead people into believing you are “walking together” with false teachers;
• Do not participate in any ACO video projects (because in the past contributions have be spliced together with representatives of TEC, ACoC, SEC, CW, or ANZP to present the appearance of agreement.)
• Do not participate in ACO sponsored media events (interviews, press conferences, etc).
• Insist on receiving and reading any official Anglican Communion Communique from the meeting before you leave.
• Stay until the very end, and provide your own Communique and press conference to report what actually happened at the meeting.
Finally, I would have thought there is plenty here to advise Australian Anglicans when they meet at their Synods with the biblically unfaithful.
“There are problems with Gafcon and unity, but Ashey’s piece sheds zero light on the subject”.
Michael, further, I note that you comment below, March 16 at 9.24 as follows.
“It is high time that orthodox Anglicans in revisionist dioceses establish their own independent Anglican congregations, with episcopal oversight from orthodox bishops overseas.”
In that case, you must surely appreciate Ashey’s concern as to whether the Gafcon Primates and Global South Primates shared the sacrament of Communion and Table fellowship with false teachers?
Now, I am located in the Wangaratta diocese, which is notorious for its false teaching. Thus I support your concern, wholeheartedly, for the establishment of independent Anglican congregations “with episcopal oversight from orthodox bishops overseas”.
But how could that be a goer if orthodox bishops overseas share the sacrament of communion with false teachers?
Michael, I hope this appears on the page where you can follow it.
OK, first, this is not a factual dispute, that is, between Ashey and Venables. What I find to be sobering, as distinct from encouraging i.e. in relation to the Primates Meeting in January, is Ashey’s actual opinion piece on the Meeting. There is no set of facts that is important i.e. as to whether Venables contradicts Badi. You are being forensic, and that’s being inappropriate.
What is sobering is the fact that Gafcon leaders are not speaking with voice. This is no way to help the cause. You have to be united. If you like, you can blame Ashey for that!
Clearly Venables and Ashey are not “walking together” on this. That is what is sobering, although I do not blame the latter for that. As I say, his account is sobering.
If Venables meets up with Welby later in the year (because he felt it was the right thing to do), it does not augur well for Gafcon. I would then look for another opinion piece from Ashey, likely also to be sobering, even if Venables could put a spin on it.
What I can’t understand is why anyone who rejects the Anglican Article VI, & rejects God’s Word, & rejects those who up hold it, and salvation itself, would want to also lose their earthly integrity by still remaining Anglican. Why be so precious about the institution and reject the very foundation that constitute it, and leads to salvation? I just don’t get it.
Article VI – “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”
There is beauty in people being drawn into the life of Christ, regardless of which path brings them there, and regardless of what form their salvation. That is a beautiful thing about our Anglican Church; that so many have found the strength to shed the burden of archaic dogma, and found a way to bring people into the love of Christ and in turn channel His love into working for the salvation of others. To truly love Christ is to be open to His presence in this world and in our hearts. This isn’t about an institution, this is about a way of honouring His foremost imperative. Article VI is a man-made imperative; we can unmake it and still honour our mission as Anglicans.
James, the explanation appears to be that people want to still remain Anglican because it provides them with a social context in which they can still use the language of the ecclesia, despite their rejection of Christ.
You will find such people referring, for example, to “the life of Christ” and “the love of Christ”. We hear this also at the highest levels of the Anglican Communion. Here bishops will trash the teaching of Christ on sexual ethics, and also what their own institutional church has taught, in this respect, since its inception. This is done with impunity because that institution is now firmly in the grip of Satan.
The faithful believers, the good people of God who remain, have great difficulty in knowing how to deal with the situation. Well, how do you possibly respond to an unrepentant sinner who blasphemes the holy name of Christ by saying such things as the following. “To truly love Christ is to be open to His presence in this world and in our hearts”. Yes, this is language of the ecclesia. It comes out of mouth of the Angel of Light. Beware of it, my friend.
Chris, with all respect, watching you proceed to such conclusions and casual judgement in such an illogical and hypocritical fashion is deeply saddening, and makes me anxious for the future of our Church. To insist we are endowed with an authoritative view of human sexuality is dangerous hubris. The irony of my fellow Anglicans bemoaning those who seek to progress beyond a dogmatic view of scripture will never cease to amaze me. And they talk of the “progressives” being precious about the institution and not concerned enough for our foundational articles. Our man-made articles ! They would rather risk the growth of Christ’s love in the lives of our communities and humanity than countenance that maybe, just maybe we don’t know as much as we think we do about the will of God. There’s none so blind…
Alfred, your characterisation of me as “illogical” and “hypocritical” is not warranted as I am merely representing the historic Christian position in relation to sexual ethics. If perchance you had any knowledge of me personally, you might, alas, be closer to your desired mark. Be that as it may, it remains the case that we have been “endowed with an authoritative view of sexuality”. This is not “dangerous hubris”; instead, we are blessed by our Creator God who has revealed to us the origin of human sexuality in his creation of mankind as male and female. We know thus why a man and a woman will become one flesh (Genesis 2:24).
This has nought to do with “a dogmatic view of scripture”. The rich understanding that we have received as the people of God is that a man ought love his wife as Christ loved the Church. To suggest, as you do, that we lack an authoritative view of human sexuality is to show that pearls have been cast at the feet of swine.
In HIs wisdom he has given us the capacity to discern what is true of Christ’s imperative, and what are merely the intellectual gymnastics of generations of theological technocrats courting power and herding the masses.
It is sad to see those in our Church harden their hearts and close their minds against the progress in our understanding of our mission in this life as Christians and Anglicans. It is to love and be faithful in our deeds. It is beholden on us to love and accept all of our brothers and sisters regardless of God’s given sexuality, homosexual or heterosexual. To accept them into our Church, to place them on an equal footing. It is a poverty of imagination to yield to a reactionary position; to decry as sinners those acting out of a desire to make Christ’s Love and Acceptance real on this earth.
Our Church must reform. Sadly, even if it means cutting loose those who continue – to the detriment of our mission – defending a framework and theological position that has now, without the support of our erstwhile institutional power, collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions and dogmatism, and dispersed into the ether, unnoticed, unremarked, unmourned. We can hold stubbornly to what we believe has been revealed to us, or we restore our Church as a place of relevance to the lives of communities. We can’t have both.
“We can hold stubbornly to what we believe has been revealed to us, or we restore our Church as a place of relevance to the lives of communities. We can’t have both.”
On the contrary, Alfred – only the orthodox way has relevance to the lives of communities. It is the revisionist way that completely loses relevance and leaves people desolate.
“To accept them into our Church, to place them on an equal footing.”
Why? Jesus didn’t teach that, so why should we?
” It is a poverty of imagination to yield to a reactionary position;”
So why do you do it? Follow the way of Christ which he revealed to us, the way of love.
“Our Church must reform. Sadly, even if it means cutting loose those who continue – to the detriment of our mission – defending a framework and theological position that has now, without the support of our erstwhile institutional power, collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions and dogmatism,”
Correct. Our church must reform, and must cut the liberal revisionists loose, for they are exactly as you describe.
Well, I’m not much interested in the fate of the Anglican Church as such. Admittedy it should reform itself, if it survives, for it has nurtured all manner of deviance for generations. It is true that a line has now been drawn in the sand by those who have always sought to retain biblical teaching as normative. To Alfred Sparkes, however, this amounts to “a framework and theological position that has now … collapsed under the weight of its own internal contradictions and dogmatism, and dispersed into the ether, unnoticed, unremarked, unmourned”.
But this is the Word of God that this man is talking about, and further, as follows. “Article VI is a man made imperative; we can unmake it and still honour our mission as Anglicans”. My word you can, for this mission “as Anglicans” is to place “on equal footing” those who, St Paul has told us, have been given up to their lust by God, but moreover, the said mission is also to make of these people that they are fit to handle the body and blood of our Lord. I tell you that God is not mocked.
And collapsed under the burden of certain theological disingenuousness, I should have added.
This neurosis about human sexuality is lamentable. It is abundantly clear that those so deeply wedded to an orthodox position are not much concerned with the fate of the Anglican Church in the slightest.
The admirable hope of mutual respect binding our Church together is now clearly revealed for the fallacy the orthodox always truly saw it to be.
So now all those who do care for the future of an energised and relevant Christ-centric Church must resolve to soar as watchful eagles, quick to dispatch those cunning serpents slithering through our parishes and ministries.
Take care now.
“The admirable hope of mutual respect binding our Church together is now clearly revealed for the fallacy the orthodox always truly saw it to be”.
Alfred, I could not have put it better myself, but you have got me bamboozled completely. Alfred, what on earth is your position?
That you are a God-fearing man who describes the sexual ethics of the Bible as a “neurosis”?
That you “… care for the future of an eneregised and relevant Christ-centric Church”, albeit you repudiate Christ’s teaching on marriage?
Alfred, you need to comment in a manner that can be understood by those you characterise as “cunning serpents slithering through our parishes and ministries”. This is perfectly ironic talk, for it is Christ, Himself, who has called us to be as wise as serpents in the presence of the wolves amongst us (Mathew 10:16).
Further, at 7:23 pm Mar 15, you write above as follows. “This isn’t about an institution, this is about a way of honouring His foremost imperative”. So I agree with you, again, when you now write as follows. “It is abundantly clear that those so deeply wedded to an orthodox position are not much concerned with the fate of the Anglican church in the slightest”.
But, Alfred, you need to comment in a manner that makes sense of your repudiation of the historic Christian teaching. This teaching has been well understood by homosexual activists outside the church. I suggest that you join them, for they have a lot to teach you as to what you believe.
the accusation about wasting $20k could equally be levied against the liberals who would not vote for Condie – what was wrong with him anyway? He upholds the doctrines and polity of the Anglican Church so they should have voted for him and made sure there was a result so the $20k was not wasted. Why is it always the conservatives who are at fault?
It is high time that orthodox Anglicans in revisionist dioceses establish their own independent Anglican congregations, with episcopal oversight from orthodox bishops overseas.
Probably the most pragmatic solution, and I hope the General Synod sees the wisdom in that approach, for the long-term future of the Church. My view now having discussed this with many of my brothers and sisters is that is futile to hope we can reconcile fundamentally opposed visions of the Church.
If an orthodox Bible-centric view is more in tune with a certain communities, then those congregations will flourish. Equally so for the more liberal and progressive congregations open to a more Christ-centric view that is not mired in archaic views of the Bible that even Christ, the embodiment of love, would himself resile from. Our communities will determine just what is most valuable to them, and I know that Christ will ultimately be with all of us.
Alfred, on your scenario, it is difficult to see how “Christ will ultimately be with all of us”, that is, if, as you say, “an orthodox Bible-centric view” is actually what “Christ, the embodiment of love, would himself resile from”.
I encourage you to work toward a plain reading of Scripture which will help you to make sense not only of your rejection, as a free agent, of the one who died for you, but also of the blessed experience of those who have decided to follow Jesus (Mathew 18:19-20).
I fear this means that there will not be a new Primate for Australia. The strategy adopted by the conservatives can in future by adopted by others. Archbishop Geoff Smith is orthodox in his personal views on scripture and same sex marriage but has had to fill positions with people who are available and would be acceptable to the majority of people in the Diocese of Adelaide. This is not acceptable to some conservatives in Adelaide, but others understand his position.
“… others understand his position”. Do they, really? You mean being compromised, being in the hands of the prince of this world? Does anyone remember Martin Lloyd Jones, 1966?
Hi Geoff, assuming that is true, why should he be Primate of Australia?
Nobody is suggesting he shouldn’t be Archbishop of Adelaide.