06/04/2004: "Time to go"

Canadian Anglican Rev. Dave Ponting of the Diocese of Niagara offers these reflections on the last couple of days of synod action, which tend to confirm my suspicions about what was actually going on:

In a hallway conversation early this morning I overheard a conservative bishop indicate that conservatives may walk out of the Synod this morning if the word �sanctity� is included in a successful motion. It is obvious that many people had a problem with this word in the motion and I understand that. It is a powerful word. The fear of some is that use of the word �sanctity� will be a declaration that same sex unions are holy. Many in the Synod are not willing to go there without further doctrinal study and dialogue....

Following last night�s proceedings and the deferral of a final decision on the blessing of same sex unions, some gays suggested that again the church hid behind words when action was called for. Today�s acceptance of this amendment feels very much like action.

Although I make no claims to being a theological wiz kid I can�t help but feel the inclusion of the word �sanctity� in this amendment is huge. The word is packed with deep theological meaning around one�s understanding of the concept of holiness. Many will argue the amended motion clears the way for proponents to act locally with the directional blessing of General Synod. I am not sure if that is a good interpretation. With the motions of last night and this morning taken together this General Synod has sent very mixed messages to the church and wider community. The amendment may very well be pre-emptive of the doctrinal debate over the next three years. I suspect several Canadian dioceses will accelerate the dialogue without waiting for the 2007 General Synod.

He's right. Once you've used a word like "sanctity" in connection with gay behavior, what's to study? The only substantive question will be whether the Anglican Church of Canada can go along with secular law and marry gays, as opposed to merely "blessing" them, and what real difference, from the standpoint of the church's teaching and ministry, is there in that? At that point, you might just as well go with the cultural flow. He's also right that passage of the amended resolution is "action." Once a majority of dioceses are performing same-sex blessings, any meaningful fight in 2007 is over.

Evangelical and Anglo-Catholics, it's decision time.

Replies: 6 Comments

on Friday, June 4th, David Bennett said

I am currently Anglican, but am exploring both Rome and Orthodoxy. It is likely that by Fall I will be Roman Catholic. I finally realized that as an Anglo-Catholic with an evangelical spirit, I am a clear minority in Western Anglicanism, and I am tired of fighting and always getting outraged. I am tired of having to defend the basic catholic faith to fellow Episcopalians, when we should be united to spread the faith to the world. In short I am weary of trying to convert my own church to catholic Christianity. I do not disparage those who are called to stay and fight, but I just cannot in good conscience stay Anglican.

on Friday, June 4th, Little Fly said

I sincerely thank God there is a church where you will feel more at home! I encourage you to convert if you feel this is what you must do. It does not serve you well to remain in a church that you feel compromises your faith. I would not do it either. Athanasius is absolutely right: for "Evangelical and Anglo-Catholics, it's decision time." Just as the ACC is making decisions, it may be time for you to do so as well. Thank goodness our democracies provide for us the liberty of conscience to make these decisions!

on Friday, June 4th, Katherine said

Little Fly, you will be happy to know that I wholeheartedly agree with your comment. It's time to part ways. I hope the winning majority will be generous with the departing minority as to property and pensions earned, but even if that's not the case, it's time to go.

on Friday, June 4th, Anonymous Coward said

Indeed.

If I thought that there was a faithful way that I could bear witness to the truth where I am, I would; if I had a pivot from which to move the ACC, I would; if there were a nearby faithful parish I might be (temporarily!) so congregrationalist as to go there and fight the good fight.

But I can't, and I can't, and there isn't. For a man of Catholic views on the sacraments, Lutheran views on justification, and Reformed views on a lot else, the ACC who baptized me was once a glorious home. But though I was baptized _in_ the ACC, I was baptized _into_ Christ, and the duty manfully to fight under His banner against sin, the world, and the devil, is paramount.

My RC friends have always said that Rome is bigger on the inside than she looks from the outside.

We shall see.

on Saturday, June 5th, Antonio said

Roman Catholics and Lutherans have almost agreed in a great part of the doctrine of justification.

on Sunday, June 6th, Richard Ball said

Unbelieving, unfaithful priests and bishops should have been removed from office long ago. This is a dysfunctional church that refuses to discipline itself. Its actions now should be swift and decisive.