The Revd Dr Peter Toon, President of the Prayer Book Society
In his opinion-piece in the London Church Times on May 26, Bishop Robert Duncan of the ECUSA and of The Network rightly raised some serious questions about The Windsor Report of 2004 (from the commission that reported to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the development of doctrine and practice in sexuality in North America).
In my judgment, this Report has been received with too much approbation by most sections of the Anglican Family (often one suspects without serious study of it) and its recommendations are being treated by too many as of they had the character of divine commands – one exception to this general acceptance is the critical approach of the archdiocese of Sydney in Australia. One may even claim that none of the recommendations can be clearly demonstrated to be based wholly on Scriptural norms and principles, for they all appear to have the character of presenting unity as an end in itself and not unity in biblical, orthodox truth as the goal.
Bishop Duncan’s first point is that the Report does not adequately note the serious doctrinal errors that lay behind and underneath the recent sexual innovations. I have long said that the questions to ask in the ECUSA are these: Who is God? Who is Jesus? And What is salvation? On all three counts one finds that most if not all of those who promote and support the sexual innovations do not stand on the firm ground of orthodox, historical, biblical Trinitarian theism. As I demonstrate in my Episcopal Innovations 1960-2004, the recent sexual agenda did not come from nowhere! (visit www.anglicanmarketplace.com and www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928)
His second point is that there is no reflection on important areas such as the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Certainly, there is serious impairment and broken Eucharistic communion right now within the ECUSA and within the Anglican Family and while some of this is due to the innovation of the ordination of women, most of it is due to the advancement of the novel sexual agenda. But nothing on this!
The third point concerns adiaphora – those things in church life that are not essential, that are not required by Holy Scripture, but which may be and can be helpful for the worship of God and service of him in his church and world. He rightly makes the point that what were regarded as essentials, based solidly on Scripture, not too long ago, are now seen as not so and that what were regarded as secondary and non-essentials, or even errors, have been made into essentials. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the exaltation of the so-called “baptismal covenant” with its commitment to “peace and justice” in the 1979 prayer book, into the position of being the litmus test for all worship, doctrine, ethics and ministry ( see the Blue Book for the 2006 General Convention for many examples). Herein lies the claimed basis for much of the new Episcopal religion of the ECUSA.
His fourth point relates to the raw or generous exercise of power by dominant groups in church life. We all know that power has been exercised in the ECUSA since the 1970s first to marginalize those who stood for the received religion of the PECUSA, and then more recently for those who do not accept women’s ordination, and even more recently for those who do not accept the ordination of actively gay persons and the blessing of same-sex persons. There has been little or no generosity by the progressive liberals of ECUSA since the 1970s towards those whom we may call traditional in faith and practice.
Bishop Duncan’s fifth point may be connected to his first. He sees little indication that the recommendations of the Report are truly scripturally based and that they were arrived at by careful engagement with the same Holy Scripture. It may be claimed that they are in the best sense pragmatic and utilitarian, well meaning and well meant but below the high mark of sacred Scripture’s standards and based more on the best worldly-type of understanding and problem solving.
His conclusion is: “WHILE we wrestle with these questions, let me conclude by suggesting that the report provides only the beginning of a path toward which we could move together. If the North American Anglican leadership will adopt the suggested moratoria on same-sex blessings and ordinations; if those who participated in the New Hampshire consecration, such as the Most Revd Frank Griswold, remove themselves from the international councils of the Communion; and if there is an expression of deep regret about what transpired in Minneapolis - these actions will represent a movement in the right direction.”
Yes, he is right. But only as he rightly says “a movement in the right direction” for if they do the things he lists this is not a U-turn back to the full Orthodoxy of the Anglican Way or a digging again of the wells of Abraham to drink the pure water of Gods’ provision. It is merely the beginning and before them is a long and hard road to walk, in order to walk in the Light, with the Lord Jesus and in the Holy Spirit, towards the glory of the Father.
Let us pray that Bishop Duncan will be given great wisdom and courage to guide his movement aright in the months ahead. One thing is very clear – he has a very tough, even an impossible vocation in the present apostate state of much of western Anglicanism.
(do visit www.anglicansatprayer.org )
May 27, 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment