The Rev. Paul Gibson, formerly liturgical officer with the Anglican Church of Canada and coordinator of liturgy for the Anglican Communion, offers the following reflection in which he considers the present state of the Communion and concludes that schism is far from the greatest ill that can befall a church.
By the Rev. Dr. Paul Gibson
The bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada were recently reported to be "alarmed" by the prospect of schism in the Anglican Communion (Anglican Journal, December 2007). The current controversy in the Communion over issues related to homosexuality appears to have created a mood or atmosphere of anxiety and fear, as though schism were the greatest evil that could befall the church and which should be avoided at all cost.
In the remarks which follow I will propose that schism is far from being a catastrophic situation, let alone the most desperate condition that may overtake a church, and that, in the words of President F.D. Roosevelt, there is nothing to fear but fear itself.
First, let us go to the biblical background.
There is a broadly held opinion that the church was first united and then, only later, suffered division through the pride and hard-heartedness of some of its members. This is far from true.
The primitive church was, in fact, united for a metaphorical 10 minutes. In fact, even at the last supper one member of the original band of Jesus' followers was already engaged in subverting his agenda and imperilling his person, and others were engaged in a dispute over their rank in the movement Jesus had founded (Luke 22.24).
It is true that John attributes to Jesus a prayer for the unity of his followers (17.20-24), but it is important to note that he asks that they may, "become completely one," suggesting that unity may not be a present reality but should be seen as a future gift. In any case, we must ask whether this prayer is an accurate quotation of words actually spoken by Jesus or whether it should be seen, like some other material in the fourth gospel, as the evangelist's construction of what he believed Jesus would have said if he had been facing the disunity that may have prevailed in John's community some 50 years later.
Paul, writing long before John, reflects disunity and schism on a number of fronts. First, he is engaged in sometimes-rancorous debate with Jewish Christians over the issue of the extent to which Gentile Christians had to become Jews in order to be followers of Jesus. Paul's letter to the Galatians, for example, reflects this controversy. Paul describes an encounter with Peter over this issue. "I opposed him to his face,' he says, "because he stood self-condemned." (2.11) Paul's tone certainly suggests the brink of schism, which is underscored by his suggestion that those who unsettle Gentile Christians over the issue of circumcision might better castrate themselves (5.12) "If you want Gentiles to mutilate their bodies in order to become Christians," he implies, "Cut your own balls off!"
We can get another picture of the divisive tendencies of early Christian communities, and their dependence on charismatic leadership, from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. He refers to a man named Apollos, an eloquent and well-informed Jew, who arrived in Ephesus and influenced Christians there. Two of Paul's disciples set him straight on points of doctrine. Eventually Paul wrote, "Each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,' or ‘I belong to Apollos,' or ‘I belong to Cephas,' or ‘I belong to Christ.'" Paul rebukes their schismatic tendencies with the judgement, "Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all belong to you." The situation was sufficiently serious that Paul was driven to ask rhetorically, "Has Christ been divided?" Paul and Apollos do not appear to have denounced or excommunicated each other, but the apparent loyalty of different sections of the community to particular leaders challenges the myth of primitive unity. (See 1 Corinthians 1.12ff)
The history of the early church suggests two parallel but opposite movements, one tending towards separation and the other towards unity. As Christian leaders, especially those who had received a sophisticated education, began to wrestle with the intellectual implications of the gospel, interpretations and explanations inevitably emerged which conflicted with each other. In extreme cases legitimately cautious "mainline" Christians separated themselves from those whom they described as heretics.
There were consequently many schisms. At the same time, local churches began increasingly to be brought under the umbrella of the church as it was based in larger and more sophisticated centres. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (for instance) began to shape the faith and eventually the worship of the local congregations within what became their hegemony.
Schism and unity lived side by side. Schism was a discordant reality; unity became an achievement and, from the point of view of emerging orthodoxy, a goal.
There have been many schisms in Christian history. In the fourth century there was a controversy in Alexandria over the nature of the Logos, the Word of God incarnate in Jesus. A presbyter, Arius, taught that the Logos had been created before all worlds. His opponents held that the Logos was begotten of the Father by an eternal generation. The controversy spread like a prairie fire, leading eventually to the convocation of the Council of Nicea (where part of the Nicene Creed was adopted) and the excommunication of Arius.
After some of the principal protagonists were no longer on the scene, conflict between Arian and orthodox parties became even tenser, especially at the political level of jurisdiction. When the Roman church claimed the right to function as a court of appeal the eastern bishops were outraged. In the end there was an Arian church, or churches, in competition with the "mainline" church, which survived into the 8th century.
The city of Ravenna on the Adriatic coast of Italy, where some of the most brilliant Christian mosaics are to be found, provides some touristic evidence. There are two baptisteries, one Arian and one orthodox, substantial and free-standing buildings, which contain almost identical mosaic representations of the baptism of Jesus on their respective ceilings.
The struggle between eastern and western Christianity continued through the medieval period and came to a head in the 11th century after a long and increasingly complicated period of estrangement between Latin and Greek Christianity. The primary issue was papal authority, although the Roman insertion of the words, "and the Son," into the Nicene Creed was a factor (i.e., "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.") On July 16, 1054, Roman legates entered the church of Holy Wisdom in Constantinople during the liturgy and placed a Papal Bull of Excommunication on the altar. The eastern church responded by excommunicating the legates. In spite of attempts at reconciliation in the 13th and 15th centuries a situation of mutual excommunication has continued at a practical level (although there are questions about the strict canonical legality of the original events) to the present. It is known as the Great Schism.
The word schism (which is derived from the same root as scissors) refers to cutting or tearing or rending of the fabric of an institution, normally a church. Schism in churches usually finds expression in excommunication, the refusal of one or both parties to the schism to share eucharistic celebration and participation in holy communion together.
It is my opinion that excommunication is a most questionable device when used as a weapon in debate and diplomacy. Eating and drinking together across all imaginable boundaries--religious purity, gender, class, sinfulness, respectability, worthiness--was of the essence of Jesus' ministry and it is difficult to reconcile excommunication with his modelling of his gospel of the kingdom of God. In the opinion of this writer, refusing to accept others at the common table comes very close to qualifying as the sin against the Holy Spirit.
It is true that Paul told the Corinthian church that they should not associate with a member of their community who was involved in an irregular marriage, as well as those who were guilty of other questionable life-styles. However, in my opinion, Paul's pastoral policy only tests the rule and leaves the practice of Jesus unchanged. When Jesus encountered Zacchaeus, a corrupt tax collector by his own later admission, he informed him that he wanted to stay, and presumably eat, in his house that day.
Schism cannot always be avoided because it may be imposed by one party on another, whether or not they consent. This is the situation in the Anglican Communion at the present moment because some African churches have excommunicated provinces in the Communion which they perceive to be weak and unbiblical on the issue of homosexuality. (It is like the situation in which one marriage partner demands a divorce to which the other partner does not consent.) There is nothing those so excommunicated can do except capitulate, a reaction which many of their members would consider dishonest. This is especially true when the issues at stake are matters of doctrine (teaching) and morality. (When schism takes place because of a dispute over issues of power or property, e.g., who is the rightful bishop? who owns this building? it is even less defensible.) As Simone Weil, a young unbaptized Christian theologian of the World War II period, wrote,
"We owe the definitions with which the church has thought it right to surround the mysteries of the faith, and more particularly its condemnations ( ... anathema sit) a permanent and unconditional attitude of respectful attention, but not an adherence.We likewise owe a respectful attention to opinions that have been condemned, to the extent--be it ever so small--to which their content, or the life of those who propounded them, contains some show of good."
In other words, I cannot be absolutely sure that I am right any more than I can absolutely sure that someone else is wrong. I must be open to learning new things from those with whom I disagree. However, I must be faithful to what I believe to be right and in particular in the context in which I make that decision. If my convictions lead someone else to declare that they have excommunicated me--that they refuse to share a place with me at the Lord 's Table--and that there is therefore a schism, I have to live with that or give up my belief in what is right. I am not afraid of schism if it is caused by what some believe to be right. But I am afraid of schism if it is caused by certain other factors, as I shall show.
Apart from the question of what is believed to be right from an individual or group point of view, we must ask if schism performs an inexcusable and irreversible violence on the church. We must ask, "Is schism ever justified?" It is not easy to find examples of a "good schism," although I suggest that the effects of the events known as the Reformation of the 16th century may come close. There are many of us who believe that much of western Christian piety and practice, and some of its theology, had become so degraded in the late medieval period that a process of challenge was necessary even if it led to disintegration.
The Reformation was not merely the victory of "good" Protestants over "bad" Catholics. In the long run it was the restructuring in worship, thought, devotion, and government of western Christianity.
The so-called Counter Reformation, although more modest in its goals and achievements, was in the long run as important as the Protestant movements. If schism led to the re-making of the church, however imperfectly, I am not afraid of it.
On the other hand, the negative effects of the Reformation are with us still--a divided Christianity, constantly living in a state of brokenness and sometimes of institutional rivalry. Whole churches claim to honour the Lord's table as a meeting place for all who would follow Jesus as the Christ but refuse to share with other Christians from whom they are historically divided. And this in spite of the centrality of sharing food in Jesus' own ministry.
Certainly schism is capable of great durability. As already noted, the Great Schism has lasted for nearly 1,000 years. On the other hand, it is possible for schism to be reversed, as the ecumenical movement of the 20th century illustrates.
Instructive examples of both durability and flexibility are supplied by divisions in American Protestant churches in the 19th century over the issue of slavery. From early in the 19th century there was growing debate among Christians on the legitimacy of slavery, the mighty engine on which much of the economy of the American south depended. Northerners were increasingly critical of the institution of slavery (in the spirit of Wilberforce in England), while southerners defended its continuation. Debate was particularly rancorous in the three major Protestant churches--Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian. Eventually each of those three churches divided.
In 1837 the Presbyterian Church divided into Old School and New School after quarrels in which slavery was a factor, although not a decisive one. The New School split again in 1857 because of disagreement over slavery. The Methodist Church divided in 1844 and the Baptists in 1845. In short, schisms anticipated the division of the union of the States possibly by as much as 23 years and certainly by 15 years in one case and 14 years in the other. The first legislative decision to dissolve the union was made on 20 December 1860. The Civil War which began in the following year involved 2,000,000 soldiers and claimed 600,000 lives.
But the schisms did not all last. Divided Methodists merged in 1939 as the United Methodist Church, which now included the Evangelical United Brethren. The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (northern) and the Presbyterian Church U.S. (southern) merged in 1983 as the Presbyterian Church (USA). These schisms were ended. Baptist congregations are autonomous but are usually connected through associations or conventions, of which there are many. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant church in the United States, remains a distinct denomination, separated from many other Baptists on theological issues, some of which have developed since the break over slavery in the middle of the 19th century.
I now come to the central question of this paper. If the anti-slavery position of what became the northern churches contributed to the achievement of emancipation, was it worth the price of disunity and schism? Or should the churches have compromised to avoid the greater evil of schism? Or is schism the greater evil?
I submit that it is not. The institutionalized abuse of another human being, another child of God, for economic benefit (among other things) is the greater evil. If the price of unity had been the continued enslavement of one woman or man for one more year, one more month, one more week, one more day, unity would not have been worth it. In the bible, justice has the higher claim.
We may now attach this principle to the question of homosexuality and schism in the Anglican Communion.
The Anglican Communion has already entered into a state of "impaired communion," which is a euphemism for schism. There are parts of the Communion, which have declared other parts to be excommunicated. This is not a practical problem for most of us because we are unlikely to present ourselves at the Lord's Table in those Provinces of the Communion where hostility to equal treatment of homosexual people is most vehemently expressed.
In our own Canadian Province some Anglicans have withdrawn from communion with the mainline church and attached themselves to a more congenial Province elsewhere. But still many of our leaders seem to warn that certain actions in the Canadian and American provinces will cause disunity, as if one could cause something that has already happened. In any case, would unity be worth the price?
If the price of unity is the continued treatment of homosexual people as second-class human beings (if that) and second-class Christians for one more year, one more month, one more week, one more day, would unity be worth it? Do the biblical virtues of justice, compassion, and recognition of the image of God in all of humanity have the higher claim?
I am not afraid of schism. I am afraid of a church in which some leaders voted to commit themselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ (from the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in 1998, Resolution I.10.c), but show little evidence of having acted on that promise.
I am afraid of a church in which righteousness is understood to be the enforcement of a small number of prejudicially selected biblical texts to the exclusion of many others, some of greater clarity, forgetting that in the bible righteousness is realized in the practice of justice. There are at the most seven references to homosexuality in the bible (some of them are disputed and all require contextual interpretation) but the word "justice" (or its negative "injustice") appears 194 times.
Perhaps the most notable example is Micah 6.8 where it is linked with kindness and humility, "He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Justice is not merely the even-handed imposition of law; it is that which builds peace, harmony and prosperity for all in the community, including homosexual people who want to ask for a divine blessing on their mutual commitment. This is more important than unity.
© Paul Gibson
January 2008
Comments (16)
I think the thing that you don't seem to distinguish is that no one is saying those who engage in homosexual acts aren't "equal" in God's eyes. Well, maybe except for you. In actuality, you've elevated homosexuals to a class above all others because they are permitted not to deal with their sin and repent from it (the acts, not the feelings) while run of the mill sinners like liars, adulterers, thieves, idolaters, coveters and such are expected to actually turn away from their sin and follow Christ.
I agree that some Christians overreact to homosexuals and act like the sin they commit is far worse than anything else. That too is a grave error. But the solution isn't to excuse sin and act like it's not a problem in God's eyes.
This simply isn't an either/or situation (either love homosexuals by excusing their sin OR hate them). We can actually love homosexuals, treat them as equals AND relay the same calling that God has for all of us: to turn from our sin, repent and follow Him.
Posted by Bryan | March 19, 2008 1:13 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 13:13
The reunion in 1939 was between the Methodist Episcopal Church (northern) and the Methodist Episcopal Church South producing the Methodist Church. The reunion which resulted in the United Methodist Church occurred in the 1960's between the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren.
The first healed the break that occurred at the time of the American Civil War the second brought together Methodists generally of an English background while the EUBs were largely German. Reunions for different reasons of different groups.
Posted by Robert Allen | March 19, 2008 2:24 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 14:24
Move over Pontius Pilate...as given evidence in Mr Gibson's paper,there is a new expression of political expediency and sophistry (in word and device) in town; where the personal agenda takes precedence over common good for the Organic unity of the Body of Christ. Mr Gibson failed to demonstrate one ounce of academic humility, and choose instead to presume to portray" facts" on Church history which are merely personal conjectures.
I would invite Mr Gibson take some time during the Sacred Triduum to read the High Priestly prayer of Jesus (St John 17), and ponder that justice finds its expression not only towards humans but God, and when directed towards God "the virtue of Justice finds it's expression in Worship" and therefore has immediacy in liturgy and relevancy for unity in the Body of Christ now and not in some vague future sense. (F.P. Harton The Elements of the Spiritual Life-a study in Ascetical Theology, (SPCK, 1932).
Mr Gibson would have the Church walk in his world where unity is subordinate to what "he perceives justice to be" on a given issue. I would rather hold to Christ's vision and kingdom where there is economy of grace and we need not dispose of unity for the sake of personal agendas. After all, it not my religion nor Mr Gibson's, but Christ.
I am deeply hurt by the posting of this paper during Holy Week, which disregards the very principles held dear by Catholic Anglicans. It displays a lack of holy charity and sensitivity during this tender time in the life of the Canadian Church.
For my part I forgive you.
Under the Cross,
Fr Todd Meaker, SSC
Posted by Fr Todd Meaker SSC | March 19, 2008 2:26 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 14:26
Well from the posts, one would think that the old saw about loving the sinner and hating the sin was still alive, and well, at least among conservative or traditionalistic believers when it comes to our hot button sinner groups.
Mainly at the moment, the hot button sinner groups are those familiar three bullseye sinner targets, i.e., (1) women who are not specifically subordinate to some particular husband or father or brother in their daily life and work, (2) queer folks who seek equal citizenship in democratic societies (i.e., those queer citizens seek to have pretty much the same access to opportunities and resources that they would be presumed to have, if only such citizens were straight?), and last but certainly not least, (3) any believer who is intentionally and conscientiously not conformed to the going conservative believer agendas and definitions in ethics, doctrine, church life, and/or theology.
Harping on the sin of homosexual behaviors begs the very point of our differences, heated often into blazing controversy and de facto or de jure excommunications.
If homosexual behaviors and relationships were only still comprehensible as what the conservative agenda - which often still resists doing its honest hermeneutical homework, including paying attention to all the available empirical data about the well-demonstrated competencies which are not disrupted in queer citizens by not having a suitably straight orientation - persists stubbornly in reading them to be; then the alarm, anger, and disgust of the conservative believers towards queer folks would be a done deal, with hardly any basis for asking any questions that mattered.
But, so far as empirical data can test to date, queer folks capacities for wide swaths of quite common sensically decent citizenship and ethical living - wider, deeper, and apart from the special closed negative conservative definitions which are still urgently preached in the conservative sin camps - are so well known among us that this effort to make queer embodiment an essential and special sin that has no similarities or parallels with specially pure heterosexual embodiment sounds meaner and meaner and meaner the longer we still listen to its familiar negative claims.
Aside from categorical pleadings, so repeated in so many conservative believer approaches, what is the exact problem that queer behaviors involve which is categorically special to them, and distant from similar phenomena in straight behavior?
We hear candidates for this special essential sinfulness, at the very same time that we hear now entirely unspecial a categorical homosexual sin is. Queer folks can't have/make babies with each other? Must be essentially, categorically sinful. (Except in the case where opposite sex couples prove to be infertile, then a whole apparatus of exceptional and nuanced ethical or theological thinking applies.)
Queer folks lack that special opposite sex/opposite gender complementarity which is essential to some conservative or traditional notions of high sexual holiness. Okay then, sin, no doubt.
(1 - Except that by itself this opposite sex/opposite gender complementarity seems little to exempt many, many, many heterosexual folks from so many different patterns of violence, disregard, and abuse that we might well wonder just what there is to the earlier complementarity holiness claims. Add to that set of unanswered questions, another set. 2- We do see many forms of good, decent living in committed same sex couples, despite the fact that they continue by genital/traditional definitions to lack the special complementarity elements. How can this so totally fail to register on either the ethical or the theological radar discernment screens of so many conservative believers? Do they actually know any modern, out queer citizens in our current democracies? Even without weighing those daily life goods among Out queer folks, a more empirically nuanced look reveals to us that -3- same sex couples find innumerable ways of complementing one another's varied qualities in pied beauty of committed care. That range of caring complementarities among modern queer folks who are coupled also fails to register on conservative believer evidence screens. It seems as if the lack of opposite sexed genitals and the appearances of gendered continuums of differentiation instead of gendered categories which are separate and mutually exclusive simply renders conservative attention to the facts of modern queer life, blind and dumb and void.
There is, according to the conservative preachments, nobody and nothing there that matters. Anybody currently listed in the three main target sinner groups feeling ignored, erased, and written off, yet?
One could also identify similar definitional, presuppositional, or categorical habits in conservative approaches to women as listed earlier, or to non-conservative believers. Goods or competencies which would register loud and clear if only those people were conformed conservatives, suddenly have no significant substance or evidentiary meaning because the people living well or competently simply are not conservative heterosexual believers.
Talk about swallowing unexamined categorical or presuppositional camels in your ethics or theology while straining at gnats of traditional heterosexuals-only holiness. Wow. Yes, wow.
And this is the crux of the reason we cannot come to the Lord's Table together? That we can hardly abide being citizens together on the same, smallish endangered planet?
Posted by drdanfee | March 19, 2008 4:47 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 16:47
As one who supports the full inclusion of all persons in the life of the church at every level, I have to say that I find the portrayal of the situation as a completely dichotomous choice between schism or inclusion to be a false one. Nor could I ever regard schism as anything other than another wound in the Body of Christ. Whether it is a lesser evil or a greater evil is not the only point to address in why schism should be avoided. If the church as a body means so little, I don't see why I shouldn't just be entirely on my own in a personal relationship with Jesus.
Posted by Robert Leduc | March 19, 2008 4:57 PM
Posted on March 19, 2008 16:57
Robert Allen's account of Methodist history above isn't quite accurate either. The merger that created "The Methodist Church" in 1939 was in fact trilateral, not bilateral. The uniting churches were the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church South and the Methodist Protestant Church. (The third body had to agree to accept bishops in order to join the party, I believe.)
Posted by William R. MacKaye | March 20, 2008 12:24 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 00:24
While I appreciate Dr Gibson's nuanced presentation of schism that we must live with if imposed upon us by others, he should have recognized that the Reformation produced the situation we are presently in. The struggle for political power that it precipitated led to the religious wars, which in turn resulted in the rise of the virulent atheism the churches have faced since the Enlightenment. Not to mention the millions whose spilled blood drowned out the proclamation of the Gospel.
No schism has ever been good. It is always a betrayal of Christ, the church nailing its Lord back up on a cross.
Posted by Bp Pierre Whalon | March 20, 2008 5:00 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 05:00
I found this article interesting and I agree with what I think is its main thrust -- that if we in the Anglican Church of Canada truly believe that monogamous life-long same-sex unions are not under the condemnation of the scriptural texts generally applied to homosexuality, we should not be deterred from acting on that belief, even by the threat of schism. I have not always thought so, but the events of the last several years have changed my mind. However, I think the St Michael Report and the last General Synod showed that this is not yet the majority opinion in the ACC, and that more theologising and more discernment need to happen before it becomes the majority opinion (if it in fact does).
So, my first problem is that I think Dr Gibson's paper is assuming that we are in a different place as a church than in fact we are. I could also wish that Dr Gibson had not argued his point by attempting to argue that schism can be good thing and by using what I thought was oversimplified exegesis of the Johannine and Pauline material. For me, that part of the argument just didn't stand up.
What I think we really need is a spirited defence of our calling as a church to continue to discern our own way forward on this issue, following the steps laid out by the St Michael Report and the Synod, and without being forestalled by threats at either extreme to act precipitously.
Posted by Abigail Ann Young | March 20, 2008 9:19 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 09:19
You can be sure that, like Bryan above (with regard to sexual ethics), many of those who advocated for slavery believed the Holy Scriptures - and thus God - to be entirely, unequivocally supportive of their position. It is important for all of us to remember this - humbly - when we struggle with divisions that come when one party refuses to be in relationship and communion with those who disagree with them.
To illustrate:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.
Lest this seem the isolated view of a politician:
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
(Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm)
It's all very clear in the Bible, right? No need for mutual listening, further self-reflection, further discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
As religious history shows, schism often occurs when one group becomes too possessed of the idea that only their view reflects God's will. We can do better than that - literally - for Christ's sake.
Posted by Christopher Worthley | March 20, 2008 10:07 AM
Posted on March 20, 2008 10:07
Apparently, there is a technical problem with the link I offered above. The short piece - apparently entitled "What the Bible says about slavery" - can be accessed (indirectly at www.religioustolerance.org) by searching the keywords "slavery and bible" in Google and linking from the resulting list.
Posted by Christopher Worthley | March 20, 2008 4:17 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 16:17
As noted above I think it is very poor timing to have this posted during Holy Week.
Let us be clear about the schism that is taking place. The schism we are in is not the few “conservative” congregations which have voted overwhelmingly at their Vestry meetings to withdraw from their respective Dioceses (and the priests of three of those congregations are being taken to court by the Diocese of Niagara DURING HOLY WEEKl!).
The schism is that the Anglican Church of Canada is deaf to the rest of the Communion (ie. Lambeth 1998, various statements by the Primates, and the Windsor Report) and has chosen on its own course of action. The Anglican Church of Canada is pulling away from the rest of the worldwide Anglican Communion. This is the schism. To the average Anglican-in-the-pew it is worth asking, is this what you really want?
Posted by Brian McVitty | March 20, 2008 4:18 PM
Posted on March 20, 2008 16:18
I gather Dr Gibson favours a statistical hermeneutic. This can doubtlessly lead to all kinds of "interesting" doctrinal conclusions. I am curious to know what else Dr Gibson exalts or debases using this exegetical technique.
Posted by Warren | March 21, 2008 2:06 PM
Posted on March 21, 2008 14:06
Our reliance on Scripture and its basis for guiding our lives changes. Consider the some of the laws in the Old Testament.
Polygamy was common. It is not accepted by Christians today. Mixing meat and dairy was forbidden, as was mixing fibers in clothing. Pork, seafood and other foods were not suitable to be eaten. Menstruating women were unclean. Stoning was a punishment for adultery and for many other offensies such as not obeying your parents. Circumcision is required. There were many laws regarding uncleanliness.
I could go on but you get the idea. There are hundreds of laws in the Old Testament that we as Christians do not follow.
Despite the recognition that these laws are obsolete some Christians focus in on laws regarding homosexuality. Why do they pick and choose amongst the rules? I think they are obsessed with homosexuality.
I am a Christian and a lesbian. I am married, according to the laws of Canada. I am trying to live a Christian life. I take my marriage vows very seriously.
Isiah says "for His sake we are killed all the day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter" In His name GLBT are ill treated, reviled, opressed and even slaughtered. Christians are misusing the name of Jesus and His authority to opress me and mine. It is my hope and sincere belief that our Lord is offended and repulsed by the hatred and violence that takes place falsely in His name.
Posted by Phoebe K | March 22, 2008 4:20 AM
Posted on March 22, 2008 04:20
Phoebe, if you want your understanding of Scripture affirmed, stay tuned to this channel. If you want support in your belief that the Christian church (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant) misunderstood God for most of its existence, don't go anywhere. If you are seeking after truth, regardless of personal cost and how much it might place you at odds with popular culture, I strongly recommend you look elsewhere.
Posted by Warren | March 22, 2008 11:32 AM
Posted on March 22, 2008 11:32
To be clearer still about the cause of what appears to be some level of schism within the Anglican Communion, whether or not it need be permanent:
a) there is only one "side" in all these discussions - one side only - that refuses to be in full communion with those with whom they disagree on issues that simply are not defined by Anglicans as essentials of the Christian faith, regardless of how many Anglican bishops happen to vote to agree with this or that viewpoint at any one moment in time at a Lambeth Conference;
b) lawsuits and other legal unpleasantries only become necessary - only then - when those who choose not to remain in their own Anglican province for reasons of conscience attempt to take church property with them when they leave.
On the contested matter of essentials: The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which has served as the Anglican Communion's standard for full Christian unity for more than a century, tells us what the essentials are from an Anglican perspective, while also leaving room for all the diversity we have in nonessential areas such as liturgical practice and, for example, women's ordination, about which there is certainly no uniformity of thought and practice in the Anglican Communion.
The risk of schism increases exponentially when one group - no matter how large or small - attempts to create and enforce a new "essential," such as, say, global uniformity in biblical interpretation as regards selected biblical passages on sexual ethics. Anglicans do not enforce global uniformity on women's ordination; it is foolish and dangerous to attempt to do so in other areas involving long-term discernment and mutual listening on matters of biblical interpretation in the life of the church.
In summary, then, it is the attempt to define and enforce new essentials that causes the risk schism. If all of us could agree to disagree on nonessentials - as our Anglican forebears have somehow done before us, though not without some preceding conflict, of course - there would be no more risk of schism, at least on the matters before us all now.
Posted by Christopher Worthley | March 24, 2008 10:22 AM
Posted on March 24, 2008 10:22
The alternative, of course, would be to declare - as some would apparently like to do, whether de facto or de jure - uniform, global thought and practice regarding homosexuality an essential of the Christian faith as received and lived throughout the Anglican Communion, thus elevating one cherry-picked issue of biblical interpretation and sexual identity/practice to the very level of the Creeds as a deal breaker in the realm of Christian unity.
Do we really want to do that in the Anglican Communion? Personally, I don't think so. It wouldn't really be very Anglican at all.
Posted by Christopher Worthley | March 24, 2008 1:21 PM
Posted on March 24, 2008 13:21