Comments: "Stay Together" says Bishop Greg Venables

Bishop Venables statement is very hopeful and reasonable until he comes to the point of saying
that there are 2 kinds of Anglicanism one rooted in scripture and the other which is 'an ongoing movement related to scripture but not founded on it.'

Anglicanism is based on 3 legs and not one - Scripture, Reason and Tradition .The Bishop's Anglicanism has only one leg- Scripture and what is more Scripture intetrpreted in a certain way.

Posted by Jean Mayland at Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 11:12am BST

The evident ratcheting down of the fire and brimstone from the FOCA crowd makes one wonder if they know that they do not have the support to carry the "Mind of the Communion" in their culture war. I doubt that moderation pending resolution of the Canterbury Stakes is a major factor.

Posted by Lapinbizarre/Roger Mortimer at Saturday, 28 April 2012 at 1:11pm BST

The problem with the 'sola scriptura' advocates - like Bishop Venables - is that they fail to accepty the realisation that the Holy Spirit is still active in the world, bringing ever new revelation about the inclusivity of God's mission in and to the world. The Church ought to be the primary communicator of ongoing revelation, but in some areas it seems stuck with the 1st century mode and model. The prophetic voice seems to have been relegated to judgement rather being harnessed to hope.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 10:25am BST

Yes, indeed. Jesus had a few choice words for those who got stuck in the legalistic past.

However, I would submit that the problem with the advocates of 'more than scriptura' is that it is difficult (at least to me!!) to discern any practical 'new' hermeneutics of the Spirit. If one advocates for an ongoing revelation, then, how the Church discerns -- in our short time-span -- what it truly is from God and what it is not? If it is 'new" it has to be from God just because it is 'new'? How does the Church discern a true prophetic voice from a noisy Most Holy Charlatan? (And, BTW, what is the definition of 'Church'?) How the Church deals with the local and the universal? Is the Spirit now calling the Church to shed its Catholicity?

I do believe that the Spirit is leading and prompting the Church into new understandings. However, just as I am uncomfortable with assigning truth to traditional views because they happen to be traditional, still, I am equally uncomfortable assigning truth to new understandings because they just so happen to be new.

I do believe that if anything, the Church has been called to patient charity, to hold in high regard our brothers and sisters who may not see it like we do, and to stick together come what it may.

Posted by Thomas+ at Monday, 30 April 2012 at 2:02am BST

As a resident of the Southern Cone I find the above comments very refreshing. It seems to me that the Primates and Bishops who refuse to attend the Primates Meeting and Lambeth Conference have already left the Anglican Communion. Perhaps it is time to turn the stool into a table by adding a fourth leg for Tolerance. A four legged table provides the base for all who wish to stand together, even when they don’t agree.

Posted by Michael Brown at Monday, 30 April 2012 at 5:03pm BST

Finally, Thomas. That was one of the most sagacious comments that I have read on TA.

By comparison, how does 'patient charity' operate in the Anglican church in countries, such as Nigeria and Liberia, where plural civil unions are recognised the State and some churches?

Why aren't more commenters up in arms over the lack of 'inclusion' spawned by Resolution 114 in 2008: '"In the case of polygamy, there is a universal standard – it is understood to be a sin, therefore polygamists are not admitted to positions of leadership including Holy Orders, nor after acceptance of the Gospel can a convert take another wife, nor, in some areas, are they admitted to Holy Communion'?

The voice of the Holy Spirit is consistent, rather than subject to the special pleadings of one group over any other. 'God is no respecter of persons'.

Posted by David Shepherd at Monday, 30 April 2012 at 5:33pm BST

"Why aren't more commenters up in arms over the lack of 'inclusion' spawned by Resolution 114 in 2008: '"In the case of polygamy, there is a universal standard – it is understood to be a sin, therefore polygamists are not admitted to positions of leadership including Holy Orders, nor after acceptance of the Gospel can a convert take another wife, nor, in some areas, are they admitted to Holy Communion'?"

First of all, in spite of what Wikipedia says, that's not a resolution, but paragraph 114 of an Indaba reflection from the Conference, available here: http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/downloads/Reflections_Document_(final).pdf

Lambeth dealt with polygamy most recently, it appears, in 1988's Resolution 26, available here: http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1988/1988-26.cfm

Note that in both documents what's addressed is not celebrating new polygamous marriages, but how to deal with polygamous converts to Christianity. In the past they were expected to divorce all but their first wife (or in some places all but their "favorite" wife, I believe), a practice that had a negative effect on family life.

As I understand it, the present, more tolerant pastoral approach to polygamous converts was sought by the African bishops at Lambeth.

But how odd to assume that people in favor of same-sex marriage would necessarily share an opinion about polygamy in the first place, David!

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 3:55pm BST

As a follow-up to my previous comment, it strikes me that the Bishops overreached themselves in the Indaba statement; polygamy is not, surely, categorically a sin across the board for non-Christians, is it? I have yet to hear a sermon from an Anglican priest or bishop of any stripe about the necessary sinfulness of Abraham or Jacob's plural marriages, for instance. In fact, it would be a little odd to assert that the Twelve Tribes arose from an objectively evil form of family life, it seems to me.

Posted by Bill Dilworth at Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 4:03pm BST

A good point you make here, Bill. What do the 'Sola-Scripturists' have to say about that?

David Shepherd? Any comment?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 11:41pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.