on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 1.14 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as General Synod
Annex 4 of GS 1661, the paper by the MCU, is now available here.
Note that it is not the most recent paper from MCU on this topic. That one can be found here.
The November 2006 MCU document, with its account of theological coherentism and foundationalism, and their implications for ways forward is very clear and helpful.
In fact, it comes as a breath of fresh air to me, and clarifies many difficulities of the current Anglican rows.
What gradual & consensual method did the US take when they were asked to hold off and wait until the commuion as a whole agreed? The debate is about sin. The scripture is not silent on this issue. The covenant would claify what we as Anglicans believe. If you can’t sign on to it then the alternative vision is in fact more of the Unitarian faith which maybe is where some should take a look at. We are of two different faiths, lets face it!
*Framing* this debate as “Either you agree to THIS Covenant and you’re an Anglican ***OR*** you reject it, and you’re a Unitarian supporting what Scripture clearly calls sin” is NOT helpful.
Lord have mercy!
As a former Unitarian the division suggested is not adequate in the least. The principal basis of Unitarianism is a creedless approach to the whole of faith, which in some places or others where power resides leads to sort of creeds by the back door – say in what kind of message giver a congregation prefers to have to preach. Secondly, Unitarianism has been based on the idea that within all the clutter is a simple Christianity, which then is not the case for other Unitarians who find a religious humanism not Christianity, or an amalgam of faith packages on… Read more »
Janny has posted: “The covenant would claify what we as Anglicans believe. If you can’t sign on to it then the alternative vision is in fact more of the Unitarian faith which maybe is where some should take a look at. We are of two different faiths, lets face it!” In that posting Janny seems to be espousing the fundamentalist view in which they alone are guardians of the truth, and generally will not admit that other Christians may validly interpret the Bible differently than themselves. I do not believe that I am the sole possessor of absolute truth, and… Read more »
If Janny’s simplistic comment is unhelpful, then to immediately call the view “fundamentalist”, “zealot”, “Cavlinist”, and “narrowly-constructed” looks rather like name-calling. It doesn’t move the debate along in any positive way, and doesn’t show much attempt to “cherish” the “historical diversity of Anglicanism” as you say you want to.
“The debate is about sin. The scripture is not silent on this issue.” Indeed. The Scripture is not silent on many issues. Odd though how those who point out what Scripture says on this issue are able to get away with ignoring what Scripture says about so many other issues. Let’s see: “Blessed are the meek….” I can be as arrogant as I please as long as I am a legalist fundamentalist. “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness…” Well, as long as it’s sexual “righteousness”. Righteousness in business, or international relations, or anything that might disturb the… Read more »
Well, we have another unrevealed poster, “linkbo8” who finds the use of words like “fundamentalist” (for which I provided my own definition, so my context was quite clear, thank you), and “zealot” (which needs no definition, and there are zealots for many theological positions anyway), and “Calvinist” (which is rather historical), and “narrowly-constructed” (which is a rather straightforward phrase for anyone whose natural language is English), and tries to turn that into so-called name-calling. Bull twaddle, linkbo8, whomever you may actually be. You are just using the old tactic of deflecting a reasoned and defined position by simply claiming offense… Read more »
Please let’s not get so excited. More politeness please.
Perhaps we could also have comments that are specifically in response to what the MCU paper says.
I should make it clear that the preceding comment was not directed exclusively at Jerry Hannon, but at all the commenters in this thread, right back to the beginning.
Please do concentrate on the article itself, and get less worried about the personal opinions of other commenters.