|
|
|
News and Ideas from around the Anglican World |
|
____________________________________________________________________________
June 2005
For those of us who spend too much time following the continuing saga of the Anglican Communion, this has been an exhausting month. In the last thirty days, we have seen ECUSA announce a moratorium on electing new bishops and an agreement to withdraw from full participation in the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). We have seen the establishment of a Nigerian Anglican Church in North America and a Panel of Reference to assist dioceses and parishes that find themselves at an impasse. And this is all outside of Canada.
In Canada, several significant events have occurred as well. The Canadian House of Bishops released a Communiqué affirming the Lambeth Quadrilateral and announcing a moratorium on blessing same-sex unions (explained later to be intended for dioceses other than New Westminster). The Council of General Synod announced that it, too, would withdraw its representatives from full participation in the ACC, and most recently, and may we suggest most significantly, the Primate’s Theological Commission released its St. Michael Report.
You will recall, from your close reading of the minutes of General Synod 2004, that the Primate’s Theological Commission was asked “to review, consider and report to the Council of General Synod, by its spring 2006 meeting, whether the blessing of committed same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine.” The other option is that the question of same-sex blessings (SSBs) is only a matter of pastoral polity. This may seem like a rather obscure question, but is one we think will prove to be crucial.
The St. Michael Report has decided the question it is a matter of doctrine. And this is good news for all concerned. By treating this issue as a mere question of “pastoral polity”, some have moved ahead without regard to the complex theological questions that lie at the root of SSBs. The St. Michael Report makes it clear that this is indeed a matter of doctrine, and the hard theological work needs to be done. One must conclude that this entire debate has been an exercise of political will.
Although this Report has a specific purpose (to assist members of GS 2007 in determining whether or not they should affirm diocesan autonomy in the area of SSBs), it also should carry significant authority in determining whether or not the Diocese of New Westminster is indeed acting legitimately. It is inconceivable that they have determined to continue and it now falls to the ecclesiastical province of British Columbia and Yukon to discipline them.
There is plenty in the Report, though, that can and will frustrate you: the circular and confusing distinction between adiaphora (please see theological definition on p.6) and core doctrine; the rather shallow understanding of creedal doctrine as relating only to the exact words of the three creeds; and the curious lack of any serious attempt to articulate a doctrine of Revelation, which, in our minds, needs to be the starting point. We also wonder if the Primate’s Theological Commission has a firm grasp on recent events in the Anglican Communion, when they assert their belief that SSBs are not a communion-breaking issue.
We have to regard these limitations as obiter dicta, incidental remarks, and let them pass. This Report was commissioned to answer a single question. This it did unequivocally. The question of SSBs is a matter of doctrine.
For those of us who are not addicted to the daily unfolding of the current crisis, we hope you will find plenty in this issue of The Anglican Planet to feed your souls.
Finally, thank you for the tremendously positive response we’ve received; it has been overwhelming. We only had space to print a small fraction of your letters. Please be sure to go online and subscribe to TAP, and while you’re at it, buy your parish a subscription. |
|||
|
|
David
A. Harris and C. Peter Molloy|
Copyright The Anglican Planet © 2005 |