I just wonder what on Earth the core beliefs are going to be. Historically, when the Anglican Church really first came together theologically (as opposed to being a selfish reaction against the Roman Catholic Church), the only requirement was to use the Book of Common Prayer. I'd like to see that sort of definition continue. I think the problem has really stemmed from Churches who still use it, and yet patently cannot subscribe to the various texts contained therein. For instance, there are a number of Philadelphia Churches who've virtually adopted a Pagan "goddess," theology. And yet they use the BCP, including things like the Nicene Creed and Apostles' Creed. How can they do that in good faith? I don't understand it. Asking for a full affirmation of theology based upon the BCP would, I think, be the best way to deal with this in a non-confrontational manner. If it's made about homosexuality, as I'm sure +Akinola and others would like, then it'll force many in the middle ground to make the sort of choice they don't want to have to. While I condemn the divicive tactics of the ECUSA, if to remain part of the communion I have to actively subscribe to the idea that homosexuals cannot be part of the clergy, I won't be willing to do that either. Many of those who view themselves as blazing a trail have already gotten so far away from Christianity that I don't believe they still really deserve the term anyway. Simply by asking an affirmation of something as simple as Christ as Lord and Saviour and the concept of Trinity, you'll cut out a surprisingly big chunk of the more problematic members of the communion.
Of course, if the actually paid attention to what they read in the BCP every Sunday, then we wouldn't even need to ask in the first place.
Asking for a full affirmation of theology based upon the BCP would, I think, be the best way to deal with this in a non-confrontational manner. If it's made about homosexuality, as I'm sure +Akinola and others would like, then it'll force many in the middle ground to make the sort of choice they don't want to have to. While I condemn the divicive tactics of the ECUSA, if to remain part of the communion I have to actively subscribe to the idea that homosexuals cannot be part of the clergy, I won't be willing to do that either.
Many of those who view themselves as blazing a trail have already gotten so far away from Christianity that I don't believe they still really deserve the term anyway. Simply by asking an affirmation of something as simple as Christ as Lord and Saviour and the concept of Trinity, you'll cut out a surprisingly big chunk of the more problematic members of the communion.
Of course, if the actually paid attention to what they read in the BCP every Sunday, then we wouldn't even need to ask in the first place.
Reply
Leave a comment