|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
| |
|
Summary of "Priorities" (Oakes) |
1. Critique of Short's "Biblical Perspectives." In some ways, David Short's thoughtful article on "A Crisis in Koinonia: Biblical Perspectives for Anglicans" is a welcome contribution of theological substance to current discussions about how conservative Anglicans should respond to recent liberalizing trends in the churches of the West, and especially to moves to legitimize homosexual practice in North America. Unfortunately, significant exegetical and analytical weaknesses in Short's paper mean that his concluding call that "it is time for Anglicans to realign" is not as compelling as it was intended to be. In choosing to focus on the New Testament Greek term koinonia, which has been commonly translated "communion," Short has targeted an important concept in Anglican ecclesiology, as well as biblical theology. His basic definition of New Testament koinonia as "fellowship with God" is convincing, as is his second of koinonia as "fellowship with others in God's work." However, there are major problems with Short's biblical theological exegesis of the "boundaries" of koinonia, because the texts which he cites to define them really do nothing of the sort. Short describes same-sex blessings as a "first order" issue. But he never explains why the blessing of homosexual relationships involves a breach of Christian "essentials." So Short fails to justify his contention that "there can be no 'reception period'" for it, "as there was for the ordination of women." Nor does he show why "biblically orthodox" Anglicans must now sever communion with any Anglican body, like the Diocese of New Westminster, that officially endorses it. When Short turns to consider recent trends in world Anglicanism, the empirical proof that he provides for his analysis is so limited that much of what he writes amounts to little more than sweeping statements of opinion. Looking into the not so distant future, he sees bleak prospects unless he and those who share his views are basically allowed to leave existing church structures, to take their parish assets with them and to find AEO in a new "communion," with which they choose to affiliate. But Short does not say how he would see such a global schism taking place, for example, or why, given his views, North American bishops should have any inclination to concede their canonical prerogatives. Short's "realigned Anglicanism" would obviously involve a considerable reduction in the powers of the episcopate, together with a corresponding increase in those of local congregations. "Realignment" would also entail a major shift in patterns of Anglican financial stewardship. But his argument fails to do justice to the fact that giving in support of the present church organization(s) to which one belongs has been recognized as a Christian duty since it was first commanded in the New Testament. The withdrawal of such support is, therefore, a very serious matter, which itself involves disobedience to "God's will," unless it can be justified as morally necessary or biblically permissible in certain circumstances. 2. Conservative "Crisis of Confidence." Thus while Short's "Crisis in Koinonia" is a powerful plea for global Anglican "realignment," it is not ultimately a persuasive one. At the same time, his paper also highlights what might be called a growing "crisis of confidence" among conservatives facing the challenges of life in today's Anglican Communion. In a sense, the situation in the Diocese of New Westminster, where there are now at least three separately identifiable traditionalist groups pursuing different responses to the blessing of same-sex unions, provides a classic case in point. One of the results of such developments has been to divide the conservative witness against such blessings and to weaken its influence at Diocesan Synod and elsewhere in the "councils of the church." Those who have chosen to follow the dictates of their traditionalist conscience "within the system" have meanwhile suffered strained relationships, lost opportunities and periodic vilification by colleagues portraying their own position as the only legitimate alternative for "orthodox," "faithful," "godly" Anglicans. The personal as well as practical cost of such divisions in New Westminster and elsewhere has thus been very high. And it is all the more distressing at a time when the need to demonstrate authentic Christian unity is one of at least four priorities that would seem especially important, beginning with an open and accurate recognition of the realities of the current situation. 3. Compelling Practical Priorities. a. Recognizing the Realities of Current Challenges. Short may fail to cite sufficient evidence for his allegations of two "religions," "missions" or "unities" in world Anglicanism. But few would deny the challenges posed by the various liberal theological agendas that are still being pursued by senior leaders in the churches of North America and elsewhere. Recent events at General Synod 2004 show all too clearly that the Anglican Church of Canada [ACC] is in danger of authorizing the same kind of unbiblical practices nationally that have already been approved in the Diocese of New Westminster. Notwithstanding their personal merits and qualifications, the election of a new Primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, who has expressed his support for same-sex blessings, and of a new Prolocutor, Dean Peter Elliott, who has declared himself part of a committed same-sex partnership, were clearly indicative of the strength of liberal sentiment, or at least accommodation at Synod. So was the affirmation of the "integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships" that was passed as an amendment to Motion A134. Summary of Priorities - pg. 2 | |
home | |
(This page is maintained by Rev. Dr. John Oakes and Kirsten Oakes .) |
|