Cultural Blind Spots? My Response to Mark Thompson

I have never claimed to be the measure of truth. I do, however, claim that Scripture is the final authority. I also claim that the magisterial reformers are a secondary authority. So if Scripture and the Reformers all say that Roman Catholic and, by implication, Anglo-Catholic doctrine is heresy and false doctrine, then I have to side with Scripture and not "tolerance."

In answer to your question, Mr. Thompson, my response is a resounding, "NO!" The choice between Katharine Jefferts Schori and Robert Duncan is no choice at all. One is a liberal Anglo-Catholic and the other is a conservative Anglo-Catholic. Both deny the very Gospel of Jesus Christ. So asking which devil I prefer is still to choose between two devils.

I would suggest that perhaps you, Mr. Thompson, are blinded by your institutional commitments rather than being totally sold out to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead of being "company" men, we ought to be Gospel men!

Even Broughton Knox had sense enough to know that denominational amalgamation is a theological dead end. Denominations are merely "secular" organizations. So giving the AC-NA a full endorsement of "full communion" is to say that the Gospel does not matter but institutional and denominational amalgamation matters more. Whether you and the Sydney diocese intended it that way or not that is the net effect of your synod resolution.

Furthermore, your decision has done nothing to help the Gospel here. Rather you have undermined the Gospel for the sake of a mere moral issue. Need I remind you that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a doctrinal body of specific biblical teachings and doctrines. It is not mere morality. If so, then good Mormons, Muslims, and Buddhists are all bound for heaven. Your position is rather a round about compromise of the Gospel and sets the stage for further relativism and erosion of the Gospel.

I constantly hear that I am too specific and too narrow. But is your thinking not specific? It seems to me that you know exactly what you're doing and you refuse to take responsibility for the implications and the effects of your actions on Evangelicals here who are trying to fight back the prejudices and outright attacks against the faith here.

I suppose you would prefer that Anglicans here should all just sell out the Gospel to the Anglo-Catholic heresies you call an "ethos." Well, the Bible says this is not just an ethos. The Anglo-Catholic teachings are "another gospel" which is no Gospel at all.

In fact, it is your unqualified endorsement of heresy on the institutional level which is uncharitable. It is one thing to say that AC-NA is justified in breaking away. It is quite another to say that this is a "true" church and you are "in full communion" with it.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you stand for the Gospel or you stand for institutionalized heresy. Take your pick.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Charlie