From: Mark D. Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:14 PM
To: Charlie J. Ray
Subject: Re: Sydney Anglicans Embrace Anglo-Catholicism
Hi Charlie,
I think your most recent comments (http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2009/11/sydney-anglicans-embrace-anglo.html) are both uncharitable and untrue. The diocese of Sydney has not embraced Anglo-Catholicism and as far as I am concerned, never will. Our theological stance is clear: Protestant and Reformed with an unshakeable commitment to the solas of the Reformation.
As Anglicans, we already have an institutional relationship with dioceses and provinces throughout the world (including Canterbury) where there are bishops and archbishops saying much more outlandish things than those being said in the ACNA. Unless we want to abandon the institutions of Anglicanism altogether (handing them over without a fight to the forces of liberalism), we have to live with that and constantly distinguish ourselves from what such people are saying, insisting that we are upholding true classic Anglicanism. So the motion passed at the Sydney Synod does not broaden our institutional relationships at all and certainly doesn't broaden our theological position.
The real burden of the motion was to insist that the ACNA cannot be dismissed as unAnglican by TEC or the Anglican Communion in general. If there are attempts to suggest it has no legitimate claim to the title, motions like ours are testimony that Anglicans around the world will side with ACNA on this issue. That does not mean we have to agree with everything done by ACNA or everything said by every leader of ACNA. It doesn't mean we are embracing the Anglo-Catholic ethos of the new province or overlooking the flaws in its constitution. However, we are not willing to sit back and allow the political forces in TEC and the Anglican Communion Office side-line these men and women in an effort to keep the likes of Ms Jefferts Schori happy.
I want to applaud your determination to defend justification by faith alone and all the doctrine of the 39 Articles. I want to stand with you declaring that Anglicanism is genuinely Protestant as evidenced by Cranmer, Reformed as evidenced by Whitfield, Evangelical as evidenced by Simeon (just to stay with English examples for the moment). But for all my theological differences with him, I would stand with Bob Duncan rather than Katherine Jefferts Schori any day. Wouldn't you?
In our determination to speak, proclaim and defend the truth, we must beware presenting ourselves as the measure of all truth. Each of us have our own cultural blind spots and limited knowledge of the ideas, motives and actions of others. Can I suggest that as brothers in Christ we might be willing to disagree with each other without slandering each other or disenfranchising each other? I am always personally concerned not to adopt the stance of the Pharisees, where a preoccupation with being scrupulously orthodox led them to oppose the Messiah himself when he stood among them. There is always the chance that we might be able to learn from others.
I appreciate that the American situation is distinctive. The battlelines are firmly drawn (for instance, thanks to the continuing legacy of Finney's revivalism, there is a sharp divide between 'evangelical' and 'reformed' in America that does not exist in Sydney Anglicanism and amongst conservative Anglicans in the UK either). The situation of reformed and evangelical Anglicans in America is much more precarious than it is even in other places where these convictions are in the minority. However, we cannot afford to adopt a siege mentality that claims that everyone other than us has abandoned the faith. We can have much more confidence in our God than that. Christ is still building his church and the gates of hades itself will not overthrow it.
So, my brother in Christ Jesus, I want to call on you to be a little more careful in the accusations you make about others.
Yours in our risen Lord,
Mark
On 12/11/09 12:48 AM, "Charlie J. Ray" <cranmer1959@gmail.com> wrote:
I think your most recent comments (http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2009/11/sydney-anglicans-embrace-anglo.html) are both uncharitable and untrue. The diocese of Sydney has not embraced Anglo-Catholicism and as far as I am concerned, never will. Our theological stance is clear: Protestant and Reformed with an unshakeable commitment to the solas of the Reformation.
As Anglicans, we already have an institutional relationship with dioceses and provinces throughout the world (including Canterbury) where there are bishops and archbishops saying much more outlandish things than those being said in the ACNA. Unless we want to abandon the institutions of Anglicanism altogether (handing them over without a fight to the forces of liberalism), we have to live with that and constantly distinguish ourselves from what such people are saying, insisting that we are upholding true classic Anglicanism. So the motion passed at the Sydney Synod does not broaden our institutional relationships at all and certainly doesn't broaden our theological position.
The real burden of the motion was to insist that the ACNA cannot be dismissed as unAnglican by TEC or the Anglican Communion in general. If there are attempts to suggest it has no legitimate claim to the title, motions like ours are testimony that Anglicans around the world will side with ACNA on this issue. That does not mean we have to agree with everything done by ACNA or everything said by every leader of ACNA. It doesn't mean we are embracing the Anglo-Catholic ethos of the new province or overlooking the flaws in its constitution. However, we are not willing to sit back and allow the political forces in TEC and the Anglican Communion Office side-line these men and women in an effort to keep the likes of Ms Jefferts Schori happy.
I want to applaud your determination to defend justification by faith alone and all the doctrine of the 39 Articles. I want to stand with you declaring that Anglicanism is genuinely Protestant as evidenced by Cranmer, Reformed as evidenced by Whitfield, Evangelical as evidenced by Simeon (just to stay with English examples for the moment). But for all my theological differences with him, I would stand with Bob Duncan rather than Katherine Jefferts Schori any day. Wouldn't you?
In our determination to speak, proclaim and defend the truth, we must beware presenting ourselves as the measure of all truth. Each of us have our own cultural blind spots and limited knowledge of the ideas, motives and actions of others. Can I suggest that as brothers in Christ we might be willing to disagree with each other without slandering each other or disenfranchising each other? I am always personally concerned not to adopt the stance of the Pharisees, where a preoccupation with being scrupulously orthodox led them to oppose the Messiah himself when he stood among them. There is always the chance that we might be able to learn from others.
I appreciate that the American situation is distinctive. The battlelines are firmly drawn (for instance, thanks to the continuing legacy of Finney's revivalism, there is a sharp divide between 'evangelical' and 'reformed' in America that does not exist in Sydney Anglicanism and amongst conservative Anglicans in the UK either). The situation of reformed and evangelical Anglicans in America is much more precarious than it is even in other places where these convictions are in the minority. However, we cannot afford to adopt a siege mentality that claims that everyone other than us has abandoned the faith. We can have much more confidence in our God than that. Christ is still building his church and the gates of hades itself will not overthrow it.
So, my brother in Christ Jesus, I want to call on you to be a little more careful in the accusations you make about others.
Yours in our risen Lord,
Mark
On 12/11/09 12:48 AM, "Charlie J. Ray" <cranmer1959@gmail.com> wrote:
http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2009/11/sydney-anglicans-embrace-anglo.html
The Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace, that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Posts
6 comments:
I believe that "institutional" relationships have far ranging implications, particularly when blanket endorsements like "full communion" are used. As things stand now I can only say that the Anglican Communion at large, including the AC-NA is apostate. For Sydney to say otherwise is to sell out the Gospel to heretics. The AC-NA is just as apostate as TEC or its lady bishop.
It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that any Christian relationships beyond the local congregation are questionable at best since the term "evangelical" is pretty much useless anymore.
Is this discussion occurring in a blogspot aside from here?
Or is it personal email?
Or is Dr. Thompson checking in here and reading as I am.
Anglo-Catholicism like Jack's of Texas or Keith's of Quincy won't pass the theological muster of the English Reformers.
If Dr. Thompson is arguing that ACNA has questionable theologians, then Sydney should identify those.
What's the problem here, except for institutionalism above the theological facts of the Bible and authentic Anglican history?
I want to weigh this more.
Thanks for the update.
Gentlemen may I offer a thought.
I believe the liberals and Anglo Catholics/Tractarianism have entered into Anglicanism and its leadership through both well intentioned and lazy watchmen. I believe the liberals and AC/TRACT told the Reformed founders and watchmen everything they needed to hear all the while with their fingers crossed behind their backs biding their time til the got into positions of authority. Remember Tractarianism/Oxford Movement was originally outlawed til someone dropped their guard.
If this were not true or not the case Anglicanism would still be 100% Reformed Evangelical and the state of global Anglicanism and the false unity that has survived to this day is a testimony of that sad fact. I believe there are many saints still within the Anglican world but most are broken, wounded and heartbroken, not for the Anglican Church but for Christ and His sheep.
The Lord says you will know a tree by its fruit, a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit. Equally a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
With that I conclude no one can teach the truth of the Gospel of Christ unless they themselves believe it. We must not confuse Christ cantered faith in teaching and preaching with Gods word coming out of someone's mouth. Of course what is said will be true if it is Gods word. However....The truth of Gods word can be spoken but meant in error, that's what Satan did.
I do not see any good fruit in standing by a Sheppard who denies the doctrine of Grace, the doctrine of Salvation, the Sovereignty of God and the Sufficiency of Christ.
So I ask any minister, pastor, deacon, elder or overseer these questions. If there is a teaching or tradition you would not feed the sheep of your flock the Lord has entrusted to your guard and care for with your very life, why would you stand by and be in communion with someone who is abusing another flock of the Lords sheep by feeding them poison and leading them toward great peril? Do you think the Lord will not judge your inaction or ambivalence toward their plight? Are you going to say to the Lord "I am innocent, they weren't my sheep". If you neighbour was abusing their children and you knew it would you do nothing? Gods Word is not a half truth its an all or nothing commitment, it is the fragrance of Christ to those who are saved and the stench of death to those who are perishing.
I would encourage anyone in ministry to read what I have just written, pray about, if it makes you uncomfortable, ask yourself why, if you already know why then step out in faith, if it does not make you uncomfortable, disregard it.
May His Blessing and Mercy be upon us.
Mark T has missed the point entirely - we/he/they should not be deciding which of such as Schoori or Duncan to stand alongside - we/he/they should be standing alongside NEITHER.
Anglo-Catholicism leads to damnation just as surely as does liberalism.
Brother Dominic:
Thanks for stating it plainly. Sydney wants to play both sides of the fence but it doesn't work. It's rather like two adulterers trying to seduce each other. Both sides try to "gently" persuade the other but the end result is compromise and dissimulation on both parts.
Joshua had it right: "As for me and my house we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:14-15).
The pelagianism of Finney is alive and well in "reformed" circles here in the US and in Australia via the "church growth" model. The fact that Mark Thompson does not recognize this is indeed telling.
Fact is, Thompson is disenfranchizing me for "daring" to openly criticize Sydney here. I for one refuse to shut up. I will tell it exactly like it is and sound the alarm. If no one listens, then so be it. But from what I can observe in Evangelical denominations and seminaries here a compromise in one generation leads to further compromises in subsequent generations.
Reformed Theological Seminary is on that path as well. (RTS has a branch here in Orlando, Florida).
Charlie
Post a Comment