Gutless

I don’t recall FCA using “opposition to homosexuality” as the definition of orthodoxy.

Neither do I.

But I do think that those who support homosexual behavior in the church, despite any Nicene pretensions, have apostatized.

A clear distinction between institutional loyalty and loyalty to the mission we are given as Christians.  The damnable human urge to stray from tradition and truth are eating away at our country just as it is eating away at our churches.  In more ways than one, you can look at England and see our future if we don’t stand up for the core beliefs of country and Christianity.

”  Now I want to be clearly understood here. I take a conservative or orthodox
  stance on practicing homosexuality – a compassionate and pastoral one, I hope,
  but nonetheless a conservative stance.”

“I’m not against foreigners.  Some of my best friends are foreigners.  It just so happens that these particular foreigners are not from this village.”  (With thanks to Geriatrix from ‘Asterix.’)

a careful, nuanced and loving engagement with the issue

Translation:  We are giving in to popular culture instead of standing on the Word of God.

Alternate translation:  Let’s build the castle on this shifting and flexible sand here.  The unyielding rock is uncomfortable and exposed.

The article in question is from Fulcrum, of course.  They do seem a lot busier undermining the orthodox than combatting apostasy.  With “evangelicals” like that who needs . . .

“...this issue ever being resolved…”

News flash. The issue will never be resolved on a human or institutional level. That’s like asking when the issue of greed will ever be resolved, or lust, or dysfunctional marriages, or poor leadership skills, etc. It’s like asking when lions will stop attacking gazelles. It’s part of the fall.

The problem of human sinfulness goes back to the garden and won’t be removed till Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire for good, the elect are perfected in heaven and whoever is left is separated from God for eternity.

Till then, we have to be true to the Gospel and try to structure our institutions to withstand the enevitable onslaughts from the world, the flesh and the devil.

There is some pastoral wiggle room in dealing with laity that are confused, struggling, etc, but not with those in leadership whose responsibility is to uphold Scriptural standards.

The issue isn’t really the acceptance of homosexual behavior.  The issue is the authority of Holy Scripture.  The acceptance of homosexual behavior is just a symptom of the problem.

THAT’s why the issue is “polarizing” - there are those who will follow Jesus and submit their will to His.  The rest will follow their own will and try to form Jesus and Holy Scripture in their image. 

Yep, that’s pretty polar…and there isn’t a committee in heaven or on earth that can move these two views any closer together.

From today’s Scripture reading: ” Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring piece, but a sword…” Matthew 10:34

The sword, the word of God, should not be blunted by “nuanced and loving engagement with the issue”.

Stephen Kuhrt is indeed a nice, likeable and hard-working guy and a faithful brother, and I believe a good vicar with a healthy long-established evangelical church under his leadership.  He has had his run ins with those who are looking perhaps to FCA for alternative oversight.  This paper reflects a conversation that apparently happened at the “Church of England Evangelical Council” Council meeting yesterday with the Rev Vaughan Roberts of St Ebbs, Oxford under the chairmanship of Archdeacon Michael Lawson.

I am not sure that Stephen is weak but, as I do, he is for evangelicals arguing their case within the Church of England rather than heading off to FCA pastures.  I don’t take such a rosy view of the CofE as he does nor do I think that what has happened to TEC could not happen here.  But I do think that between the liberal and conservative evangelical views [particularly on the role of women in leadership] that people are beginning to become much more polarised and it worries me as well.  That is not to say that one should not stand up for the traditional biblical evangelical witness, but it is not always helpful to refuse to talk to those who disagree with you as is happening in England at either end of the spectrum.

I thought Sarah’s perspective here was helpful:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24811#402792

I would like to hear Vaughan Roberts perspective as someone more involved with the FCA end and I have stuck my oar in on the discussion in a long comment in case anyone is interested in my scribblings here in amongst those of the rest of the motley crew who comment there:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=13483

The issue will never be resolved on a human or institutional level.

The issue will be resolved on an institutional level if one side manages to gain the power it needs to remove all opposition from the instituion.  I don’t necessarly think this is a bad thing.  It is, after all, what should have been done with the likes of Integrity back in the 70’s and and 80’s.

Hi pageantmaster,

As I hope you will note, I do not know nor did I say whether Kuhrts is weak…frankly I don’t care what he is…his prescription above is a weak and gutless form of collaboration with heretics…and his assessment of those who support gay sex as orthodox Christians is direct defiance of God’s word.

I am sure he is nice. There are lots of nice people.

Hi Fr Matt
Well I suppose that is something that Fulcrum in various meetings and papers in the last year have been wrestling with: how to love the person while opposing the sin.  And you will notice from the variety of viewpoints in the discussion, at least 3 of which are gay-friendly [Fulcrum collects such commenters for some reason], the conversation does tend to be a bit more courteous than over here; even I try to behave myself.

“how to love the person while opposing the sin.”

But that is not what they are wrestling with at all. It is more like:

“how can we stay in fellowship with those clergy who are leading people into sin.”

And the solution seems to be

“redefine orthodoxy”

Is +N.T.Wright’s position on pastoral response to sexual issues (feelings*, acts**, pansexual agenda***) the same as Kuhrts’? 

*(sin/disobedience)
**(a symptom/conditioned response, often responds to treatment)
*** GLBT, sexual identity, sexual orientation, are hypothetical concepts and words that were invented to be used for the pansexual (GLBTQ, polygamy, child sex proponents) agenda propaganda.  The pansexualists are now lobbying (both the APA orgs. and legislatures) for polygamy and child sexual rights.

Christians should not use these unbiblical terms to refer to themselves or other human beings.

The issue will never be resolved on a human or institutional level.

It was fully resolved about 2,500 years ago, or whenever the Pentateuch reached its current form.

Dr. Turner,
My point in saying that the issue will not be resolved on a human or institutional level is that the attempts to change settled Biblical standards will never stop, nor should we expect them to.

Sometimes moderates seem to act like we can build into political structures various backstops to keep us from having to fight these battles. However, the other side will never stop pushing for more, no matter what concessions are offered.

My point then, is that the church should not give ground based on the idea that there will ever be peace between the gay lobby and those who uphold the Biblical ideal of one man and one woman. So, we might as well stick to our principles.

Nuance is just another word for subtle…and we know who is the most subtle of creatures. 

There is no sexemption or special perceived identity clause.  We are all in the same boat - all of us are disoriented by sin and iniquity.  We are all required to repent and be born-again and begin the process of renovation and sanctification of our souls called ‘crucifying the flesh with its sinful desires’ (Galatians 5:24) and ‘laying aside the weight of sins that beset us’ (Hebrews 12:1-4) 

Nobody is excluded, all are included.  No one is given a special category or pass and there is no excuse. 

Romans 1:18-32; I Corinthians 6:9-20 are completely inclusive and aligned with the moral code (the Two and the Ten Commandments) that pervade and saturate all of Scripture.  We cannot break God’s laws, they are written in stone, as unchangeable as God’s nature, as gravity and the physical laws governing creation, we only break ourselves in the attempt. They are based on God’s character, Holy Truth, Love and Life.  If followed, with the help of the Holy Spirit, they will produce His nature in us.
False teachers and priests like Spong who despise, pollute, distort and supress the Truth of the Gospel, who nuance and cast doubt, push the envelope, who cut corners and mislead and corrupt God’s people are facing an unpleasant surprise, according to Malachi 2:3.

I am disturbed by some of this.  We all sin.  It doesn’t mean aren’t Christian and I don’t see why treating Christians who are gay with courtesy and respect should be taken as a sign of lack of orthodoxy on the part of the speaker.  I see no reason to believe that Stephen Kuhrt, who I have met, is not being truthful when he says that he takes a conservative stance on sexuality or that he intends to redefine orthodoxy, as if he could.

The point of the section is to advocate not polarising people any further and Kuhrt’s concern about this, and it applies to a number of areas apart from sexuality.  I think it would be better not to read between the lines on this one.  Fulcrum by and large are what they say they are and that is conservative on sexuality - which is why they get it in the neck on more liberal sites.  It would be a shame if that were also the case on conservative ones, although I accept that their views on FCA are not to everyone’s tastes and I am not sure I go as far as they do.  I am however concerned that the CofE is not destabilised by any party for political ends.  We have enough problems of our own making thanks including some collapsing finances.

I would rather people gave us their prayers and support.  We are NOT TEC.

“I don’t see why treating Christians who are gay with courtesy and respect should be taken as a sign of lack of orthodoxy on the part of the speaker…”

I agree…but then again no one was suggesting otherwise.

Rather…I was objecting to this man treating those heretics who lead gay people away from Jesus and into hell as if they had any legitimacy as Christian ministers when in fact they are wolves who are devouring Jesus’ sheep.

RE: “The point of the section is to advocate not polarising people any further and Kuhrt’s concern about this, and it applies to a number of areas apart from sexuality.”

Right—but that’s where we disagree Pageantmaster.  Matt’s right—things *should* be polarized further.  Clergy who are teaching falsely that gay sex is holy and blessed have huge issues [other than the obvious ones on sexuality] with scriptural authority, the nature of man, the need for the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and any number of other issues—as Kendall Harmon so eloquently points out in his iceberg talk.  They are heretics, and heretics at the foundational Nicene level.  Attempting to gloss that over or make peace with those clergy and bishops is wrong-headed and incredibly naive, not to mention also false—since obviously those false teachers are precisely what St. Paul warns us about and tells us to shun and dismiss from the church.

RE: “. . . although I accept that their views on FCA are not to everyone’s tastes and I am not sure I go as far as they do.”

Oh, I actually agree with them largely on FCA.  It’s an organization that’s attempting quite deliberately to blur the lines between those who wish to work within the COE and those who have left the Anglican Communion, and it’s thoroughly mistaken for those wishing to work within the COE to be a part of the FCA.

RE: “I am however concerned that the CofE is not destabilised by any party for political ends.”

And certainly the end result of the FCA is just that destabilization.

But that’s neither here nor there.  The fact is that crying “peace peace” is wrong, untruthful, and hopelessly naive.

I would agree with that Fr Matt - but I am not sure that is what Stephen Kuhrt is advocating at all from what I read in his article.

Thanks Sarah.

that is precisely what he is advocating in this section:

“The Rev George Day, whom some of you may remember speaking from the floor at NEAC 2008, is another example of an evangelical thoughtfully and prayerfully questioning that traditional stance and we simply must listen to these voices. And by establishing opposition to homosexuality (despite its strange alliance with Forward in Faith) as the defining issue of orthodoxy, FCA is provoking a polarisation that is in danger of doing more to strengthen the revisionist view within the Church of England.”

I remember George Day’s brief speech - NEAC listened courteously and carefully, and then moved on to the next speaker.

I don’t agree with Stephen that FCA is defined by opposition to homosexuality any more than North American and African conservatives, but I do agree that we should listen carefully to other voices, engage and disagree with them.  [I also think the homing in on FiF as has been done is something I wish he had not done - it is not fair on the serious plight of many in FiF in the CofE at the moment.]

To listen is not to say that we accept priests teaching against the doctrine of Christ as it has been received by the Church of England.  Our doctrine is that of FCA, because FCA imported it directly from our Canons.

I also think that the term ‘evangelical’ is being used increasingly loosely.  This includes people who may have started out as evangelical but whose views have changed.  Is George Day an evangelical?  I am not sure I would call him that, but he can of course call himself whatever he likes, as do the rest of us.  I am not entirely sure that I would call myself an evangelical although there are many aspects of myself I recognise as falling within that description.

I believe Calvin used the term, but in England there have been a variety of definitions tried which Archdeacon Lawson addressed in this paper:
http://canterburytrail.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/michael-lawson-gods-master-plan.pdf

If one reads through Stephen Kuhrt’s article, it will become manifest that his principle concern is to protect the Church of England.  So the question that he needs to answer is “How far must one go to protect the Church of England?”  Must it be protected at all costs?  If not, then what threshold must be achieved to trigger a change?  His readers need to know that such a threshold exists.  His readers need to know how he would act if the threshold is breached.  Otherwise, he will be suspected of preaching a soft version of Institution über alles.

carl

#25, Pageantmaster,
To ‘listen’ in the parlance of the Church means to hear, heed, attend to, accomodate, tolerate.  The Church only hears and heeds Scripture and Godly teachers and does not incorporate any opinion that conflicts with Scripture.  As the Primate of the Sudan said, Christians do not listen to sinners (or incorporate them or their wishes into the doctrine or leadership of the Church).

#27 Carl
“If one reads through Stephen Kuhrt’s article, it will become manifest that his principle concern is to protect the Church of England”
Is that so wrong?
#28 Floridian
We are all sinners, who will listen to us?  I think there is a difference between listening and dismissing out of hand.  If you haven’t listened how will we know we have understood?  Moreover if we haven’t listened how can we engage and correct in accordance with scripture?

Speaking for myself, by engaging with people I disagree with sometimes I understand better what I believe and why.

If George Day accepts that homosexual behavior is even a possibility within the pale of Christian orthodoxy, which he does, he is not only not evangelical, he has departed from orthodoxy himself.

In that case he has removed himself from the category of “sinner”—the category in which we all find ourselves…and placed himself in the category of “false teacher” or “heretic”

Scripture is clear that the stance of the church toward sinners is radically different than that toward heretics. Sinners are to receive the compassionate and loving exhortation of the church to repent. Heretics are to be driven out and receive no hospitality whatsoever (2 John 7-11).

Kuhrts has decided to collaborate with heretics and castigate the orthodox FCA…so be it.

But he’s not going to get a pass for it because he is a nice person. Souls are at stake.

[29] Pageantmaster

Is that so wrong?

No, it’s not wrong at all - presuming it’s properly qualified.  And all those questions I said Kuhrt needs to answer go directly toward describing the qualifications he is willing to apply.

carl

how can we remain in fellowship with those leading others into sin (14) this is truly the question, and for more and more people it seems that the answer is NO

Respectfully Fr Matt, Stephen Kuhrt said

The Rev George Day, whom some of you may remember speaking from the floor at NEAC 2008, is another example of an evangelical thoughtfully and prayerfully questioning that traditional stance and we simply must listen to these voices

and that people

won’t be persuaded by anything other than a careful, nuanced and loving engagement with the issue, its complexities and the human beings that it involves

I don’t see how listening to people in the first quote and seeking to persuade people in the second quote is accepting “that homosexual behavior is even a possibility within the pale of Christian orthodoxy” or going on to “collaborate with heretics”.

He also makes clear:

I want to be clearly understood here. I take a conservative or orthodox stance on practicing homosexuality – a compassionate and pastoral one, I hope, but nonetheless a conservative stance.

I do accept that he castigates FCA, but that is a different question.

And of course Kuhrts does not have to answer any questions Carl - he is writing for a debate on the attitude Church of England evangelicals should have to FCA at a meeting of the CEEC - that is the purpose of and sole intent of the paper, whether one agrees with the view he takes of FCA or not.

pageantmaster,

I see you did not quote the key section I bolded above in which the speaker said that the FCA was making homosexual practice the defining issue of orthodoxy. That is, of course a falsehood regarding the FCA, but the clear implication of these words, setting aside the falsehood, is that a variety of positions with regard to homosexual practice may be legitimately held and must be “listened too” in the church as they could lie within the pale of orthodoxy.

And then he goes on to favorably quote someone who does challenge the traditional view and, even worse, refer to him as an “evangelical”

The fact is that those who question biblical doctrine on this matter are flat out heretics. They are not “evangelicals” nor are they in any way orthodox. The only legitimate position that may be tolerated in the church is one that upholds the biblical view of marriage.

All other teachings are false and those who promote them are false. They are not to be given a fair hearing or a pulpit or referred too as if they have a legitimate task or calling in the church other than to recant and repent.

The line I think you are missing is between those who believe that disagreements over sexual practice are important ought not be considered a dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy and those who believe that, in fact, because scripture is so clear on the matter that it is such a line…not the only one of course, but an important one that cannot be crossed without apostatizing.

Thanks Fr Matt
I agree - I think that I read it as not saying that a variety of positions were acceptable in orthodox Anglicanism but that orthodoxy is defined by more than homosexuality including for example belief in the trinity, atonement, divinity of Christ, resurrection etc.  I also agree that it is a mischaracterisation of FCA, perhaps in support of his viewpoint.  The truth is that homosexuality became the flashpoint because of what TEC did in relation to practicing homosexual bishops and services.  But that is not what defines FCA or orthodoxy, it is a small part of the picture although non-negotiable.

And I agree that giving a pulpit to such views is wrong.  However I am not sure that is what Kuhts is advocating, instead that he advocates engagement and persuasion of those who are not clear or tending to the opposite view.

Regarding the bolded section, I think his point is that megaphone debate is not necessarily going to persuade people of anything and he does by implication associate this with the FCA approach, which again I am not sure is right any more than that they are a one-issue organisation.  But equally I took him to be advocating quieter engagement and persuasion of people, not an overturning of the biblical understanding which he says he holds.

I think that he’s getting the problem with the FCA all wrong.  The problem with the FCA is not “they think the issues of homosexuality are the dividing line”—that’s a feature not a bug.  The issues of homosexuality *are* the dividing line because that is the precise point at which the libs are [currently] revealing their own heterodoxy. 

It’s a bit like saying at another time that “those mean people think that the dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy is Incan virgin sacrifice.”

Obviously, if a church decides in 2050 that a great idea would be to practice Incan virgin sacrifice . . . then that is the precise point at which the orthodox should rise up and say “wait, no—Incan virgin sacrifice rituals are outside the pale of orthodox Christian thought or practice.”  The insult of having a bunch of other orthodox Christians pointing out that . . . other than the Incan virgin sacrifice issue, the “Christians” are “perfectly orthodox” and this issue should not be “the dividing line” is ludicrous.  Of course Incan virgin sacrifice does not *directly* have to do with the authority of scripture or the deity of Christ.  But obviously once a purported Christian decides to “thoughtfully and prayerfully question the traditional stance against Incan virgin sacrifice” and that Incan virgin sacrifice sounds like a great idea—that purported Christian shouldn’t be trusted to teach ON ANYTHING AT ALL EVER WITHIN CHRISTIANITY.

The real issue with the FCA is that it attempts to muddle the waters between those who wish to work from within the COE and those who do not.  Those two groups have very very little in common other than their Christian faith, and trying to mix them all in together [for obvious political reasons later on down the road] is bad practice and extraordinarily foolish—at least for those people committed to working within the COE. 

But as I said back when it was first founded . . . there will be plenty of time for COEers to figure that one out a year or so more out.

“there will be plenty of time for COEers to figure that one out a year or so more out”
There were intimations of that incompatability becoming apparent at the end of the FCA meeting as Stephen Kuhrts notes.  And if we look across the pond and how ACNAers carry on with regard to those in TEC we can see the problems writ large for us to see.

But a lot of people see FCA as the only show in town at the moment barring some more vertebrae in the in-church bodies.

Btw Vaughan Roberts’ view is now online thanks to Anglican Mainstream - and apparently in the Church of England Newspaper:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=16335#more-16335

The other thing is that the FCA meetings are invariably well organised with worthwhile speakers and are a great way for people to meet together, share fellowship and share the challenges they are dealing with.  Something perhaps that one would have looked to organisations like CEEC to provide, but even the evangelicals are so divided as John Richardson points out.  And the really remarkable thing FCA achieved was to bring evangelicals and anglo-catholics together, bewildering and challenging as it clearly was for each of them.  How extraordinary is that?

Hi Pageantmaster,

This is not a debate. This is not an argument or an attempt to persuade. This is very clear biblical doctrine that is simply to be obeyed and proclaimed or, if not, then to be the cause for church discipline.
We are not dealing with confused laity, but with ordained teachers…and therefore false prophets. You do not argue or persuade or attempt to reason with false prophets. You drive them out. Kurhts is quite clearly advocating a violation of 2 John 7-11

That is a serious accusation of a priest Fr Matt.  You have not established it to my satisfaction based on what Stephen Kuhrts actually said rather than by inference.  I would ask you to think about it again.

Sorry that is Kuhrt.

Speaking of ‘listening,’ Spong has issued a grandiose narcissistic tantrum that he calls a ‘Manifesto’ saying he and his disciples are not going to ever, ever, ever listen to orthodox Christians any more, ever, ever, ever again. 

Baby Blue has posted it with appropriate photo illustrations.  The Curmudgeon has posted his own parody of Shori’s possible response.

The priest in question is Fr. Day. Are you suggesting that Kurhts wants Day to be defrocked? are you suggesting that Kurhts wants anything other than friendly engagement and debate with Day? If not then I stand by my comments

The fact is a minister’s stance on homosexuality is a measure of his orthodoxy. Kurht denies that it is and holds up Day as an example.

[33] Pageantmaster

And of course Kuhrts does not have to answer any questions Carl - he is writing for a debate on the attitude Church of England evangelicals should have to FCA at a meeting of the CEEC - that is the purpose of and sole intent of the paper

Here is Kuhrt’s argument summarized in one sentence: “FCA is bad because it de-stabilizes the CoE.”  Well, and good.  When does the need to defend the Truth supersede the need to protect the CoE?  When does de-stabilization become a necessary consequence?  When does de-stabilization become a moral imperative?  Ever?  The answers to those questions will shape how Stephen Kuhrt is read.  Is this a debate over strategy or first principles?  Is he concerned for the perpetuation of the CoE above all else?  Kuhrt can’t just run by these questions because they are inconvenient.

carl

RE: “That is a serious accusation of a priest Fr Matt.”

Not for the folks advocating dialogue with the kindly clergy teaching that gay sex is holy and blessed it’s not, Pageantmaster.  They couldn’t care less because they don’t really really believe [manifestly from their writings] that one should indeed confront and eliminate rank and obvious heresy-teachers from the ranks of church leaders.

I have a slightly different take, though, from Matt’s.  I think that some of the leaders of Fulcrum [and some of the other COE groupings] are still in the phase of “Trusting Conservative” that I wrote about so many years ago.  I’ve always believed over here in TEC that it took one good General Convention participation as a deputy to turn a real sho’ ‘nough Trusting Conservative into a Strategic Conservative.  It really takes two weeks of concentrated observation of the malevolence, spite, vacuity, and the totality of the false gospel that pervades every fiber of a revisionists’ foundational worldview for the Trusting Conservative to slap their forehead and say “wowzer—was I wrong about them.”

Until such a “sea-change” though, Trusting Conservatives go through church life Really Truly Believing that—since we’re all believers and share the same Gospel—if they can just explain the minor detail of where the liberal has gone wrong, that the kindly revisionist will change his mind.  So the key is dialogue and engagement with the kindly revisionist.  But the more one engages and the more one dialogues the more the ball of yarn becomes more and more knotted and snarled.  The more one sees that what lies at the root of the current fascination with the latest fad [whatever that is] is a wholesale rejection—however subtly made—of much of the foundation of Scripture, tradition, and reason.

My bet is that those allying themselves with the “let’s just dialogue with the kindly revisionist” folks in the COE will be very very much like the now-retired bishops of TEC with whom I’ve held several discussions.  Most of them say “we just didn’t understand their agenda, their real beliefs, what they set out to do, and how corrupt and power-hungry they were.  We didn’t get it, and we were thoroughly beaten and deceived.”

Of course . . . by that point of recognition . . . it was too late.  Many of these bishops are no longer the Trusting Conservatives that they were—but they’re left with immense regret at how foolish and naive and out-maneuvered they were.  They didn’t even know that there was “maneuvering” being done, at least in a calculated and damaging way, much less that there was an actual opponent out there whom they must resist.

I really don’t know anything of George Day’s status at all in the CofE at the moment - other than as someone who spoke at NEAC and who infrequently comments on Fulcrum.

I do know something of Stephen Kuhrt and the line which he and Fulcrum take which is conservative on sexuality, in favor of a strong covenant for the Communion and engagement within the Church of England and sceptical of FCA.  I don’t see him promoting any other line.

Sarah - that is a very interesting comment.  I think on all sides except the extremes we in the UK may be a bit more green, as perhaps you and the bishops were in TEC some time back.  There is engagement and argument and maybe some persuasion going on.  I have seen some surprising movements on some parts of the more liberal side in the last year here back in line with putting the church first which I would not have expected, much to the chagrin of the more extreme liberals who are bewildered by it. 

What Kuhrt is saying in this section is that that central axis may not hold and people may polarise again as TEC did if for example FCA makes waves.  One of the losses in the CofE is of consensus - in Synod, in our divided House of Bishops and the church could become a battleground, just like TEC.  People may not like consensus and doing what is good for the church including not moving to an extreme view on say women bishops but that is the way we have traditionally done things.  Forbearance is difficult, but a Christian way of dealing with one another.  That is not to say that doctrine is negotiable, it is not.

BOTH destabilization and schism ALWAYS automatically occur when there is unrepentant apostasy (sexual immorality, thievery, injustice, dishonesty, betrayal) and heresy (false teaching/syncretism/idolatry/failure to defend the Gospel).

It DOES matter whether the problem is acknowledged or hidden, challenged or neglected. 

Matt+Kennedy has stated the proper and loving response to heretics (false teachers) and apostates (sinners) in #30.

Love is not sweetness, niceness, but love always seeks the truth, always protects and hopes and always seeks the best outcome for the persons in sin/error, which is repentance, restoration, reconciliation to God and the church through conformity to His Word and the Way of Truth, Love and Life.

Hi Carl
“Here is Kuhrt’s argument summarized in one sentence: “FCA is bad because it de-stabilizes the CoE.”  Well, and good.  When does the need to defend the Truth supersede the need to protect the CoE?”
Well I think one looks at the starting point of where the CofE is at the moment.  Our doctine is orthodox; we have recently committed ourselves to evangelisation in accordance with the Great Commission, something TEC has refused to do.  Our disciplinary code is enforced against priests who breach our Canons.

The first question is whether the CofE is currently in need of action to defend the truth.  Then the question arises of whether the FCA is the correct instrument to use to effect that action.

On the first point there is certainly some action needed, and there is action being taken within the processes of the church slowly although the picture is mixed.  On the second point it is not clear that action from FCA will reform the Church of England and Kuhrt makes the point that it may just bust it apart.

I have always found that reform of anything is a slow painstaking process.  I have never seen hatchet men achieve anything but massive destruction and mayhem in organisations.  Is the influence of FCA a good or a bad thing for the CofE is the debate going on at the moment at CEEC and elsewhere.  I suspect the answer may depend on how FCA behaves.

Pageantmaster - you can hardly expect Fr Matt, who has given up everything for the sake of the gospel, to bestow approval on Stephen Kuhrt, who keeps a foot firmly in both camps, just to be on the safe side.

(I am with Matt here!)

I think that we in America are perhaps too inclined to suspect that the CofE is altogether like TEC. We should at least entertain the possibility that this is not so?

Our doctine is orthodox; we have recently committed ourselves to evangelisation in accordance with the Great Commission, something TEC has refused to do.

That’s a huge difference right there. In TEC, evangelism means promoting the blessing of gay marriage. The clergy would run in horror at the notion that they were meant to be taking the Word of Christ to the world.

Pageantmaster,

This is about the third time you have apparently misunderstood my point.

I do not question the fact that Kurht takes a biblical position on human sexuality.

I do say that Kurht advocates violation of the biblical injunction in 2 John 7-11

#51 Hi English Jill
Fr Matt is one of the heroes of the faith as far as I am concerned - I always listen carefully to what he says.

I haven’t looked at Stephen’s feet.  I expect they are up on the mountain bringing good news - just like Vaughan Roberts’ are.

Thank you Jill and pageantmaster, but I lost very very little compared to people in other parts of the world—and God has blessed us beyond measure.

Pageantmaster,
You are finding yourself at loggerheads with the SF US contingent because we have all encountered Kurht’s reasoning before.  What he is saying, and what you are to some degree repeating, is exactly what bishops have been saying to us since the day they consecrated Gene Robinson. It is a mix of “we cannot divide the church” and “it hasn’t happened here” and “you know me, and you know I am orthodox, so if I can tolerate it, why can’t you?”
  First, I have always found the “we cannot divide the church” argument irrational when what one is in favor of is further dividing the church.  If one is really serious about it, one drops the denominational pretense and returns to Rome or Orthodoxy.
  “It hasn’t happened here yet” falls to the obvious- if you are accepting being in full communion with open heretics and not providing any discipline at all, then indeed, it HAS happened here.  Oh, on a day to day basis, it may not be obvious, but a part of what you put in the plate is paying the heretics salaries, they have an impact on your canons and practice, they have vote in Synod that changes the outcome of decisions.
  And on the question of orthodoxy, well, define the word.  There aren’t very many Orthodox or, Europe and US aside, Catholics, who believe that you could be remotely orthodox if you are in a church that allows WO, much less openly gay clergy or bishops.
  To those of us in the US, CoE looks remarkably like TEC of 10-15 years ago.  You are on the verge of making women bishops mandatory- oh, yes, you may delay the mandatory part by a few years, but nobody on the Catholic side of Anglicanism sees even the latest proposal (if it is accepted, remembering that similar proposals were rejected not long ago by large majorities) as anything other than a brief respite. Remember too that the same people who rammed the women bishops measure through Synod are the ones who are now telling everyone to just keep dialoguing and everything will be fine.
  For those watching from the US, “this is the same thing, all over again.”  I think our advice would be that there may be times to act like Chamberlain and talk it all out in the name of unity and peace.  But there are definitely times when you need to act like Churchill- in order to preserve anything worth being a part of.  Those of us who lost here in the US by taking the former course, recommend that you take the latter.

#53 Fr Matt. Yes - and interestingly I was looking at Ezekial 3:17-21 last night which is as blunt.

I just do not see that that describes what is going on here from what has been written by Stephen.  I don’t think he is advocating giving a pulpit to false teaching or not arguing against it, but of engaging it calmly, courteously and thoughtfully.  One hopes that that engagement would also be with quiet determination.

Even in the Reformation in England one reads that this is what happened on both sides, the aim being to persuade of error, although the end result could still be brutal and final.

#57 TJ - as ever you speak with wisdom and sense, and yes, we may well be 10-15 years behind TEC.  I think what is going on at the moment, both in terms of the issue of women bishops and the Covenant are critical to the path we find ourselves on.

We would be wise to take your advice.

In some ways what has happened to TEC has been a wake-up call for us across the board and at the end of the day we are God’s church and it is His will we seek to obey.

Pageantmaster,

2 John 7-11 does not say to “politely engage” with the hope of “persuading” heretics. It says not even to give them basic hospitality. They are to be driven out, not engaged with. That’s the problem. This is not an open question. This is not even an area of theology over which there may be principled disagreement. This is a line. If you fall on one side you are within the church and on the other you are outside. If you are a teacher, it is a line between heresy and orthodoxy

The reason the NT does not advocate “polite engagement” with heretics is because it is not really the heretics that God is concerned with most of all. It is, rather, his little ones who are being led into sin and possibly damnation.

So while Kurht et al are “politely engaging” heretics, the heretics are devouring sheep.

Beneath all of this it seems is a form of institutionalized clericalism that sees polite engagement among clerics, so as to persuade clerics, as more important than people the clerics are leading into hell.

Hence 2 John 7-11…which Kurht necessarily brushes aside in his desire to politely engage.

Sarah - a great post (#47) - I think your ball of yarn analogy is excellent.

But the more one engages and the more one dialogues the more the ball of yarn becomes more and more knotted and snarled.  The more one sees that what lies at the root of the current fascination with the latest fad [whatever that is] is a wholesale rejection—however subtly made—of much of the foundation of Scripture, tradition, and reason.

I still am much in grief over the misplaced trust that caused numerous great bishops to waffle and in some cases cave. Even on the diocesan level, those times I served as delegate I also experienced

...the malevolence, spite, vacuity, and the totality of the false gospel that pervades every fiber of a revisionists’ foundational worldview… 

As usual the points you make in this post are clear and commanding. I would urge everyone to reread it.

#50 PM - Forgive me, but I couldn’t help but think of Martin Luther  

I think also in TEC they may be reacting to quotes/talking points from bishops along the lines that unity is more important than heresy, schism is worse than anything - essentially making an idol of unity and blaming the messengers/victims for the problem (e.g. blaming the wife for the husband’s infidelity or for pointing out the infidelity.) As Jill Woodliffe reminded us, going to extremes the other way in zeal for protecting purity/truth can also result in problems such as cold hearts and cold worship.

I have always found that reform of anything is a slow painstaking process.  I have never seen hatchet men achieve anything but massive destruction and mayhem in organisations.

It will probably stir up more than it settles but something of the thinking behind this can perhaps be seen in Stephen Kuhrt’s testimony here:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20060208kuhrt.cfm?doc=85

Help was at hand, most principally from a “new kid” on the “evangelical block” called Tom Wright [1]. Stuck within the paradigm that my culture had bequeathed to me, Tom’s rather different take on the New Testament originally flew straight over my head. But eventually the penny dropped. “Going to heaven when we die” is simply a pale and debased form of the wonderful hope that it presented to us through the Bible’s pages. The physical resurrection of Jesus, I was led to realise, both signals and begins the process by which the creator God is going to remake this world and restore it to the way that he always intended it to be. This is the wonderful, earth shattering and marvellous significance of Jesus’ resurrection and packaged within it was the answer to my most pressing questions. Of course, social action and care for God’s creation are as important and vital as evangelism because they are all part of extending the new creation that broke into our world on Easter day and will be brought to completion on that future day when Jesus returns. The physical resurrection of Jesus, I came to realise, was a vital and indispensable part of the radical, life changing faith that I had always known Christianity should be[2].

However I was also aware that the process by which I had arrived at this “discovery” held its own significance. The fact was that Jenkins and co had honed their attack on a piece of doctrine that had been allowed to become perfunctory and toothless. Hopelessly wrong in their solution, they had nonetheless exposed a glaring hole in supposedly biblical orthodoxy and a hole which defensive reaction only served to mask further. Wright had showed the more appropriate response: going back to the Scriptures with a readiness to both rediscover their neglected treasures and let them radically reshape and renew evangelical orthodoxy.

And within this lies a very positive and constructive model for responding to unorthodox theology. Sometimes, perhaps, a purely defensive reaction is still called for but a much better norm is to assume that there are good and compelling reasons for the case being set out. Those making it may well be wrong, perhaps hopelessly so, but the really critical question is what has happened within Christian “orthodoxy” for them to see it this way? What gap or hole are they exposing? Responding to this question and rising to its challenge is much harder than defensive reaction because it involves being open to there being really crucial things within the Scriptures that we may have missed or neglected. But it can also be the means by which we find these things and are consequently enabled to really grow in our understanding, faith and discipleship.

#57 wrote: “I don’t think he is advocating giving a pulpit to false teaching or not arguing against it, but of engaging it calmly, courteously and thoughtfully.”

There is a time when quiet dialogue II Timothy 2:25-26 must progress to I Corinthians 16:22 (remembering to love God means to keep His commandments) and I Timothy 1:20.

Ten years have passed since Lambeth 1998 issued a statement expressing the ‘mind of the Communion,’ one that was critically compromised by incorporating the use of the unscriptural agenda-manufactured propaganda words, ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘sexual identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ etc. 

Sufficient patient dialogue has already occurred.  Time is up for that.  It’s past time for repentance.  There has not been any.  It’s time for the church to remove the unrepentant and to love and restore the repentant.

“And within this lies a very positive and constructive model for responding to unorthodox theology. Sometimes, perhaps, a purely defensive reaction is still called for but a much better norm is to assume that there are good and compelling reasons for the case being set out.”

Well of course we all know that Tom Wright know far more about dealing with heretics than the Apostle John…who’s
“defensive” approach is less than adequate for a norm.

Again, Kurht and Wright are focused on unity between clerics. They do not think they are talking about wolves. They want to sit down and have a long discussion with them. They are busy filling themselves.

Well as I said it will probably stir up more than it settles, but I thought it was an interesting read, and in particular an interesting perspective on the renewal of interest in the resurrection going on particularly in England, much of it due to Bishop Wright’s efforts and his resurrection roadshows round the country.

Yes, Wright’s work on the Resurrection is fantastic and has been a tremendous apologetic resource in the church’s respectful and polite engagement with those non-believers who reject Christianity and do not believe the biblical accounts and with those Christians in the pews who often find themselves struggling with doubt.

Of course those who call themselves Christian ordained ministers and deny the resurrection should be immediately driven out of the church and after they have been stripped of title, position, and legitimacy as Christian ministers, then the apologetic task can begin as between Christians and pagans.

Resurrection roadshows? Sign me up.

#68 Oscewicee
I think he is writing a book or something in Princeton at the moment but here is the story [unfortunately the link to the Think Rez website no longer works]:
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=1646

Matt, you have been richly blessed because of your faithfulness.  You did not know this in advance.

What Stephen Kurht seems (to me) to be saying is that he is orthodox himself, but if anyone does anything about routing the creeping heterodoxy he will not stand with them.  So that (in my book) leaves him standing alongside the heterodox, no?

What will happen to the fence-sitters once we ordain our first openly gay bishop in the C of E, I wonder.  Will they be sidling up to the very people they refused to stand alongside?

Thanks, Pageantmaster - I would love to hear him speak on this.

#70 English Jill
I suppose the question is if another gay partnered bishop were to be proposed again would the coalition that came together to oppose the last appointment [including I rather think Fulcrum people] still be able to be put together?  We have seen people like Bishop Jones of Liverpool wobble.

From what John Richardson reported the CEEC event sounded fractious and I have not seen anything coming out of it in terms of statements or resolutions from the AGM.  The division is perhaps the worst thing to come out of all this.

I spoke too soon.  Here are the CEEC Council Resolutions:
http://www.ceec.info/Resolutions at High Leigh October 2009 .htm
and here is a report on the proceedings from the CEEC website:
http://www.ceec.info/index.html

Note in particular:

The Council urges the formal recognition of ACNA as a constituent Province of the Anglican Communion

Speaking as the ignoramus I pretty much am, one thing I have seen among those who will not believe that our opponents have malice aforethought and that they should be “engaged” is a strong desire for “collegiality” and “polite engagement” and even “professional respect” between clergy whether orthodox or heretic (as Spong, Pike, et al.). In other words, too much self-serving “niceness” while the flocks are indeed consumed by the wolves. I strongly believe that definite unpleasantness is called for. Heresy (for such is being advocated) is, to quote fondly from brother Winston, should in every case be “something up with which I will not put.” IMHO it is, even from a merely logical perspective, false compassion and to do otherwise. In fact, it is complicity with the heresy, exactly as Fr. Matt reminds us is stated in 2 John 1:7-11. From my perspective, that makes it game, set and match for Fr. Matt.

Charles Raven has written an excellent response to Stephen Kurht, entitled ‘burying the bad news’.
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=16366

Jill #75…this looks like a really in-depth response at first read. I am going to spend more time studying it tomorrow when my mind is fresh…it is nearly 10:30 p.m. here and afraid I’m a bit sluggish.