Justin Welby refuses to take sides. He is continuing in the vein of Rowan Williams by attempting to maintain the fiction that the worldwide Anglican Communion has not already split, that Western Anglicanism’s god of self-gratification – preferably obtained through homoeroticism – can somehow be reconciled with the Cross. It can’t.
Perhaps what is worst of all is that Welby views the division in worldwide Anglicanism as something bad which should be resisted, rather than what it actually is: God separating the faithful from the unfaithful.
Read it all here (my emphasis):
“There is a need for new structures in the Anglican Communion, “the archbishop said, adding the issues that divide us are “simple and complicated.”
To address them “we need a new way of being in communion, not the colonial structures” of the past, he said. But it was unclear as to what the solution was as each province offered its own solution to the problem, yet “we must find a way to live together, so the world will see” Jesus is Lord.
The Anglican world must be a sign to the world of the power of Christ and must engage in a deliberate program of “witness, worship, evangelism, and a passion for the Holy Spirit.”
“The more seriously we take the Bible” the more effectively we will be able to deal with our divisions, he said.
Different theological positions co-exist among most Christian denominations.
But this is not simply different theological positions (such as was Mary the mother of God a virgin her entire life or did she and Joseph consummate their marriage after the birth of Jesus). What is happening here are to entirely different belief systems.
Different positions co-exist among believers. For example, there are different theories of the Atonement, e.g. moral influence, victory, Anselm’s satisfaction, penal substitution, governmental theory, etc. John Stott’s and Michael Harper’s understanding of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not the same. John Stott and J.I. Packer don’t agree on the ordination of female priests. Not all Bible-believing Christians approve remarriages after divorces, etc.
I fully agree that Bible believing Christians have different understanding/interpretations of the Holy Bible. You provide a few pertinent examples.
However when I have sat through sermons in an ACoC church in which the priest actually said:
That the Bible was not written by God, but is only a collection of writings by men trying to understand the relationship between God and people;
That the Creeds are not to be thought of as definitions of “Christian”;
When Jesus said “I am the light and life of the world, no-one comes to the Father but through me” He did not mean that you had to be a Christian in order to get into heaven, but that you only need to try to follow Christ’s teachings.
These are not theological positions within Christian beliefs. These are different beliefs! What’s more, I think that these different beliefs are done deliberately so that anything that gets in the way of their new agenda can be easily disposed of.
For AMPisAnglican:-
I would assume you meant “two entirely different belief systems”, and you are absolutely correct. Being the ABC or any other bishop or member of the clergy does not, in itself make one an Anglican. True Anglicans fully accept both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ – both of which are mandatory for anyone claiming to be Christian. Tragically what we are seeing is an attempt by the ABC to weld together two entirely opposite positions rather than standing up for the Gospel.
Good point Frank. + 1