Comments on: Hmmmm

By: Rob Sturdy

Rob Sturdy — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:05:26 +0000

First off, well said Danny. TEC is completely lacking in discipline, which is the third mark of an authentic church.

T. Prescott,
The congregations currently affiliated with the Diocese of S.C. are every bit as unified with the Diocese as the Diocese is with the Episcopal Church. Ecclesiologically this is inescapable. That of course is the problem.

By: danny

danny — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:55:28 +0000

When did church discipline get thrown under the bus as on of the marks of the churh?
I can’t see how any serious counseling in a church setting works without discipline as its last resort. Perhaps my PCA stripes have not washed away?

By: T. Prescott

T. Prescott — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:18:35 +0000

Steve (and I did realize you weren’t SCPriest),
Let me re-frame my comment with less inflammatory language. Calvin’s marks of the church are well known and I’m quite certain that you’ve read much more of him than I have. Clearly, TEC fails on all accounts. But certainly his perspective on unity is relevant to the Diocese of South Carolina (who, I think, passes the Calvin test) whose many members are attempting to engage these difficult questions. Are we to blindly follow TEC episcopacy? No! Are we to consider the effects of a divided Body of Christ on our ministry in SC? Yes. In my humble opinion, a strength of our diocese is our ability to present the Gospel to the people of SC from a unified Anglican perspective. Does that mean complete submission to TEC? Of course not. But for me, I must look at the diocese as a whole and consider the importance of a unified body at a diocesan level. Clearly, your perspective on this issue is different than mine – and it is one that I respect and understand. I have great respect for the work God is doing at SAMP and my prayers go out to you during your 40 Days.

As far as my straw man comment, SCPriest is making what I think is an irrelevant argument and painting with a pretty broad brush. The concerns of the diocese are far beyond a proper theological understanding of the episcopacy and are founded firmly within our understanding of the importance of Christian unity at a local, practical level.

Blessings to all in Christ Jesus!

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:46:46 +0000

T. Prescott, I’m assuming that by your criticism of SC Priest you assumed SC Priest to be me. He/she is not. Thank you, though, for pointing out the book did not end on p.397, but continues on p.398 with a quote from the esteemed John Calvin (may his name be praised forever). I was not aware of that. With your help I have now read John Calvin’s definition of the church (how did I miss this over the past 21 years of ministry?). And, again, TEC fails. How? It has not faithfully preached the Gospel. And, as the sacraments are tied inextricably to the Gospel message it raises the question are they even sacraments (I’m not suggesting that efficacy of the sacraments are affected in any way by the ‘worthiness’ of minister at the Table in anyway – rather as signs they must correlate to that which they signify – if what they signify has been denied – what do they signify?) Ah, but I am sure those words are only straw for my next straw man.
Rob, thanks for the comment. As I do indeed know your stripes I take your question with the intended brotherly love. And, thank you. The quote (as was Brother Jewel’s a few weeks ago) is primarily to remind ANY Episcopalian who may wander across this blog of our heritage: that we once were a Reformation church – lost, from my point of view – as most Episcopalians seem to see themselves as the Roman Catholic JV team rather than the robust Protestant, Evangelical and Reformed church I believe we were created to be. As for the SAMP landing pad post 40 Days? I believe it will be ACNA rather than a structure that forsakes the three ordained orders of ministry – at least that’s my advocacy. But, we’ve not yet discerned a call to depart TEC and join ACNA.

By: Rob Eaton+

Rob Eaton+ — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:29:11 +0000

Steve,
Without the rest of the book to provide context, a person who knows no other church order except bishops (etc) reading the above and giving it due consideration might be inclined to consider this an ultra radical, and consequentially destructive, disestablishment of any church order.
Which is of course not the case.
Alister is preaching evangelical party agenda couched within the warnings of essentials. That is just not helpful.
It would be more helpful for him just to say that he is not convinced that the laying on of hands in the Name of Jesus makes any transference of power, authority or anointing that is provable, or even necessary for the church to exist. And then, of course, back that up biblically (taking the opportunity to prove his application of the priority of the Word).

Let him roll that around in his brain a little…

Now, take this with the brotherly love with which it is intended since you know my stripes, is it possible your posting of this is simply the prepping of the parish for their post-40 day decision?
: )

By: T. Prescott

T. Prescott — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:55:31 +0000

That’s a nice straw man you’ve set up SC Priest – set ‘em up and knock ‘em down. Luther is clearly right with his understanding of the episcopacy and the true church, but perhaps we could turn the page in Dr. McGrath’s book, to the thoughts of Calvin:

“For Calvin, the marks of the true church were: 1)the Word of God should be preached and 2)the sacraments should be rightly administered…
And as the evangelical churches conformed to this identification of a church, there was no justification for further division within them.” (Introduction to Christian Theology, p. 398)

Say what you will about DioSC relation to TEC, but “let that roll around in your mind for a while” as we consider our inter-diocesan relationships.

By: waitingonisaac

waitingonisaac — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:04:23 +0000

Two questions come to mind as I thought about this.

The first question: “What does it mean to be historically derived from the apostles?” Would it mean that you would agree with the fundamentals of their teaching? How would it be possible for an institution or individual to disagree with the fundamental teaching of the apostles and also actually be derived from them? To me the instant you begin to disagree with the fundamental teaching of the apostles you then become derived from something other than the apostles.

The second question: “If I boarded a ship in San Fransico that said on the side “Bound for Hong Kong” but upon leaving port the ship went to Australia, would I still arrive in Hong Kong?”

By: D. Philip Veitch

D. Philip Veitch — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:24:34 +0000

The quote by Luther has long been known to this scribe. Let’s put that quote to an application of Canterbury or servcies where apostate bishops preside? Are those bishops in “communion with Christ?”

By: Usama

Usama — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:15:11 +0000

This quote might not work here, but I thought of it after reading what was said here. This is an indigenous Pastor in Lebanon.

A WARNING TO THE CHURCH IN AMERICA
“Brothers, Keep your country from sinful preachers that compromise the
Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, for they are getting to be many.”
Your Lebanese brother and co-laborer,
Pastor Walid

By: SC Priest

SC Priest — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:58:10 +0000

Martha, not a “duh” to all.

There are those in the Diocese of South Carolina (my Diocese) who believe contrary. It is the episcopacy and the “catholicity” (a faulty view of catholicity which the Rector of St. Andrews, rightly, has posited) of the church which takes precedence. And so, for them, apostacy is not an adequate reason to depart the church. And, for them, “schism” is worse than heresy. I wish I were kidding you, but sadly I am not.