Biblical separation: when is it time to leave?

[Jordan]

Hi everyone,

I'm wanting to start a discussion on the topic of separation, meaning the biblical teaching on avoiding fellowship with professing Christians who deny cardinal Christian truths by their teaching or lifestyle. It's obviously a live issue at the moment with GAFCON and all that's been going on in the US and Canada. But from my observation, we don't talk about this much in Melbourne. I hear quite a bit about the need to 'engage' and 'dialogue' with those who have denied central tenets of the faith, but virtually nothing about separating from them as a matter of biblical principle.

I think one of the reasons for this is that most of us haven't really developed a robust theology on this topic. We're probably not that familiar with the key texts in the NT, or with the flow of biblical theology, so we simply 'feel' our way through the issues as they arise. Questions such as, 'When is it time to leave the Anglican Church', or 'Should I take a ministry position under a liberal vicar', are simply answered by gut feeling and pragmatic rationalisation.

Acting on intuition alone is risky. We may end up breaking fellowship for no good reason, or on the other hand we may end up participating in sin because we are committed to unity at all costs.  

I'll list a few passages from Scripture for people to reflect on, with a focus on what they mean for Melbourne Anglicans.


15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt 18:15-17)


17I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. 19For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. (Rom 16:17-19)


7For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. 9Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 7-11)


Feel free to introduce more passages into the discussion.

God bless,

Jordan

[Luke Isham]

2 John 7-11 Seems to indicate we have to make a seperation at some point!

[Jereth]

Hi Jordan,

There's a bit of discussion about this happening over in the GAFCON discussion thread. Intuitively speaking, I agree with Matt's suggestion that separation becomes necessary when a church body endorses first order error, and there appears to be no reasonable hope of repentance.

I agree with you however that intuition is not sufficient, and we must look the scripture to provide us with guidance on this matter. Those texts you've mentioned are definitely relevant. 1 Timothy is quite useful too:

18This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.


A more complex issue is: how should we relate to a body which, while it has not endorsed error itself, is willing to tolerate and acquiesce with the errors of others with whom it is affiliated?

For example, the Archbishop of Canterbury has not endorsed homosexual unions/ordination himself, but has failed to denounce the ECUSA and Canada for their sin. Many GAFCON participants obviously have taken this as sufficient grounds to sever communion with him (i.e. by boycotting Lambeth).

Closer to home, if there is a schism in the Anglican communion later this year, what if Melbourne Diocese ends up defaulting to the same side as USA and Canada? Even if has not explicitly endorsed error itself, has it become mixed up in error by association? In that situation are we obliged to separate ourselves from it?

Tough questions! What does the Bible have to say?

Jereth

[Cat Patrick]

Jordan Hitchcock wrote:

But from my observation, we don't talk about this much in Melbourne. I hear quite a bit about the need to 'engage' and 'dialogue' with those who have denied central tenets of the faith, but virtually nothing about separating from them as a matter of biblical principle.

Hi Jordan

On a number of occasions, I've heard it articulated that an appropriate response to unhealthy or unclear teaching depends on the motivation of the teacher, from 2 Timothy.

In Chapter 3, Paul goes into considerable detail describing teachers who are 'of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith' (v8), 'holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power' (v5). He instructs Timothy strongly to 'Avoid them!' (or in the NIV, 'Have nothing to do with them.')

But this is immediately following his teaching at the end of Chapter 2, where Paul instructs that 'the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive to do his will.' (2:24-26)

So a distinction needs to be made between those who have a corrupt mind, who are aggressive in their unhealthy and false teaching, and those who are opponents - but perhaps through a lack of a solid foundation, who may come around when gently and patiently instructed.

They are fairly charged issues that you're talking about, too. I'd be disappointed if people publicly spoke strongly without being very, very clear that there is no alternative. It would be very hard not to seem extreme and to take back words about when it's time to leave the Anglican church. I'm not saying that those conversations don't need to happen, but with much prayer and concern that it doesn't become a discussion where rash words are spoken and people turned away from faithful teaching. Words about division or separation have a very high potential to be misunderstood and inflammatory. I wouldn't want to alienate the group of people above (who may be sincere but maybe not have a solid Biblical background) without being very sure of what was being done. All of that being said, they're excellent things for us to all think about and debate - so thanks for initiating a conversation about it!

Cheers
cat

[Jordan]

Thanks for your response Cat,

Your distinction between those who are hardened in opposition to truth, and those who are misled but not hardened is a helpful one, albeit tricky to apply! I also think that sort of distinction is implied in Matt 18 where the offending person is only expelled from the church after they have consistently refused to repent despite growing testimony against them.

(I've also edited my original post to remove the names of several institutions, so people can focus on the issues without inflammatory distractions.)

In Christ,

Jordan

[Jereth]

Thanks Cat for reminding us that we need to go about this discussion with care. Separation is certainly an emotional topic and we need to be confident that our thinking is right before we act. While the divisions happening in North America no doubt distress us all, and criticism can be levelled at both sides in relation to their handling of things, I think we should all be grateful that 5 years was allowed to elapse before decisive schismatic action was taken. The erring organisations were given plenty of opportunity to repent, and it is only when they very clearly refused to do so (putting them into the category described in 2 Timothy 3) that separation has occurred.

Jordan, I think that something so far missing from our discussions is a consideration of deep biblical theological principles that underlie separation. To do this I think we need to go back to the holiness teachings in the Old Testament, specifically in books like Leviticus. There we learn that God is holy and his people must therefore be holy. Holiness means, among other things, clear distinction from the surrounding world in character and conduct. If people become contaminated, they must be put out of the camp of God's people until such time as the contamination is removed and atonement is made for their sin (which is necessarily preceded by repentance).

The themes of holiness, cleanness and uncleanness are picked up in the NT:
Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 1 Cor 5:7

Therefore go out from their midst,and be separate from them, says the Lord,and touch no unclean thing;then I will welcome you ... Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God. 2 Cor 6:17-7:1

Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. 2 Tim 2:21

But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life... 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy." ... Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. Rev 21:27-22:15

Our driving motive in separation, therefore, should be holiness. If a remaining in association with certain people compromises the holiness of God's people, then we are obliged to separate. On the flip side, it would be difficult to justify separation if holiness is not under real threat. NB. By separation here I'm meaning a complete, definitive severing of Christian fellowship. I don't think that applies to "separation" for pragmatic or logistic reasons -- eg. Baptists worshipping seperately from Anglicans because of a different understanding of church order or sacraments. I don't think there is a disruption of genuine Christian fellowship in these sorts of cases.
Cheers, Jereth

[Jordan]

Hi Jereth,

Thanks for bringing in the biblical theology perspective. The apostle Paul seems to allude to the OT law when he commands the Corinthians, 'Expel the wicked man from among you'. God's people are to be set apart, consecrated to Him. Let's continue to explore the full biblical picture further.

I thought I'd bring in the conversation stopper: The Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia  

Here are the fundamental declarations followed by a snippet outlining the terms of fellowship with the Church of England.

CHAPTER I. - FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATIONS
1. The Anglican Church of Australia, being a part of the One Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church of Christ, holds the Christian Faith as professed by the Church of
Christ from primitive times and in particular as set forth in the creeds known as the
Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed.
2. This Church receives all the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as
being the ultimate rule and standard of faith given by inspiration of God and
containing all things necessary for salvation.
3. This Church will ever obey the commands of Christ, teach His doctrine, administer His
sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, follow and uphold His discipline
and preserve the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons in the sacred ministry.

This Church will remain and be in communion with the Church of England in England
and with churches in communion therewith so long as communion is consistent with
the Fundamental Declarations contained in this Constitution. (Chpt 2.6)

This is very significant. The official position of the church is that it will remain in fellowship with CofE and other related churches provided that doing so would not be a) inconsistent with the creeds b) an implicit denial of the authority of Scripture, and c) would not compromise the church's capacity to carry out the great commission in its fullness.

The constitution clearly does not draw up the bounds of communion in the same fashion that we tend to. It doesn't opt for the pragmatic approach which is prepared to compromise on commands and teachings of Jesus that aren't, in human judgment, necessary for salvation. It doesn't simply try to preserve a lowest common denominator of doctrine which is absolutely essential, while keeping quiet about everything else.

Neither does it say that the Australian Anglican Church will remain in fellowhip with the Church of England as long as CofE comprises a number of 'real genuine Christians'. It doesn't make conversion the ground of visible communion (I say visible because conversion is the basis of invisible communion).

Rather, we're given the idea that communion is contingent upon the church's ability to uphold orthodoxy and fulfill the great commission. If communion with another church definitely starts to encroach on our ability to 'obey the commands of Christ, teach His doctrine, administer His sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, follow and uphold His discipline and preserve the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons in the sacred ministry', then, constitutionally, we'd be obliged to separate.

So, as far as the constitution goes the ultimate question is: does remaining in communion prevent us from obeying any portion of God's word? If the answer is yes, then we need to separate. If the answer is no, then we ought to remain in fellowship.

In Christ,

Jordan

P.S. I concede that the three orders are not commanded in scripture and therefore ought not to be included on the same level as the preceding injunctions (though unfortunately they have been).

[Tim Patrick]

Hey Jordan,

Thanks for this. I think going back to the foundations of our denomination is precisely what we should be doing to resolve the sorts of issues we're engaging with.

A friend has forwarded me the following link which helpfully spells out another important perspective.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/04/06/stick-with-the-church-of-england-urges-reform-trustee/

Have a read and let us know what you think of this.

TP

[Jereth]

Well pointed out Jordan.

The definition of "remain in communion" needs some further discussion. This seems to be a sticking point between the GAFCON party and the... well, let's call them the "Empire"

The Empire seems to think that once you are out of communion with your local diocese, archdiocese or province, you are out of communion with Anglicanism. It does not recognise alliances that cross over different jurisdictions, or alternative church structures such as the Anglican Communion Network and the Anglican Network in Canada.

The GAFCON party (the Rebel Alliance!!) OTOH seems to think that you can break your fellowship with your diocese/province and still be part of the Anglican communion through your links with African and South American churches, etc.

So hypothetically, if a time comes when communion with the Anglican Church of Australia impairs our ability to uphold the gospel, those with a GAFCON point of view can break fellowship with Darth Vader and join Luke Skywalker and still consider themselves part of the True Anglican Communion! Only, both Vader and Skywalker will be saying: "We're the real Anglican Communion -- the other guys are just fakes".

So who is correct? Is there only ONE Communion or can "Communion" be redefined so that there are, in effect, two Communions both calling themselves "Anglican"?

Jereth

[Jordan]

Hmm....the force is strong with this one....

To start with, chapter 2 part 6 of the constitution does allow for the possibility of separation from CofE, so clearly those who wrote the constitution didn't think that our identity as Anglicans was completely dependent upon communion with Canterbury. We are distinct, and constitutionally will remain an Anglican church whether we are in communion with other episcopal church bodies around the world or not.

Being 'Anglican' means that a church subscribes to the Articles, Prayerbook, and Threefold order of ministry (this is so regardless of whether it takes the name 'Anglican' or not). The question of legitimacy ultimately has to be answered by determining which churches are being faithful to this historic deposit of doctrine. Again, it isn't fundamentally about remaining in communion with the 'See' of Canterbury.

Have a read of chapter 2 of the constitution, 'Ruling Principles'.

http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/ACAConstitution-2003.pdf


Jordan

[Jereth]

Yes, Master Yoda, I think I agree with you. True Anglicans are those who uphold Scripture, the creeds and the Articles of Religion.

But what do we say to all those people who keep talking about a Broad Church? It seems that they define Anglicanism not the same way we do (i.e. doctrinally), but rather as churches which have a historical and institutional link with the English ecclesiastical Organisation which came into existence when King Henry VIII filed for divorce in 1534. If you can demonstrate your connection to this Organisation, then you are a true Anglican even if your doctrine has changed so much as to be unrecognisable.

Is there any legitimacy to what they are saying?

Jereth

[Jordan]

I think, Obi-Wan, it depends on your view of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. You may or may not be aware that this set of principles was drawn up to provide a basis for dialogue with Rome. Here it is, from the third Lambeth conference, 1888:

'That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made towards Home Reunion:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
(b) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered with unfailing use of Christ's Words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.'

'Home Reunion' means you-know-what. So of course those who have that agenda will accuse GAFCON of being subversive and spawning a new generation of illegitimate Anglicans.

I think you need to understand the 'Broad Church' mentality within the context of the agenda behind the Chicago-Lambeth Quad.

At the end of the day though, it's the doctrine of the Anglican church that defines how communion in the Anglican church ought to be understood. Have a read of Article 19:

'The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.'

According to the Articles, the legitimate visible church is the one with the pure Word and the Sacraments. This is how the English Reformers viewed it, and who is more 'Anglican' than they?

I don't think you'll find anyone insisting on communion with Canterbury as the ultimate ground of legitimacy who does not also believe that a 'Home Reunion' of an even broader nature is needed if we are to become a truly true church.

Have I answered your question?

'Beep', 'whistle',

R2D2

[Jordan]

Jereth wrote:

A more complex issue is: how should we relate to a body which, while it has not endorsed error itself, is willing to tolerate and acquiesce with the errors of others with whom it is affiliated?

Good quesiton. Some Christians will leave a church at this point, and indeed it is a grave situation. Yet consider the following passage from Scripture:

18"To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
      These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. 20Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. 24Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): 25Only hold on to what you have until I come. 26To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—
 27'He will rule them with an iron scepter;
      he will dash them to pieces like pottery'[b]— just as I have received authority from my Father. 28I will also give him the morning star. 29He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
(Revelation 2:18-29)

This situation bears comparison with present day problems in the Anglican Church in many respects. The problem was large scale toleration of gross evil. It doesn't appear that the whole church had officially endorsed the teaching of Jezebel, but it was nonetheless prevalent and obvious. Yet Christ does not command anyone to leave, and resume fellowship in, say, Philadelphia - a church which doesn't have any marks against its name (Rev 3:7-13). He simply urges the faithful to remain faithful where they are. Evidently it was possible for them to stay there without participating in sin themselves.


Jordan

[Jereth]

Actually R2, I'm a little more confused.

Looking at the Lambeth Quadrilateral, there is nothing that I find particularly objectionable about it. Scripture, Creeds, Sacraments, Episcopate -- all very good things! In fact, it appears that even GAFCON people affirm its value:
http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=15

It may well be that the Lambeth Quadrilateral was written by people who wanted to reunite with Rome. But I don't think that the L.Q. has much to do with those who are aligned against GAFCON. In fact, when you think about it, few things could possibly disrupt ecumenical conversations with Rome more than the liberal attitudes towards homosexuality evident in North American Anglicanism. If people want home reunion, they should be striving to keep Anglicanism as Orthodox and "narrow" as possible (as the GAFCON people are trying to do) -- not trying to "broaden" it to accept theological liberalism and liberal attitudes towards morality. Rome finds that sort of thing as objectionable as Orthodox Anglicans do. Last I checked, Catholicism was quite a "narrow" religion!

So maybe there are 3 separate strands within Anglicanism:
1. Orthodoxy --> "narrow" church based on historic doctrine (that would be us)
2. Fans of Catholicism --> "narrow" church based on what will keep Rome happy, which might include some historic doctrine
3. Liberalism --> "broad" church where you can believe what you want (and sleep with whoever you want) and still be a legitimate Anglican so long as you can trace your heritage to Henry VIII

What do you think?

Jereth

[Jordan]

It's certainly very complex isn't it?

What I'm saying is that this big emphasis on global communion is something we have inherited from the agenda behind the L.Q. when it was first written.

Of course, Rome may not want much to do with us now, but we still have this 'global communion' mentality, which has grown to the extent that we have lost the historic Anglican doctrine of the visible church being founded on the Word and the Sacraments, and we are trying to balance that idea with this other idea of global communion and successions of bishops and Canterbury and all of that, and we are no longer sure which concept has higher currency.

I say let's go back to the English Reformation and to the Articles, and let's get our doctrine of church from there and from the Scriptures. Not simply because I prefer to, but because these are our actual roots.

Jordan

[Jordan]

Jereth wrote:

But what do we say to all those people who keep talking about a Broad Church? It seems that they define Anglicanism not the same way we do (i.e. doctrinally), but rather as churches which have a historical and institutional link with the English ecclesiastical Organisation which came into existence when King Henry VIII filed for divorce in 1534. If you can demonstrate your connection to this Organisation, then you are a true Anglican even if your doctrine has changed so much as to be unrecognisable.

Is there any legitimacy to what they are saying?

If I can just add something further in answer to this question,

During the Reformation Luther, Calvin and the English Reformers were considered to be schismatics who had broken communion with, and refused to submit to, the historic line of bishops which could be traced back to St. Peter.

They replied to this accusation with the Scriptures, showing that even the apostle Peter needed rebuke in Antioch (Gal 2:11), because he was not acting according to the truth of the gospel. And St. Paul said, 'But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!' (Gal 1:8).

Therefore, the Reformers argued, seeing as the apostles placed the gospel even above themselves though they were the founding fathers, every succeeding bishop and church must also be measured by the criterion of adherence to the gospel as revealed in Scripture. Bishops have no 'inherent' legitimacy apart from their obedience to the Word. That fallen apostle, Judas Iscariot, is the supreme example of this truth.

So we answer these present day folk who keep insisting on historic and institutional links with the very same argument. The question is not, 'Who are we in communion with?', but 'What is the gospel, and who is holding to it?'.

In Christ,

Jordan

[Jereth]

Jordan Hitchcock wrote:

So we answer these present day folk who keep insisting on historic and institutional links with the very same argument. The question is not, 'Who are we in communion with?', but 'What is the gospel, and who is holding to it?'.

Very persuasive, my friend.

In fact it is useful to go even further back than the Reformers to St. Augustine. Even he made a distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" church. He acknowledged that the former was liable to corruption and that some of its clergy could be tainted by sin.

So we must be very careful not to hold a false idea about "communion" or "unity" that places the emphasis on a visible institution. The "communion of the saints" (as we say in the creeds) is not a visible institution but an invisible one. Just as Paul writes in Romans 9, "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring".

Jereth

[Jordan]

Tim Patrick wrote:

A friend has forwarded me the following link which helpfully spells out another important perspective.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/04/06/stick-with-the-church-of-england-urges-reform-trustee/

Have a read and let us know what you think of this.

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the link. Someone else sent me this about a month ago. I've read the full address and I think it's well worth the read, so I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to think about what's involved in promoting healthy Christianity in the Anglican Church.

Perhaps this quote will suffice to outlay Fletcher's thrust:

'We must stay with our evangelical theology, not neglecting holiness, and then stay with the Church of England. Theologically we must be convinced that this is the right place to be. Pastorally, we dare not leave the sheep without shepherds. There are people going to Church of England churches who are clueless and lost and we must not desert them! Geographically and pastorally, it is significant that the Church of England has been able to maintain at least a physical presence in tough areas, because we are a connectional church, whereas the Methodists and other churches have had to close. We must not desert those areas.'

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Notice how he puts it. Evangelical theology and holiness first, then stay with the Church of England. I think this is consonant with our own constitution, as I described in the earlier post.

There was something else that grabbed my attention. He talks about the importance of unity among evangelicals, and the need to distinguish between primary and secondary matters:

'Similarly, on some doctrinal issues. I hope we would be willing to go to the stake and be burnt on some key things, not least things connected with the Lord's Supper, just as the Reformers were willing to be burnt. I hope that we would be willing to be burnt rather than subscribe to some of the things which you see in some versions of Common Worship. But there are secondary issues where we will disagree: creationism; limited atonement; annihilationism. We will disagree, and I am not suggesting that every position is equally valid on those issues, but there needs to be a proper humility towards one another and a trusting of one another.'

He touches on something here which has been a big issue in Anglicanism over the centuries, namely the lack of complete theological consistency between the Articles and various versions of the Prayer Book. He doesn't say exactly which versions of Common Worship he has in mind, but let's hope he's not including 1662, because that version is permanently enshrined along with the Articles as the authorized standard of doctrine in the Anglican Church of Australia.

Now, we can live with imperfect official documents if their errors aren't too great, but it does raise the issue of clerical subscription. I can't sign up to things I don't believe, whether they be of primary or secondary importance. So I think the process of working out if the Anglican Church of Australia is the place to be theologically, involves careful investigation of the 1662 prayerbook along with the Articles, and it will also involve careful investigation of the current 'Form of Declaration and Assents Canon' to make sure we can retain our holiness and integrity as well as sound theology when we commit to becoming Anglican ministers.

In Christ,

Jordan

[Jereth]

Here's something that seems relevant.

http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/media/audio/are_there_limits_to_fellowship/

[Jenny George-2]

Jereth

I guess I've said just about everything I want to say in response to Philip Jensen's address (you'll find a lenghy debate over at the Sydney Anglicans site) but to summarise here since you put the link up:

1. I thought his summary of the Biblical passages was thorough and worth reading/listening to
2. I thought his application of them to this case was brief. After expounding a whole bunch of Scripture, he kind of stopped and then asserted that evangelicals shouldn't go to Lambeth. There was really no careful argumentation about why Lambeth and attendance at Lambeth should be considered in the same light as some of the situations in Scripture. (Is attendance at Lambeth going to be seen as agreeing with the positions of everyone there? i.e. will all attendees be seen as fellowshipping together? I think that is far from clear, particularly if the media reports major disagreements!)
3. It seems to me to be entirely reasonable for evangelicals to choose to go to Lambeth - in fact to not go to Lambeth may be counterproductive in terms of abandoning a legitimate way to clarify the theological position of the communion and f