Reflections on Conflict & Core Doctrine motion

What we have before us now is that we declare something to be not in conflict with core doctrine.

The important question to ask is whether it is in conflict with Secondary Doctrine, that is, doctrines which give shape to the particular form of discipleship known as Anglican Spirituality.  In my work on a large university in Campus ministry, I worked alongside and with several faith groups and at least 9 different Christian denominations on a regular basis; I also worked with students from a number of what are called “independent” and non denominational churches.  In our various Christian gatherings we could all agree on saying a creed together – that is one way we are united in Christ. 

Baptismal doctrine has been raised at this synod several times.  Yet I could not agree with the Baptists about the secondary doctrine of baptism.  I could not agree with my roman catholic friends about the nature of certain of their doctrines.

And in eucharistic fellowship, there is a limit within our Anglican variety which distinguishes the celebration at the Eucharistic table from, in some significant sense, the meal of saltines and grape juice which may or may not have words of institution accompanying it.

Within our Anglican tradition there are varieties, but within certain boundaries and parameters which distinguish us and our particular vocation as a church from our sisters and brothers who share with us core doctrine, but who are from other , or non – denominational churches.

It is precisely our vocation which calls us to be thoughtful in these secondary doctrines - this is the thrust of the St Michael Report.  And it is those secondary doctrines which are important as we discuss SSB's.  Otherwise, in the name of unity we might as well join up with the biggest show in town with which we can say the creed.  Or alternatively collapse into a thousand islands of interpretation.

This church has not done the work of testing the ecosystem of secondary doctrine – we have not as a church discovered where the pulling of the circle in this new direction would leave us with an ellipse.

Comments

[Matt]

I'm typing on a Mac powerbook so exscuse the mistakes...this keyboard is wierd.

It is a shame that the SMR didn't address the issue of secondary doctrines head-on, reflecting centuries of scholarship on that topic.

I'm unsure how we can consider such significant doctrinal shifts without an equally significant theological engagement.

Over to you God, to get us through this.