what does "not in conflict" mean?

I suppose that I will join the 3 dozen other Anglicans in Canada who will wish to ponder this one out.  The rest of them are probably having a nap, as the legislative spirituality of General Synod can be draining to the soul.  So what exactly is one supposed to make of this statement?

• I am not in conflict the President of France.  That doesn't mean a whole lot.  It might mean that we don't have much to do with each other, or simply that we have never met:  we are neither friends nor enemies, and so we don't have a chance to be in conflict. (I'm sure we would be if we ever had to share a cab together).
• It might mean that one can be a Christian and yet hold that the practice of SSB does not contradict the basic "core doctrine" of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection.  Some folks might have trouble with that, but then again some folks might not.  It is sort of the MC Hammer "Can't touch this" version of doctrine.  We can be fellow Christians, but disagree on secondary doctrine.
• It might mean that SSB is not in conflict with core doctrine, but it might be in conflict with secondary doctrine.  It might be shown to be in conflict with the doctrine of marriage, for instance.
• It might not be in conflict with core doctrine, but be in conflict with good "order and discipline".  Maybe it is a category error in the resolution.  As one person said to me after the vote:  "It's like saying that pineapples are not in conflict with picket fences".  Don't know on that one.
• It might mean that it can't be in conflict with ANY subsequent doctrine:  surely the walls of a house cannot be in conflict with the foundation. 
• It might mean that we have no idea what we are talking about.

Those are just a few possibilities.  I'm sure there will be more.

Comments

[Donald]

I vote for the last one. There seemed to be a sense coming out of a large number of the speakers on the St. Michael's report, that anything that isn't core is a "matter of indifference," and there really is no such thing as secondary doctrine.

[Peter]

Yes, I think you have it right on the last point ;-)

[Matt]

That is exactly what the SMR says - if not core, then adiaphora. I'm still working through an analysis...here's a bit:

I don't believe 'not in conflict with' contains an overt error of logic. For example, say I'm executing a financial transaction that may or may not be legal versus tax law. CRA sends me a letter that states, 'the transaction is not in conflict with tax legislation'. I feel pretty good proceeding - the authority has said that the subset of my activity is contained within the set of permitted activites.

What CRA has said does not define the extent of the set of tax law, or where my case might specifically fit in that set, but it does tell me it is included.

That leads me to a preliminary conclusion that 'not in conflict with core doctrine' is actually a very permissive statement.

[Susan]

I vote for your last possibility. Absurdity and Nonsense. If I may be forgiven for revising scripture: Lord, have mercy on my daughter, the Anglican Church of Canada, for she is lunatick.

[alex]

I agree that many of the people presenting the MR wanted this to be a matter of indifference. But the issue seems to come down to scripture interpretation as much as marriage. And if scripture is core doctrine, then our understanding of scripture is of prime importance. I think this was underrepresented in the MR and presentations.

[Donald]

While I take your point Matt, I think the situation here is akin to somebody asking whether or not their transaction violates CRA rules, without bothering to find out if it violates anything else. For example, a transaction may be perfectly legal in tax terms but still violate the rules of the securities commisison.

[scott]

An old joke - Three candidates are interviewed for a job. The only interview question is, "What is 2 + 2?" Doctor (bored): Four. Engineer (Fiddling with slide rule): Between 3.5 and 4.5. Lawyer (Looking around at the room): Can anyone hear us in here? Good. Now, what do you want it to be? I fear we are approaching this point. As a statement A186 is ambiguous enough to be a tool for most any agenda. I think it is atrociously worded (twice amended, no less!). Consider for example the less heralded (but valid, and still useless) interpretation, "ssb does not imply that core doctrine is noncredal" :P I pick your last option, Joe - we can't derive any clear direction or meaning from the statement because there's none to be had in it. My most honest reading of it puts me in Donald's vicinity - that ssb is open to violating secondary doctrine. However it is troubling for me since the wall-foundation argument, imho, has some merit. Ultimately, I don't think it matters how we interpret the phrase - I think what matters is how we react to those who interpret it differently.