Unity in Essentials…

Time For a Christian Truce

I really do not want this to become one of those “religious political” blogs, where i sling mud at the right or left. Ill sling it wherever it needs to be slung. So I don’t want this post to be critical of Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec’s person, or even his logic.

In his article “Time for a Christian Truce”, Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec states that we can never truely know anything about our faith, and that it is time for Christians to settle their differences and preach the gospel. I could not agree more with him on this point. In specific he referenced the dispute between the Anglican Church in Canada and the Anglican Network in Canada. Indeed I would love it if Anglicans, or Christians for that matter, would stop warring over minute things and propagated the gospel. But I do have a problem with his thinking, and it is a very common train of thought, and it can have very real effects on the message that we preach.

In the article, Grabiec uses the example of the Arius controversy in the 300’s. Arius argued that Christ was a created being that God the Father gave some sort of divinity. This was condemned as heresy, and rejected. Grabiec seems to say that such beliefs are secondary to the bigger message of God.

I disagree. I think that if we are going to preach the Gospel, we should be fairly clear about what we believe, and make sure that it makes sense.

Arius’ argument didn’t check with the facts. There are two ways that Christ could have been a created being (please tell me if there are others). Way 1: He was a normal human whom God enabled to be sinless and amazingly wise, possessing healing powers. Way 2: He was below God, but above humanity, a sort of Angle or super angel. Each sounds plausible, but each makes it impossible for salvation to work.

We are told that the wages of sin is death, and the only way to atone for sin is through a Human sacrifice. If this is the case, than a Divine-Human Christ’s death would have atoned for the sins of one man. (I swore earlier tonight, sorry guys). A super-human being Christ would have saved no one but himself, because it is clear that what is to be saved, must be assumed. Thats why it must be a human sacrifice, nothing else would have legitimately worked.

This is why Arianism was rejected, it did not fit the understanding of the faith. This is just a small example amongst the myriad of disputes. My point is that we as a Christian community do need to have some unity in the faith that we profess. Its a shame that so many disagreements have divided us so much. But If we say that “anything is possible, really don’t know” to everything, we won’t have much of a faith to profess.

And That would be a larger shame unto itself

+Alex Resurgent
Eighth Sunday After Pentecost

Brief thoughts on GAFCON| Part One

GAFCON is over, the communion is still intact, everyone has something to say. So why not throw my two cents into the giant Coin-Star Machine that is the Anglican blogsphere.

The Final Statement Can be found Here

The significant meat of the statement is found in “The Jerusalem Declaration.” By and large it resembles your run of the mill catechism , something that most people should be able to agree with. I did have some concerns though. Many, myself included, have the stance that Anglicanism is the third branch on the tree of apostolic faith, with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. A few passages in the statement lead me to believe that those in the New American Province may not be as dear to that idea as we are.

The first was around article three which reads:

3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I’m just curious as to why the first four councils. There were Seven before the East-West Schism (after that they took a very administrative nature). I would like to know why the leaders of GAFCON rejected the repudiation of Monosphysitism (5th Council), the affirmation of Christs dual wills (human and divine – 6th council), and the veneration of icons (7th council). These are major decisions in the life and history of the unified church. We should be affirming them as part of our common heritage.

My second concern is found in article four which reads (emphasis my own):

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

I want to know what “authoritative” is defined as and how it would be manifest. I am more “Anglo-Catholic” than I am “Calvinist Evangelical”, and as such I have certain qualms with the following articles.

XXV. Of the Sacraments…
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

I uphold that all seven Sacraments are divinely instituted and are useful in spiritual formation, and would say that by limiting God to Two Sacraments is limiting his power.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper…

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Many Anglicans do belive that the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Christ -in a manor that may or may not be transubstantiation, we can not know how- and should be honoured as such. After all, we pray in the BCP that the Holy Spirit would make it as such.

I understand that they have been formative in Anglican development, and have been enforced (if at all) with varying amounts of leniency over time. I have no doubt that Anglo-Catholics and High-Church-Anglicans would be welcome in the New American Province, but Im not sure how the leadership would react to such deacons, priests, and bishops. Would they permit such beliefs, or crack the whip to enforce the Calvinism.

Likewise I wonder how these views will effect our Eccumenical Relations. Granted this is currently just a faction of the church, and every church has them, but if this becomes the prevailing statement of modern Anglicanism, how will this effect our relations with the Catholics and Orthodox. Many of us yearn for communion with our ancient brethren, something that we have been growing towards more and more in the past century. I would hate to have this statement destroy our chances at that, and inhibiting our place as an ancient church in the process.

+Alex Resurgent

Other Blog…

I decided to start up a mirror blog to this one, so to speak. One where I can post things that would not *quite* fit the mold of this one, things that are a tad bit more abstract, more artsy if you will. For example, with a little tweeking, my previous post would have fit perfectly there. Im sure it will find its way there.

So in the meantime, check out Power Failed High Fantasy There isnt anything there yet, but its worth a look, at least in my opinion.

+Alex Resurgent

Title Post

This is a Blog for the Resurgent Church…

or the enduring church…

or the militant church…

This is a blog dedicated to the ancient, apostolic, catholic, orthodox, universal church. The church that was created by the early apostles, formed by the early fathers, that survived schisms and reformations (although a little worse for wear. The church that has given us the gospels and the saints.

I’m not interested in a “new Christianity”, I don’t buy into a “new” way of doing things. I have faith in the Faith that has transcended two millenniums, that is found on every continent, and the Church that is ‘dead or dieing’ according to many. I have Hope that this church will bounce back, just as it always has, and continue propagating the good new of Christ.

In Christ,

+Alex Resurgent