When I look at our church today, I see a good deal of tension – tension around human sexuality (on a surface reading); tension around doctrine and pastoral duties; tension around the purpose and proper use of Scripture; and the list goes on. Ultimately, this tension revolves around what it is for us, as Anglicans in Canada, to be part of the one Church (which is Christ’s body). Who are we, as a part of that Church, to be? What does our identity as a part of that Church tell us about “how” we are to be, in relation to the world?
The great debate – which I believe has been far less than a real debate – has its “two-sides,” and the dialogue which has gone on between them has been less than adequate, in my opinion. From where I sit, the dialogue of the church has been used to try to sway those of opposing view – which only shows that dialogue hasn’t really been entered into. Again, from where I sit (which is the only place I can view things from), it seems that these opposing sides are talking past each other due to emphases. One group would emphasize the Great Commission – “go and make disciples…and baptize them;” the other group would emphasize the Great Commandments (though generally citing the second more than the first) – “love your neighbour as yourself.” Now, neither group denies that validity of the other group’s emphasis (though there is some disagreement about how the “others” go about emphasizing it); yet the order of priority is disagreed upon. But neither the Great Commandments nor the Great Commission can be fulfilled without the other! Where we are running into difficulty in agreeing on what it means to fulfill either is precisely the point where we need to meet each other.
One cannot fulfill Christ’s commission to make disciples of others apart from loving God with one’s whole being, and loving the other (of whom a disciple will be made) as oneself. One cannot love God with one’s whole being, nor one’s neighbour as oneself, without being moved to offer that neighbour the Bread of Life – which is Christ Jesus our Lord. When we understand these two “Greats” as being bound up in one another, we understand the importance of putting an end to these tensions which are driving many away from our church (and keeping them here isn’t the ultimate point, anyway, as I will get to shortly).
Let me say this another way. One group tries to use the language of faithfulness and obedience to the Word of God – by which these mean the canon of the Bible. The other group tries to use the language of faithfulness and obedience to the Spirit of God – by which these mean the Spirit’s work in revealing the mind of Christ to/in the Church today. Neither group denies the validity of the other group’s emphasis (though there is, again, some disagreement about how the “others” go about emphasizing it); yet the order of priority is disagreed upon. But here, as before with the “Greats,” neither the Spirit of God nor the Word of God can be understood without the other! Where we disagree is where we need to learn to meet!
We cannot be faithful to the Word of God apart from the Spirit of God: the canon of Scripture was decided upon under the direction of the Holy Spirit; as we read the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit opens them to us and gives us understanding. Neither can we be faithful to the Spirit of God apart from the Word of God: the mind of Christ for the Church today must be in consonance with the Word of God handed down to the Church – for Christ is a person (the second of the Trinity), and persons have integrity to themselves. When we understand that these two (the Word and Spirit of God) are so bound up in one another, we understand the importance of due process – by which we are forced to come to grips with those influences on our faith that we may not give priority to, and which we may (at times) even wish didn’t exist so that we didn’t have to come to grips with them. We must have integrity to our Anglican body at the least, if not to the whole Church catholic.
So that’s where I see us right now – and I suppose it’s a crossroads. We risk fracturing into separate denominational bodies, each with their own emphases – and this is a real risk, as it has already happened in some places. The option, and my hope for our church by 2019 (if not much sooner), is that we would learn to seek God’s Kingdom. Not to seek an Anglican kingdom; not to seek a “my-kind-of-Anglican” kingdom; just to seek God’s Kingdom (thus, my remark above about how “keeping people in OUR pews isn’t the ultimate point anyway”). To be a church that doesn’t serve bottom-lines, but that does count the cost in and through and of faithfulness to God. To be a church, then, that doesn’t seek quantitative growth in “buns in the pews,” but that nurtures the qualities of true discipleship in the hearts of believers. To be a church that prayerfully serves Christ in the society that He has put us in. My hope is that we would seek His Kingdom first, and trust in His promises for the rest.
