What Presiding Bishop Michael Curry Means by “Core Doctrine”
From Not Another Episcopal Church Blog:
For most of us, doctrines should not only be derived from the Bible but should also be consistent with a plain reading of the texts. The Church has in the past added things such as Purgatory, Indulgences, etc which did not stand the test of Biblical scrutiny and were eventually rejected by reformers.
Today, the idea of “Core Doctrine” has been floated in order to shield the Episcopal church from the separation it faces as a result of its adoption of a new doctrine of marriage that permits same-sex marriage.
Unfortunately for those in the Episcopal church (TEc) there are no reformers left to demand the rejection of false doctrine.
Lacking such voices from within the church, let me quote from S. Donald Fortson and Rollin Grams new book entitled “Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition” as reported at The Gospel Coalition,
“The issue is not whether the Bible addresses homosexual practice: it does. It is not whether diverse interpretations on this issue have existed in the history of the church: they have not. The issue is, rather, what is authoritative for the church in the formation of its convictions and in its practices.”
Is the Bible authoritative for the church or not? That sounds like a doctrinal issue to me. Unfortunately, the use of the term “authoritative” just creates another crack for revisionists to prevaricate over and argue about just as they will do over the words “core” and “doctrine” when used separately or together.
As far as the current issue goes, these authors see no room for compromise for those who agree that the Bible is authoritative for the Church.
See also: The fallacy of ‘Core Doctrine’, by Stephen Noll, Anglican Ink
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
