The former Bishop of Singapore and Archbishop of South East Asia, Moses Tay has had a go at quite a few bishops, including, by implication, his successor, John Chew. The latter, we might recall from just a day or so ago, has been at the forefront of the Global South indicating they will deliver up some 20 signatures to the Anglican Covenant. But in an interview reported in the Christian Post Moses Tay has this to say,
"“The Anglican Covenant cannot be of God because if you try to keep the light and darkness together, righteous and immoral together, to say we are a church, it’s disparaging the meaning of covenant… the covenant is a very sacred thing… [It is] God saying, ‘You will be Mine.’ … If you are using the sacred word to include dirt; that use of the word is an abomination. ... “I cannot see how Bible-believing people can agree to the covenant,”"
Underlying what Archbishop Moses Tay says is an unerring conviction that God has spoken definitively, once and for all, upon the matter of homosexuality. Allied with a conviction that Bible-believing people recognise this voice, the conclusion is QED: either no badly behaving homosexuals in a Covenanted Anglican church, or, a Covenanted Anglican church with badly behaving homosexuals 'cannot be of God'.
I do not here wish to engage in discussion about what the Bible says about homosexuality (that will be an emerging theme on Hermeneutics and Human Dignity through 2010), but I want to reflect a little on Scripture - this book which can lead a fine man such as Moses Tay to one set of convictions, Gene Robinson to another, and John Chew to other conclusions (though I assume there is a greater overlap between Tay and Chew's sets than Robinson's and Chew's).
On my laptop I have the draft of a book about Scripture, but it is kind of sitting there because I am not satisfied with my ideas and arguments. In the usual way I want to say something about the authority of Scripture, and about how we interpret Scripture. In doing this I want to engage with the relationship between Scripture and the Word of God, and Scripture and the church (Does Scripture make the church? The church make Scripture? Or both?).
Of course, being evangelical I have a slant on these topics, yet I am alert to the complexities of varied approaches to Scripture: for instance, Catholics are Bible-believers too (they take 'This is my body' more seriously than most Protestants, as literally true, but I don't think Moses Tay was thinking of Catholics when he mentioned Bible-believers); so are the Orthodox, by the way, at least if my Orthodox Study Bible is anything to go by!
Even a half-decent book on Scripture needs to reckon with the hard words of Scripture - the exterminations of peoples at the command of God, for example, or, apposite at this time of the year, the slaughter of the Innocents as a consequence of the coming of Jesus. Then there is the vexed question which keeps rumbling through theological interpretation of Scripture, the relationship between law and grace - also a very pertinent matter for the Anglican Communion at this time.
One idea I have is that Scripture makes sense in terms of one key idea when we think of Scripture as God's Gracious Truth. Another idea is that we will have made progress in our understanding of Scripture when we recapture the Psalmist's love for the law and dispense with our modern and post-modern tendency to question, doubt, and even mock Scripture.
I sometimes think that, at least in Western Anglicanism, there is a schizoid approach to reading Scripture: a slavish adherence to reading it according to the Lectionary and a sovereign freedom to ignore it when we do not like the lesson it teaches. How might we arrive at a more coherent approach? This is where thinking about Scripture as the revelation of God is important: has God spoken through Scripture to us? Does God speak to us today through the words of Scripture, as the living Word embedded in Scripture?
Finally, picking up the idea of a 'theology of unity' from my Living Church post on the Covenant (see below), something should be said about a 'hermeneutic of unity'. Diverse readings of Scripture are great ... but is the resultant divided church great?
2 comments:
"Underlying what Archbishop Moses Tay says is an unerring conviction that God has spoken definitively, once and for all, upon the matter of homosexuality. Allied with a conviction that Bible-believing people recognise this voice, the conclusion is QED: either no badly behaving homosexuals in a Covenanted Anglican church, or, a Covenanted Anglican church with badly behaving homosexuals 'cannot be of God'."
OK, Peter, I accept that ABP Tay's position is clear: the Bible condemns homosexuality without leaving any room for changing understanding and new social norms.
I am not so clear about your own position, given your use of the phrase "badly behaving homosexuals" in your summary (your words, not his). Are you implicitly criticizing his adoption of such a construct? Or do you think it is helpful, but distance yourself from the way ABP Tay uses it?
As a matter of gracious truth-speaking, in which, if any, of the following cases would you find it appropriate to use the tag, "homosexuals behaving badly"? I have selected these as expressing the nub of what the controversy around TEC is actually about, whereas ++Tay may be thinking more about what gay couples do in bed, which I don't consider to be any of my business.
1. A gay Christian couple seek recognition and blessing of their committed, loving relationship rather than living a double life within their faith-community.
2. A gay Christian in a committed (eg civil union)loving partnership offers himself for ordination (as deacon, priest or bishop), making no secret of his conjugal status.
3. A gay Christian in a committed loving relationship accepts advice that the relationship should be kept secret in order for his call to ordination to proceed.
I realize that some people might want to question "gay Christian" as a construct, but don't expect this to be a problem for you.
My own understanding of the Bible's clear and gracious message is that only the third case exhibits any form of bad behaviour, in which most of the blame should fall on those giving the advice and the church community whose lack of clarity about the gospel is being indulged. Where do you stand then?
Hi Howard,
I use the phrase 'badly behaving homosexuals' as an alternative means of conveying what I think Tay means when he uses a four letter word beginning with "d" and ending with "t". I find that word objectionable.
The three situations you mention would not be described by me as 'badly behaving' but they do represent the ethical issues the Communion, and our own church, is trying to get its head around.
I keep thinking about these matters, with (IMO) as open a mind as possible for a conservative. I do not yet see the Scriptural foundation upon which the church can confidently draw its members together with a common mind so that we can move forward unitedly on (1) and (2).
I readily accept that there are a number of arguments for moving forward on (1) and (2) but I do not see them as addressing the concern that our church should be united on these matters.
A split would be catastrophic for our church ... though perhaps not for the Communion since some would argue it is already in an effective schism.
Post a Comment