We now appear to have neither!
Bishop Mouneer Anis' resignation from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, along with the significant concomitant criticism from the (normally Covenant supporting) ACI of aspects of the (recently revised) fourth section of the Covenant, particularly highlighting the confusing use of Instruments of Unity (if not inventing one or more as we go along), suggests that a common approach to truth in the Communion is now a fading hope, and that the possibility of some coherent authority for administering the Covenant is all but reduced to zero. Sarah Hey, for example, highlights pertinent aspects of the situation in this post.
Archbishop Mouneer gets to the heart of the matter which disrupts a meaningful sense that a common approach to truth undergirds our Communion when he observes that despite the majority view of the Anglican Communion being expressed in Lambeth 1998 1:10 in this phrase,
"homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture",
it appears to Anglicans such as Mouneer that, "the aim of the Listening Process is to convince traditional Anglicans, especially in the Global South, that homosexual practice is acceptable."
Is homosexual practice compatible with Scripture? Some say No, some say Yes. But together we have not yet agreed to one of two things which would accord with a common approach to truth: either that it does not matter if an open contradiction on this matter is a feature of Anglican life, or that it matters that there is an open contradiction but nevertheless we can live with the contradiction.
Perhaps we should put the Covenant on the shelf for a while and address how we might reach a common approach to truth. Then we might address the question of a clear structure of authority for the Communion. Four Instruments of Unity was always going to be a recipe for confusion when a really difficult contradiction in Anglican thinking was raised. That we muddled through (say) the rise of Anglo-Catholicism or the ordination of women is not a testimony to how brilliant Anglican Communion authority is, but to the low level of difficulty posed by such issues.
But I am not holding my breathe waiting for decisive leadership which demands that the Communion confronts the issue of whether it really wants to be a Communion or not. For the time being I shall try to consistently refer to the so-called Communion as a Confederation. That would be accurate. [UPDATE: I acknowledge Bosco Peters' point that 'Confederation' might not do ... so I shall think of another word].
25 comments:
“Perhaps we should put the Covenant on the shelf for a while and address how we might reach a common approach to truth. Then we might address the question of a clear structure of authority for the Communion. Four Instruments of Unity was always going to be a recipe for confusion when a really difficult contradiction in Anglican thinking was raised. That we muddled through (say) the rise of Anglo-Catholicism or the ordination of women is not a testimony to how brilliant Anglican Communion authority is, but to the low level of difficulty posed by such issues.”--Peter Carrell
I think that you are beginning to see that the Covenant, at least as it is presently written, is less and less likely to be adopted by either liberal or conservative provinces of the Communion.
I do disagree with your characterization of the ordination of women as a “low level of difficulty.” This is not my recollection of the history of this issue. And, remember, homophobia and misogyny are generally linked together. (The evangelical Diocese of Sydney stands out in this respect, for example. So do a number of the Global South provinces).
As for the rise of Anglo Catholicism, I think that it is historically accurate to say it was actually less controversial here than the question of women’s ordination and consecration 140 years later. Before the Catholic Revival of the 1830s and its subsequent Ritualist developments, there were already many distinctive customs and practices that existed in various American Episcopal parishes which set them apart from the Anabaptists, Calvinists, Quakers and most other Protestants in their communities. Copes, mitres, altar-lights, the setting up of pictorial altar-pieces and religious statues, even the use of incense in a few chapels and churches, etc, etc, were practices in some American parishes which all preceded the ceremonial revival of the Anglo Catholics. The ordination of women, however, had no previous precedent within American Episcopalianism.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA
[THIS COMMENT FROM SUEM which somehow I managed not to publish when moderating]:
"Hi Peter,
I blogged briefly on this resignation and I suppose some might think my response was rude. I do personally think the ACI are out of order to try to hijack the whole thing and to want it on their terms.
I have always seen the covenant as being about the attempt to discipline TEC( or to make it look as though TEC is going to be disciplined - not sure that is the same thing.)
Any sort of "unity" within the Communion can only be achieved IF a. TEC conform to conservative demands and turn their back on LGBT rights OR b. conservative groups are prepared to live in unity with those who have such differing beliefs and practices.
Neither A nor B is going to happen - so a divided communion and a fractured Anglicanism is and always was inevitable."
Hi Kurt and Suem
"low level of difficulty" does not mean no difficulty at all (and clearly in some contexts the ordination of women has presented a high level of difficulty), but - to take just one instance - even the Diocese of Sydney acknowledges through its "first order, second order" approach that the ordination of women is not a communion, or Communion breaking issue.
No, Suem, I do not think your blog posting rude - I am thinking of those who have made fun of ++Mouneer's name in a boorish schoolboy manner ill-befitting those who claim to follow our Lord Jesus Christ. (PS and off-topic, what an amazing but brrrrr winter you are having)!
Again, I think “confederation” is the wrong word for the Anglican Communion as a confederation is normally understood as sovereign bodies agreeing to delegate some of their competencies to a central institution. That is what we have done as dioceses (in which the fullness of the church subsists) to the province, but I do not at all see we have done this to the Anglican Communion. The Lambeth Conference is a conference, the Primates’ meeting is a meeting, the Windsor Report is a report. Some might wish them to be otherwise, but there is nothing binding about them until we bind ourselves to them voluntarily. So we are not a confederation IMO.
To your issue of truth around the question: Is homosexual practice compatible with Scripture? a way forward might be working through parallel questions:
Is having women in leadership as bishops and priests compatible with scripture?
Is having divorced and remarried persons in leadership as bishops and priests compatible with scripture?
The majority position has historically been no, no, and to your question no. And many Anglicans hold to that consistency.
It is for those who answer yes, yes, and to your question no to demonstrate how their methodology applied consistently and without prejudice reaches this situation. What is it about homosexuality that engenders such energy for some in a church that accepts women bishops and priests who have been divorced three times, etc.
“What is it about homosexuality that engenders such energy for some in a church that accepts women bishops and priests who have been divorced three times, etc.?”--Liturgy
Yes, indeed. Many of us in TEC have been asking this question for the past 30 years. I haven’t yet seen what I consider a real response; it’s usually just a verbose version of “the ick factor.”
It seems to me that when ever the conservative Evangelicals in our denomination reach a certain size or influence, (as they have a couple of times over the past 200 years) they attempt to take over and drive out those with whom they disagree.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA
As someone whose position is 'yes, yes and no' (in terms of the questions posed @liturgy), I can explain myself to some extent - although I find the equation of the three issues frustrating. The greater issue for me that generates much more concern and energy is with 'Classical Orthodoxy' (as argued by Thomas C Oden), in the face of increasingly inane theological statements that amount to little more than 'sound-grab' theology... but that is another issue.
My own experience (as an evangelical) is in doing a 180 degree turn on the issue of women in church and ministry in the late '80s (and sought to argue that case in print at the time, seeking to challenge fellow evangelicals to revisit the texts.
I have no concern to convince others of my openness to rethink my understanding on issues of sexuality (and marriage) - what others make of my views is no great concern to me - but I would be delighted to be persuaded that scripture has nothing to say on matters of homoeroticism and the relational contexts of sexual expression. I have read everything of substance on these matters for over 3 decades, and at this point I cannot in good conscience say I have been persuaded of revisionist readings (and at an objective level they have yet to stand scrutiny as reflected in standard critical commentaries).
Without extending an overly long comment, I am persuaded that Scripture is conducive of viable alternative readings in the case of women in ministry and on matters of divorce (but I do have concerns about complacency in regard to conduct all too often accompanying divorce): in regard to women, my views are much the same as reflected in Phillip B Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ (Zondervan, 2009); and regarding divorce, I have been much helped by the research of David Instone-Brewer.
In short-in my view-a comparable credible case (exegetically or hermeneutically) has yet to be made for revising our understanding of Scripture on homoeroticism.
Where we go with that, pastorally and in terms of our ordering of ministry, is another matter - I am just responding in terms of my understanding of Scripture - FWIW.
Tim in some ways reinforces my points. In New Zealand we have been ordaining women as priests since 1977 – that is more than a decade prior to your accepting them.
That your change in perspective on women in leadership from the traditional and selectively biblically literalist interpretation has only been for two decades, 1% of Christian history, is also significant.
That you can find Evangelicals who have energy to produce literature supporting a revisionist position on the place of women, and on divorce, but not on homosexuality, again is merely stating what I said in different words.
I do not think that David Instone-Brewer’s work can be cited to support twice/thrice-divorced clergy and so do not accept that a similar methodology is being applied to homosexuality as to other gender and sexuality issues in church leadership. It also fascinates me why you should “find the equation of the three issues frustrating”. Why should the biblical texts apparently applying to heterosexuals not be given at least equal status to those apparently applying to homosexuals?
As to icky texts, Kurt, I am still waiting for the critical works on heterosexual intercourse forbidden during specified periods of the menstrual cycle (Lev 15:19-30; Lev 18:19 – inconveniently close to, but surprisingly regularly ignored, the regularly quoted Lev 18:22 & 20:13). That these texts are defied and are the times regularly employed by Humanae-Vitae-upholding Roman Catholics (the majority Christian position) appears also conveniently to not be “reflected in standard critical commentaries”.
As I said, Tim Harris, all I have seen for the past 30 years from conservative evos is a verbose version of the “ick factor”. Your observations above simply reinforce this view for me, as well as my inherent High Church distrust of Evangelicals in general.
Kurt Hill
In snowy Brooklyn USA
I'm with you one this, Bosco. Your three questions are similar in our eyes because we approve of all three changes but this similarity is not so obvious to those who are resisting the third.
I think the problem here might be that all three of these changes are too recent for us to get a good enough perspective on them (and for the commentaries to catch up properly as well). So I have a proposal that we try to consider all three in the light of another change about which no Christian has any lingering doubts, namely our condemnation of slavery.
If a respect for biblical authority means that we should not allow anything that scripture condemns (women's leadership, divorce, homosexual relationships being in contention as things forbidden) then it is equally shown in the principle of not forbidding things allowed (slavery being seen as one of these until fairly recently in church history). Yet we never hesitate to condemn slavery and would be most suspicious of anyone advocating tolerance for it.
"Ridiculous!" Oh yes? This is where we need to get some real perspective on changing scriptural interpretation over a much longer perspective than the 20th century. This penny took a really long time to drop among faithful Christians, and the conflicts it aroused were even more heated than any of those we face today.
The common issue uniting all four cases is a concern for human liberation, founded in the gospel of Christ, among those Christians advocating change. Whether that can be scripturally justified, and on what terms, is in contention with others who may be no less concerned with liberation but unconvinced that it should take this form.
This is just a programmatic proposal that the historical parallel is worth exploring. I am putting my time where my mouth is by beginning some catch-up reading on the struggle against slavery within Christian history. Expect a report ...
Appreciate the comments, although they do not come as any surprise. Couple of points for clarification (I'm beyond trying to convince or satisfy anyone) - my experience was in Australia, not NZ, so the context and timetable of debate was a bit different.
As it happens, the reasons put forward in favour of women's ordination (in particular) were part of the problem. I found many of them less than convincing (and still do). However, it was the discovery of other approaches to the question, largely at an exegetical and hermeneutical level, that led to my rethinking of the issue.
In terms of finding 'Evangelicals who have energy to produce literature ...' - evangelical literature would be about 10% of what I read (because some of it is on occasion quite good!). Much of my reading is actually non-Christian and part of my wider academic studies.
And I entirely agree with your comments regarding clergy who have been twice/thrice divorced (and many instances of those divorced at all).
Greetings from sunny Nelson.
Thanks for the comments. At the moment I have not time to reply in depth; but I think there is some simplification going on here! Briefly: (a) the ick factor lies behind verbose consevo responses: perhaps in some instances, but not in all, so that still leaves the need for a clear, persuasive case for revision to be made without resort to the ad hominem element implied by "ick"; (b) the "ick" factor does not appear to have underlaid Paul's writing: he overcome the "ick" factor re "unclean food" in a Hellenistic environment but, intriguingly, did not go along with Hellenistic openness to homosexuality; (c) (wrt Howard): does the Bible equally "condemn" the leadership of women, divorce-and-remarriage, same sex sexual activity? I think not ... while agreeing there is a worthwhile project in seeking to gain better perspective on how, why, and when Christians have changed their minds on issues.
Howard, you highlight that within our Christian methodology historically once the clear meaning of scripture or even the understanding of Jesus has been established, Christians have gone on to (rightly) reject this meaning or understanding in many cases and continue to do so today.
Far more significant for today than homosexuality (which for some reason Tim shifts to "homoeroticism" - maybe that is the current trend - I must confess I certainly have neither the energy nor motivation to "read everything of substance on these matters for over 3 decades" and wonder why this particular issue has energy for such devotion) is usury. Poverty is one of the greatest evils on the planet, and our banking system clearly has issues which Christians should be addressing (and previously did address vigorously). The yes-yes-no part of Christianity could be characterised as raising a resounding YES!!! to "Is usury compatible with scripture?" I certainly think that this is an issue far more worthy of attention rather than others which IMO are energy-sapping distractions.
“If a respect for biblical authority means that we should not allow anything that scripture condemns (women's leadership, divorce, homosexual relationships being in contention as things forbidden) then it is equally shown in the principle of not forbidding things allowed (slavery being seen as one of these until fairly recently in church history). Yet we never hesitate to condemn slavery and would be most suspicious of anyone advocating tolerance for it.”--Howard Pilgrim
Very well said, Howard! One might also add some scriptural imperatives: stoning for adultery, and not suffering witches to live, for example--clear, scriptural directives which would have real impact if actually followed in some Global South countries!
Kurt Hill
In soon-to-be-blizzard-bound Brooklyn, NY
'Homoeroticism' is often used in studies when considering ancient same sex practices, avoiding the ambiguities and frequent confusions inherent to 'homosexuality' - essentially a modern term with connotations that are anachronistic when viewing ancient practices.
I seem prone to misconstrual, so let me clarify further, and then respond to the more constructive direction this thread seems to be taken.
Firstly the clarification: liturgy wonders why 'this particular issue has energy for such devotion', referring to three decades of reading. I guess this is a reasonable enough speculation from someone who doesn't know me from a bar of soap, so let put my comment in context. My academic interests for over three decades has been in the socio-cultural contexts of the Graeco-Roman world, including classical traditions of thought. It is hard to study ancient society and the dynamics that shape the social construction of public and private realities, without some understanding of gender relations, concepts of family and kin - and sexual practices (especially in social context). Hence my ongoing, and largely non-theological interest in such questions.
Your comment regarding usury is of greater interest to me. There are very real questions to be explored on the impact of a credit culture and scriptural strictures against usury. Some of this has been addressed in the jubilee theology, and largely at an international level (undoubtedly a massive issue). Yet there are just as real questions about the practices of usury in our own local contexts, often in the name of free market dynamics and financial products.
I am no economist (I dropped economics for ancient history in senior high, and never looked back), and my son usually shoots me down in flames when I attempt comment in such areas - but I do agree there would be value in some of us sitting down and exploring our approaches in deriving a Christian ethic on issues other than sexuality and the like (not for any 'ick' factor - just that sexuality is not an issue that generates any great academic energy for me and little fresh light has emerged for a number of years).
To venture a brief answer to Bosco Peters' questions:
"Is having women in leadership as bishops and priests compatible with scripture?"
Probably not - but shared leadership of married couples is modeled by Priscilla and Aquila. Women certainly are involved in pastoral ministry in the NT. But men are pastored by men.
"Is having divorced and remarried persons in leadership as bishops and priests compatible with scripture?"
We don't know much - if anything - about the marital background of first century church leaders. I agree with Tim Harris that David Instone-Brewer has shed valuable light on the NT texts. Divorce for adultery, desertion or cruelty seems to be allowed by the NT. Not all divorces can count the same.
Scripture nowhere countenances the legitimacy of homosexual relationships, and arguing by strained and false analogies, as Bosco Peters does, leads to false results.
It is interesting to have a maybe-maybe-no perspective join this thread from "Anonymous".
Maybe: a woman bishop can lead a diocese if there is not a single man in it - might give us a hint where "Anonymous" is writing from.
It is always fascinating how differently those who claim that the Bible is self-evident in its teachings come to completely different conclusions about what it actually teaches!
Maybe: priests and bishops can divorce and remarry (even 2 or more times) if (and only if?) there has been adultery, desertion or cruelty in the marriage (certainly not a requirement in our province - so again may give a hint to Anonymous's context)
"We don't know much - if anything - about the marital background of first century church leaders." writes Anonymous - having only four sentences earlier written about Priscilla and Aquila! Selective biblical literalism at an extreme? LOL! Let's not even start talking about Peter's mother-in-law, or the injunction that the bishop be the husband of only one wife...
Thanks, Tim, for your clarifications. Appreciated.
I'm not sure if Bosco Peter's replies are serious or captious nitpicking, but for the avoidance of doubt:
1. I don't know of any diocese without 'a single man in it' - but I do know that men are deserting liberal Anglicanism in droves, so maybe some are headed that way. Like it or not, female-led churches have little interest for most men. My own reflection on the practice of Christ, the teaching of his apostles, and the nature of Christian marriage makes it hard for me to believe that women are called by God to be spiritual leaders of men. Maybe I'm wrong, but the vast consensus of Bible and tradition (and a good deal of psychology) seems to say otherwise.
2. I thought it was clear I was referring to the vast majority of anonymous church leaders in the first century, about whom we know nothing. We know nothing at all about the early (or later) lives of Aquila and Priscilla, either. Divorce was relatively common in the Greco-Roman world and accepted among Jews. Cambridge scholar Dr David Instone-Brewer's book is the best I know on the subject, and he is, to boot, an expert on first century rabbinics. My references to 'adultery, desertion and cruelty' alludes to his book.
The precise meaning or import of 'mias gynaikos andra' in 1 Tim 3.2 isn't immediately clear (at least, not to me - I only studied NT Greek for three years). It doesn't say 'you can't remarry after divorce (or death)'; it could equally be an injunction to marital faithfulness and a prohibition of polygamy - which did exist in the Greco-Roman world.
3. Rather than making obiter dicta about 'biblical literalists', I would encourage you to read and interact with Robert Gagnon's 'The Bible and Homosexual Practice' and his freely available website. Nobody has dealt with the texts more throughly than Gagnon.
Bosco, don't waste your time mowing down straw men. Argue with Robert Gagnon, not Fred Phelps.
& whaddaya know - no sooner do I encourage Bosco to interact with Professor Gagnon than I find that my friends at Titusonenine have posted a video link to Gagnon at the Mere Anglican gathering in Charleston, SC.
So sit back on a relaxed Waitangi Day weekend with a chilled Marlborough Sauvignon & enjoy ...
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/
I do not know what "Anonymous" thinks he is writing that he is unable to reveal his identity. In responding I am not condoning the practice or Peter's allowing this on his blog.
Peter, the blog-owner, has just moved from a male-led diocese to serve in a diocese led by a woman. I will leave it for him to comment on Anonymous's suggestion that "female-led churches have little interest for most men."
Anonymous appears to enjoy rattling off names of scholars to engage with, so I will have to assume that he has a reason why his conclusion about 'mias gynaikos andra' flies in the face of the work of Christian Cochini and Alphonso M. Stickler. Most scholars understand monogamy to be a basic NT requirement for Christians - not something one would, hence, need to be writing about a bishop.
There are no straw men here. Just open, named people and Anonymous. And I've demonstrated that those who hold the Bible to be clear and self-evident in its teachings disagree with each other about what those teachings actually are.
Bosco, you need to read more carefully! :) I said I *don't* have any particular "conclusions" about the *precise meaning of 'mias gynaikos andra'. I'm not a NT specialist. Gordon Fee and George Knight are, and they don't find it crystal clear. I'm sure it does presuppose monogamy (of which I say a little more below), but to take it as prohibiting remarriage after the death of a spouse (as the Orthodox believe) or after divorce strikes me as going beyond the evidence. So I incline to think it's an injunction to marital faithfulness. Why so?
Well: you comment: "Most scholars understand monogamy to be a basic NT requirement for Christians - not something one would, hence, need to be writing about a bishop."
Well, maybe - but the same could be said for the other things said in v. 2: 'sober-minded, self-controlled, ... not violent, not a drunkard' etc. If these things go without saying, why say them? First century Christians were a pretty motley lot!
I repeat that polygamy existed among Gentiles and Jews in the first century (and wasn't outlawed for Romans until 212 and for Jews in 393, by Theodosius). And concubinage was very common.
(BTW, you know, of course, that there is no such thing as a "bishop" in the NT! :))
Regarding monogamy as the foundational understanding of human sexual relations in the fellowship of Christ, you really should listen to/watch the link to Robert Gagnon that I mentioned: he is very good in expounding this point. Quite simply it's this: Jesus in Matt 19 repeatedly re-echoes Genesis 1: 'male and female he made them'; complementary male-female monogamy is the only sexual relationship that Jesus recognizes ('the two shall become one flesh').
At the end of this lecture Gagnon makes an excellent point on why there are hermeneutical conflicts between (traditional) and (liberal) Christians. It is not that the texts are so opaque that we have been misunderstanding them for centuries; it is that the traditional hermeneutical pyramid has been turned on its head in late modernity from: 1. Scripture [inspired Word of God'], then 2. philosophical Reason (e.g. natural law), then 3. Science [design and complentarity of male and female bodies, then 4. Experience [which, for sinful people, is never infallible or self-interpreting - as Ricoeur reminds us today> to its inverse:
1. Experience ('I experience love, ergo it's of God'), then 2. Science ('It's in my genes'), to 3. philosphical Reason ('Natural law is a crock'), to 4. Scripture (fallible first century writings).
That's very much how the "deep thinkers" have Tec operated, at least since the time of Joseph Fletcher. Listen to what Gagnon has to say about his debates with Fred Borsch.
Anonymous responds to Anonymous (add your own sound effects): http://u.nu/89z35
I am loathe to respond to Anonymous, particularly as Anonymous continues to have such little confidence or commitment to Anonymous’s position that Anonymous is unwilling to declare Anonymous’s position openly.
Behind the cloud of bewildering quoting of experts and allusions to videos it may be possible to ascertain that Anonymous’s position is that church leaders have an “injunction to marital faithfulness” and Anonymous thinks that under very limited conditions (adultery, desertion or cruelty) one might divorce and remarry. This is quite a different position to that held by the Anglican province of this blog. If for Anonymous a significant number of the leadership in this province is so gravely, publicly living in such a clearly unbiblical and sinful lifestyle it behoves Anonymous to energetically work to deal with this rather than to focus on the relatively minor occurrence of public homosexual clergy partnerships. Again, Anonymous highlights the lengths, sleight-of-hand, and clouds of distractions of my primary point: “What is it about homosexuality that engenders such energy for some in a church that accepts women bishops and priests who have been divorced three times, etc.” Anonymous does not accept women bishops, Anonymous does not accept church leaders who have been divorced several times – yet notice where Anonymous’s energy is directed.
“What is it about homosexuality that engenders such energy for some in a church that accepts women bishops and priests who have been divorced three times, etc.”
You have me seriously wrong, Bosco.
A priest who has been divorced three times is either seriously unlucky in his choice of wife or has significant character problems that make him doubtful for public spiritual ministry. Probably the latter. & go-it-alone self-styled 'evangelicals' can be just as guilty in this repect as any Spong-spouting liberal. I have long insisted that 'the Spirit told me' charismatic is a lot closer to the neo-gnosticizing liberal than he cares to admit.
I'm not a member of ACANZP (though I have numerous friends who are), so it isn't my direct concern to campaign vigorously for anything touching its public life. But I would hate to see it replicate the disaster that has overtaken ACoC and Tec.
Wisdom is proved right by her children, though neither you nor I will likely live long enough to observe the outcome (other than sub specie aeternitatis, DV).
But remember Athanasius, and what a long battle he faced throughout his life, despite the affirmations of Nicea in 325. The battle against the Arian heresy continued till 381, and long beyond (think of those Goth barbarians at the gates). Imagine what the 4th century revisonists must have said:
"Athanasius contra mundum? Pshaw! Why can't he get with the program? What makes him think his biblical interpretation is right? Biblical literalist indeed! LOL!"
(with apologies to an earlier post in this thread. - :))
Thanks, Anonymous for the clarification. For you homosexuality is clearly a grave sin which the bible clearly condemns while "a priest who has been divorced three times is either seriously unlucky in his choice of wife or has significant character problems"
Oh, Bosco - you don't get understatement and irony! And you in that most English of institutions in that most English of cities! O tempora! O mores!
Post a Comment