Out of that warm reception +Victoria has written about the Covenant as part of a series of articles on the Covenant for the US-based magazine The Living Church. You can read what she has to say here. But other Anglican/Episcopalian receivers of the Covenant are not at all warm in their reception of the Covenant. One who is very critical, and very critical of +Victoria's article is Lionel Deimel who occasionally comments here.
Another is a Kiwi lay leader in the Diocese of Dunedin, Tony Fitchett. You can read his recent synodical speech criticizing the Covenant here. As you read it you might join with me in being fascinated by the fact that Tony is a member of the Communion's Standing Committee, the very body charged with upholding and administering the Covenant (should any matter of controversy in the Communion, framed by Section 4's process, be brought to that Committee's attention).
What about +Victoria's argument in her article? Here is the argument in her own words:
"The real question to consider, as we weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed Anglican Covenant, is whether it would help or hinder inter-Anglican communication. ... as I consider the possibility of the Anglican Covenant, I ask if this document might just assist us in re-establishing rules of engagement as a Communion. ... What if the requirement of the Covenant actually enforced listening and being in relationship? I imagine you cringe at the word enforce, and so do I. But will it happen otherwise? Section 4 of the Covenant exists precisely to ensure the kind of listening, communication, and relationship that is presently missing in the Anglican Communion. ... the Anglican Covenant will act as a midwife for the delivery of a new Anglican Communion, a Communion that has its gestation in relationship and deep listening."
In my words, +Victoria is arguing that Communion communication is broken down, broken down communication is affecting our fellowship as a communion, the Covenant provides a way for communication to be renewed, that way is to force those who claim to be in Communion to actually listen to one another and thus to be in relationship with one another (that is, an actual working relationship). Some member churches will choose not to be placed in the position of having to listen to others (i.e. continue according to the present status quo). Those who choose to commit to real (i.e. actual listening to each other) fellowship will form a new Anglican Communion. The Covenant is the founding document of a (re)newed Anglican Communion. In offering this interpretation, I am speaking as a fellow supporter of the Covenant, keen to reflect on arguments for and against the Covenant. But I am not speaking as someone who has had opportunity to extensively discuss the Covenant with +Victoria. We have other things to talk about these days as we work on rebuilding the faith of our city and province!
If I am correctly interpreting +Victoria's argument, then the Covenant is a sheep-and-goats moment for global Anglicanism. To one side will be those member churches who choose to not commit in this new way, churches which will not stop listening to others, but which will always listen when it suits and not when it does not. We already see those churches in our midst, churches some view as very conservative and churches some view as very progressive. These churches make a play of belonging to the Communion and upholding its ideals, but those ideals always include the freedom to act independently when it suits. The signs are present that my own church is one of these churches and will choose to continue to be so.
To the other side will be those member churches who choose to commit in this new way. A few have already made that choice. It is quite unknown as I write whether a Covenanted Anglican Communion will consist of a subtantial majority of the present Communion or not, though it does seem possible that the Church of England will be part of the Covenanted Communion which would be an important matter of historical continuity for global Anglicanism.
If I am correct (perhaps one might also add, if I am correct in the particular matter of understanding these words, "the Anglican Covenant will act as a midwife for the delivery of a new Anglican Communion"), then it is possible that the initial Covenanted Communion might be quite small, but nevertheless it would be a viable small Communion in which members had made a significant new commitment to one another. Hitherto I have argued that the Covenant will not have effect on the present Communion if a significant majority of member churches do not sign up to it. Here in this post I am reckoning with the possibility raised by this Living Church article that the effect of the Covenant lies in who it draws together into deeper fellowship, not in how many sign it.
Unanswered in the article are questions of what happens over time to the members of the present Communion who do not sign the Covenant. Unaddressed is the possibility that some messy confusion would exist for the foreseeable future in respect of Anglican churches saying they belonged to the Anglican Communion whether or not they had signed the Covenant. But I think that could clarify over time. Once, for example, the Covenanted members started to meet together, or a future ABC invited only Covenanted bishops to a Lambeth conciliar meeting, the Communion as we know it today would become two Communions in a more formal manner than we are currently seeing as some go to some meetings from which others stay away.
The key thing to note is that the dividing point for the Communion from the Covenant perspective is not (say) in respect of progressives and conservatives, or North and South, or Western and non-Western, but in terms of the Covenant, which currently has supporters and detractors across theological and geographical lines. The future Covenanted Communion will consist of member churches willing to set aside independence on matters that Covenanted Communion wishes to move forward on as an interdependent body.
Of course the option exists for all non-Covenanting Anglican churches to meet together to listen to one another in a non-binding manner. It will be interesting to see how many turn up!
Speaking personally I would regret our church not being part of the Covenanted Communion, should that be our decision, but I would not be sorrowful for long. If we do not want to be in a binding relationship with other churches we should not pretend otherwise. Honesty is a good policy in all relationships, even those in which we wish to keep the other at arms length.
35 comments:
Dunedin Synodsperson, Doctor Tony Fitchett's membership of the Standing Committee of the A.C.C. is quite consonant with his opposition to the Covenant as it now stands.
If you read his article carefully, you will come to understand that Tony (who was a member of the Dunedin Synod that has rejected the Covenant's Section 4)is, like many other Anglican's, not disposed towards the implementation of a magisterial Covenant ethos within the Communion that would, by definition, exclude TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada from equal representation within the Communion. He is in favour of further 'listening' to the claims of the LGBT community to be part of the Church, in ministry & mission.
To have an adversarial voice within the ACC Standing Committe, is no different from having adversarial voices on the Primates Council - e.g: Orombi, and other Global South Primates, who scorned Lambeth 2008.
There are voices within any Anglican Commission that will always oppose propositions that they discern as counter-productive of missionary advancement. Dr. Tony Fitchett is just one of them.
There are others, on all sorts of Anglican Bodies, who will; just go along with the status quo - for the sake of a desire for an easy way out of the theological implications - simply because the issue in question does not affect them personally.
+Victoria is arguing that Communion communication is broken down, broken down communication is affecting our fellowship as a communion, the Covenant provides a way for communication to be renewed, that way is to force those who claim to be in Communion to actually listen to one another and thus to be in relationship with one another
The problem with this argument is that it does not proceed from a correct diagnosis. The problem is manifestly not a lack of communication. It's not going to be fixed by listening. Both sides have listened to each other for a decade, and no progress has been made. There is no lack of understanding of the other side's position. What is decidedly missing is a lack of empathy for the other side's position. Both sides want to determine the presuppositions by which the church operates. That makes the conflict mutually exclusive.
So what then remains to discuss? Consider just the presenting issue of homosexuality. There is no middle ground between those who say it should be condemned and those who say it should be celebrated. You can say that both sides should tolerate the other, but that doesn't answer the question about which opinion should determine the actions of the church. That means there must be a winner and a loser in this conflict. One side will go to church and hear its opinion confirmed. The other side goes to church and hears its opinion denigrated. No amount of listening is going to change that. And no amount of listening is going to make the losing side accept that situation.
carl
Re: "There are others, on all sorts of Anglican Bodies, who will; just go along with the status quo - for the sake of a desire for an easy way out of the theological implications - simply because the issue in question does not affect them personally".
..... or maybe they will go along with the status-quo because of deeply held theological convictions.
Any stand that one makes comes with a price and that price always effects the one who makes it.
Carl says "both sides have listened to one another for a decade".
However, this is manifestly untrue - at least as far as Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and some other Provinces are concerned. They have resolutely refused to dialogue with Gays in their own Churches - never mind their own countries. That does not sound like Carl is suggesting. Waht they have done is sided with the authorities who want to get rid of all Gays and their sympathisers.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for keeping us updated on the Covenant progress in NZ, and advocating your position respectfully and with genuine supporting arguments.
My issue with Bishop Victoria's approach is crystallised in her question, where she quotes the ABC:
"What would happen if the provinces of the Communion were equally dedicated to being in relationship one with another, no matter what?"
Her emphasis is about prioritising relationship and fellowship above everything else, including belief in the apostolic faith and holy living.
To answer her question, what would happen is that we would cease to believe in a common gospel and be unable to articulate it, share it, and live it out in any coherent way. We might still meet together and get along, but we wouldn't have any real unity in Christ. Relationship almost becomes an idol in her view of the church. It takes the rightful place of God as the object of our worship and labour.
Our rules of engagement are already set in the AC - they are the Lambeth Quadrilateral, instruments of unity and the BCP/Ordinal locally adapted. Our unity is being destroyed because the LQ scriptural and confessional elements are flagrantly opposed, and the instruments of unity are being ignored (Primates) or not fulfilling their function (ABC, ACC, Lambeth). We don't need re-setting, we need repenting. Adding another layer of Communion glue won't fix things when we don't even agree on the fundamental building blocks.
Father Ron Smith
They have resolutely refused to dialogue with Gays in their own Churches - never mind their own countries.
Which requires us to examine the nature of the dialogue envisioned. There is no point to dialogue over settled matters. So let's establish the following baseline for this dialogue:
1. Scripture is the Norma Normata.
2. Scripture clearly and unambiguously condemns as sin all homosexual behavior in all its manifestations.
3. Experience cannot overthrow the testimony of Scripture.
4. All those who engage in homosexual behavior must repent of it.
Would you accept those four principles as a baseline for dialogue? The answer is "No, you would not." In fact, those are the very things you want to dialogue about. The purpose of the dialogue in your mind is to change attitudes about those very points. That's why this efforts at 'dialogue' always begin with precisely the opposite assumptions from those I listed. Conservatives are supposed to enter these 'dialogues' with the implicit understanding that only conservative principles are open to re-evaluation. They aren't really dialogues at all. They are exercises in re-education.
Those four points I listed are non-negotiable. Within that framework we can have all the dialogue we want. But of course, that isn't the kind of dialogue liberals want and that's why liberals make claims that conservatives have resolutely refused to dialogue.
carl
"To one side will be those member churches who choose to not commit in this new way, churches which will not stop listening to others, but which will always listen when it suits and not when it does not."
I suppose one question is what do you mean by "listen?" If we have to commit to allowing ourselves to be coerced to listen, whatever that means, then is that really a helpful way forward?
Hi Alan
I think I am talking about a simple difference in levels of commitment.
Covenanting churches would be committing to listening to one another on any given issue raised, and listening with an open mind.
Non-Covenanting churches would not be making that commitment, perhaps because they are unwilling to listen to others on any given issue raised.
If a Covenanting church felt it was being "coerced" into listening to another church then that might be a sign of revising their commitment to be in a Covenant relationship.
But Peter, Bishop Victoria asks, "What if the requirement of the Covenant actually enforced listening and being in relationship?"
So she is depicting the Covenant as coercing listening, again whatever that means.
Surely Section 4.2 is about coercion.
Hi Alan
I suggest at least two senses of the word 'enforced' could be understood here:
(1) I am going to send the police around to pick you up and bring you to my office and remain standing over you while you listen to what I have to say.
(2) As you attempt to wriggle out of a meeting with some folk aroundabouts, I am going to remind you that you signed a declaration that said you would abide by the canons of our church - canons which require you to participate in meetings arranged by the bishop even when those meetings include those you disagree with.
In the context of the Covenant I assume +Victoria means the latter: a forcing of one another to honour the obligations one has entered into.
4.2, I suggest, spells out the consequences of failing to live up to the obligations one has undertaken.
Do you think there should be no consequences for those member churches which have solemnly entered into a covenant to act in one way and not in another way?
Hi Peter,
First, it seems to me that the Covenant text speaks out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand it says that it doesn't interfere with the autonomy of Churches, but then it says it can coerce them to live up to some commitments. (Although the commitments themselves are vague, and the coercion mechanism arbitrary).
Second, it strikes me as bizarre that the penalty for not showing up is to be turfed out. It's a variation on "you can fire me, I quit!" And it sounds like sour grapes.
It's interesting that one of the commitments in the model Covenant in the appendix to the Windsor report explicitly included a commitment not to absent oneself from the meetings of the Anglican Communion. There is in fact no such commitment in the Covenant text before us.
4.2 does not, in fact, spell out any consequences. It leaves them entirely up to the imagination of the Standing Committee, who will have to make things up as they go.
Peace and all good.
alan
Carl seems to assert his dogmatic opinion very freely in his postings here. To declare that Holy Scripture is without error is to declare the world to have been created in seven days. No longer do people with any sort of brain-power believe that. Can he not see that Scripture really is the the work of human-kind who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they, exclusively, have the Mind of God on everything?
Obviously Carl is in this category, so of what use are any arguments about the availability, or even the need, of further enlightenment by the Holy Spirit in the Church? Did the Holy Spirit leave us after the publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible? I think not!
Interpretation of the Scriptures is more important today than it ever was - in order that Christ's reign of Justice and Peace might be extended to all creatures.
Some of us are longing for 'hearts of stone' to be turned into living, life-giving organs for mission. Bibliolatry will not achieve this.
Fr Ron Smith
Carl seems to assert his dogmatic opinion very freely in his postings here.
Well, umm ... I thought that was the point of posting.
To declare that Holy Scripture is without error is to declare the world to have been created in seven days. No longer do people with any sort of brain-power believe that. Can he not see that.
Oh, dear. I must not have any sort of brain-power for that is exactly what I believe. Perhaps I shouldn't say anymore on this lest I further demonstrate my mental incapacity. By the way, did you just freely assert a dogmatic opinion?
Can he not see that Scripture really really is the the work of human-kind who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they, exclusively, have the Mind of God on everything?
Epistemological doubt does sit at the center of liberalism. After all, God must be silenced before man can be heard. The problem of course is that people don't need God after he is silenced. They are quite capable of listening to themselves without any help at all. And what is the point of a church that does nothing but chew on its theological angst all day?
Obviously Carl is in this category, so of what use are any arguments about the availability, or even the need, of further enlightenment by the Holy Spirit in the Church?
I will ask again, but I will receive no answer. What is the medium by which this revelation is received? How do you test the 'enlightenment' to see if it is from God? Could it be the self-identified collective of the self-proclaimed 'enlightened ones?' Indeed, it could.
Interpretation of the Scriptures is more important today than it ever was - in order that Christ's reign of Justice and Peace might be extended to all creatures.
Why should it be interpreted at all if it is not authoritative? Or is it simply a canvas upon which progressives paint their current understanding of good, right, and true? Where does the authority lie? On the page or in the mind of the interpreter?
Some of us are longing for 'hearts of stone' to be turned into living, life-giving organs for mission. Bibliolatry will not achieve this.
Heh. "Bibliolatry." Me and the Bereans. I do wonder however if this charge of idolatry against me is somehow different from a charge of heresy against KJS. It would be helpful if you could actually produce substantial evidence to back up that statement. As it stands, it is just ... what shall I call it ... the free assertion of a dogmatic opinion,
But then I don't have any sort of brain-power, so what do I know.
carl
Carl. Well you, yourself, said it - in your last paragraph.
Carl, I cannot believe that you can still believe that every word of Scripture was dictated by God as a sort of teleprinted memo. If you go along that stratum, you will have a problem, for instance, about who, exactly, did Cain marry when he was cast out of Eden. Was it his sister? Because that would have been the case if Adam and Eve were, literally, the first and sole human beings on the planet to begin with.
Also, which of the 3 Creation Stories was the real one?
Do you not believe in progressive revelation?: Even Jesus said: "You will see even greater things than these" - referring to the further revelation that would come after his death and resurrection, that were not hitherto known.
I really had not realised that any Thinking Anglican still believed in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible narrative.
And as for your assertion that the Bible is consistently 'against' the phenomenon of homosexuality, per se; you need to understand how time has given us the benefit of science and the knowledge of human sexual differentiation - that is not so clear-cut as you would like it to be. Denial does not constitute irrevocable argumentation.
Make no mistake, I do not deny the importance (on this day when we remembered, at the Eucharist, the sacrificial life and death of the great William Tyndale, Translator of the Scriptures) of the message of Scripture - especially the New Testament - as the revelation of God at work in God's world.
However, I do believe that the core of the message of God's plan in and love for creation was exemplified most fully through the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Glorification of God;s Only-Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the 'Word-made-flesh'; who had, in his own ministry, to battle with those among the Scribes and the Pharisees of his day, who had obviously misinterpreted the Scriptures that has been left to them to interpret.
Carl, you waste your sweetness on the desert air. Ron writes from the perspective of St Michael's and All Angels, Oxford Terrace. This was once a redoubt of traditional Anglo-Catholicism, but all this changed after Jonathan Kirkpatrick became its vicar and a forceful advocate of homosexual relationships, along with Tim Barnett. Like much of western Anglo-Catholicism (insofar as it still exists and hasn't swum the Tiber), the outer husk remains, along with some archaic liturgical practice, but the dogmatic heart has become highly problematic. Ron's own repeated attacks on the Bible demonstrate this inherent dilemma.
John Rietsma
Well, at least, that's a victory for transparency on the blog. One more
'Anonymous' out of the closet.
Fr. Ron, are you sure this "anonymous" was ever in the closet. Sometimes people post as "Anonymous" because they have problems logging into blogger.
In a comment above, Carl asked:
"What is the medium by which this [further enlightenment by the Holy Spirit in the Church] is received? How do you test the 'enlightenment' to see if it is from God?"
I too would like to hear your answer to that question.
You said above: "However, I do believe that the core of the message of God's plan in and love for creation was exemplified most fully through the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Glorification of God;s Only-Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the 'Word-made-flesh'; who had, in his own ministry, to battle with those among the Scribes and the Pharisees of his day, who had obviously misinterpreted the Scriptures that has been left to them to interpret." I agree with that completely. The thing is, though, it is only through scripture that we even know about it. So, are we supposed to pick and choose which scripture to believe and which not to believe?
By the way, I don't believe the historical accuracy of the Genesis creation account(s)is a core issue (Carl may disagree with me here). Regardless of whether they are literally true, they teach us a lot about the relationship between God and humanity.
Hi John R
Your comments re St Michael's have only just made it through the moderation.
Please speak well of parishes in their character as well as of individuals, unless their is some hard evidence at hand to refer to such as a news report or parish report.
Referring back to life under past vicars etc is no way to talk about a parish in the present.
Fr Ron Smith
I cannot believe that you can still believe that every word of Scripture was dictated by God as a sort of teleprinted memo.
Really? That's the best articulation of the Doctrine of Inspiration that you can manage? A teleprinted memo? Perhaps you should go read the Chicago Statement so you have some idea of my actual position.
If you go along that stratum, you will have a problem, for instance, about who, exactly, did Cain marry when he was cast out of Eden. Was it his sister? Because that would have been the case if Adam and Eve were, literally, the first and sole human beings on the planet to begin with. Also, which of the 3 Creation Stories was the real one?
You act is if these are startling insights. Do you think these arguments have never been heard before? Do you think they have never been answered?
Do you not believe in progressive revelation?
The Revelation found in Scripture was certainly progressive revelation. However, I suspect you are really asking "Do you believe revelation is ongoing since the completion of the New Testament" No. There is no further need of further Revelation because God has spoken to us in His Son.
I really had not realised that any Thinking Anglican still believed in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible narrative.
The insularity and arrogance of this statement is astounding. You remind me of the man who said "I can't believe Bush got elected. I don't know anyone who voted for him." First of all, it defines 'thinking' as agreeing with progressives and when did progressives become the standard? Second, it discounts as primitive and inferior not just those who disagree with you today, but all the generations that came before you as well. You are not wiser than men who live on Tuesday simply because you live on Wednesday. It is in fact nothing but an expression of your confidence in your own vision of man as a progressively improving creature. The progressive self-identifies himself as the point of the spear in the progress of man, but when you ask him for a standard by which this progress may be measured, he falls strangely silent.
btw, I am not a member of an Anglican Church because there isn't one within 150 miles of my home that I could attend. There is Christ Universalist Synchretistic Episcopal Gnostic Church, but I couldn't get past the Lord's Prayer that opened "Our mother/father in heaven, Holy are all your names."
...to be continued.
carl
Fr Ron Smith
And as for your assertion that the Bible is consistently 'against' the phenomenon of homosexuality, per se; you need to understand how time has given us the benefit of science and the knowledge of human sexual differentiation - that is not so clear-cut as you would like it to be. Denial does not constitute irrevocable argumentation.
Science has done no such thing. Sexual behavior is intrinsically moral behavior. Science can make no statement about morality. Whether nature or nurture is therefore irrelevant. Men are not deterministic animals. We are expected to rise above our nature and do what is right. Men by nature do all sorts of despicable evil things. Appeals to nature cannot justify that which is intrinsically evil. The mere fact that men desire to do something only indicates their desire is authentic. It does not indicate the desire is right. Authentic desire is not the same thing as rightly ordered desire.
The God who made us and ordered our desires is the One to whom we should turn for instruction on such matters. And here we return to the original starting point. You have determined the Scriptures have no authority to constrain on this matter for the explicit condemnations contained therein do not have divine authority. That is why we disagree. I say God knows more that science. You say "What do we know of God's opinion except for the strivings of certain men to understand the things of God?"
Make no mistake, I do not deny the importance...of the message of Scripture - especially the New Testament - as the revelation of God at work in God's world.
The importance of Scripture is not in question. It is the authority of Scripture to bind the conscience against the will that you are denying. You are intentionally norming the Scripture against an external standard that you will never identify. What is that standard, Fr Ron Smith? How do you parse the Scripture into things that bind and things that don't bind?
You should remember that the Old Testament is just as much the Revelation of God as the New. It does not teach a different Gospel. It does not reveal a different God. There is a tendency in progressives to imagine what they think God should be, and then impose that imagination onto Scripture. They do not want to accept God as He reveals Himself, because they do not want to accept that He is the God who judged Sodom or Canaan. This is truly how they parse out the Scripture. They decide that those things in Scripture that agree with their prior understanding of God are true, and those things that don't agree are not true. Thus do they show themselves commited not to the things of God, but to ideas and understandings that originate in the self.
However, I do believe that the core of the message of God's plan in and love for creation was exemplified most fully through the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection and Glorification of God;s Only-Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the 'Word-made-flesh'; who had, in his own ministry, to battle with those among the Scribes and the Pharisees of his day, who had obviously misinterpreted the Scriptures that has been left to them to interpret.
Who told you this message? How do you know these things? What establishes the truth of any of them? You must answer this question. It is a basic principle - "False in one. False in all." You have discounted the Scripture as the work of human-kind who believe, rightly or wrongly, that they, exclusively, have the Mind of God on everything. What then is your authority?
carl
Carl, I;m afraid I am unable to answer your many odd assertions in your postings. I leave you to your own understanding of God at work in the world - apart from reminding you that God is still speaking to us today - through the scriptures and through the intelligent interpretation of the same.
I am reminded of Jesus' word to his disciples; that there were things he could not tell at the time; they would be 'too difficult' for them to understand! May I suggest, as kindly as I can; that you may just be finding new revelations to be 'too difficult' to cope with.
Peace and All Joy
On further reflection, Carl; I want to tell you that as a priest in the Church, an ex-Franciscan Brother, and a Daily Mass enthusiast; I meet Christ frequently in his personally- authorised meeting place at the Celebration of His 'Real Presence' in the Eucharist - that is where most catholic church-people comes to grips with theology - on a daily basis.
It is from this meeting-point with the Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected, and Ascended Christ that I gain the power and spiritual insight to engage with the world as it is - not as the purists might have it be - in order to assist, to the limits of my capability, with the ongoing redemptive work of the Gospel. Pax et Bonum!
Yes, Ron, but that is all highly Scriptural: we know nothing about the eucharist re our Lord's own commandment, his ascension, etc, save from Scripture. When Jesus himself in a paradigmatic action for the future of the church met with two disciples on the way to Emmaus, he interpreted the Scriptures to himself and broke bread with them: Word and Sacrament. That is, the meeting with Christ is not solely in the eucharist but also in the opening up of Scripture! The same Scripture which teaches much about marriage between a man and a woman, and nothing about God's blessing on same-sex relationships.
It is also only from Scripture that we learn that God loves us in a love which also reveals to us God's expectations re holy living.
Peter, at least YOU have got it! My word, you've got it! I am not an enemy of Scripture. I use it every day, whether in my personal, daily prayer with my wife, or at the Holy Communion Celebrations. So, of course, YES, the Scriptures are my daily Mentor. It so happens that I discern their message sometimes very differently from conservative others.
Holy Scripture is the starting point for my reflection - on a daily basis - but not, in any way, exclusive of the Word-made-flesh by the Holy Spirit in The Eucharist. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly DIGEST; is an exercise worthy of repetition.
I believe the Word in the Book needs to become enfleshed in our experience: in order to give life to the world - not just ourselves.
Carl,
I am intrigued by you statement that “Sexual behavior is intrinsically moral behavior.” Why do you believe this? I do not at all find this proposition self-evident.
Sexual behavior is moral behavior only because it is believed to be. Society can declare it so; God can declare it so. One can easily imagine a society (a kind of commune, perhaps) where sexual behavior is a matter of indifference. In such a society, all property might be community property and all children might be raised by the community.
Many activities are considered immoral in one society and completely acceptable in another.
hello Lionel,perhaps I've not understood you correctly ...
Why would you want to separate sexual behaviour, or any other component of human experience, from moral behaviour? Do you understand humaness as essentially compartmentalised with moral behaviour being filed under an appropriate heading?
I don't understand why you think that 'sexual behavior is moral behavior only because it is believed to be'. Do you mean to affirm the position that moral behaviours are only social constructs and have no intrinsic rightness or wrongness of their own? If that is the case, why do you include 'God can declare it so'? Surely if God does or has, an opposing socially constructed standard could have little significance ... other than the damage it does to those living in its shadow.
How do you relate to CS Lewis' proposition that things are not good or bad because 'God says' or because 'the Bible says'; rather, God tells us things are good or bad becasue they are ... and I guess because he realises that we wouldn't work it out by ourselves.
For several years, I lived near a community just like the one you described ... sexual behaviour was a matter of indifference, property was held in common ... and the children and young people were profoundly abused. The problem they failed to address was that when moral behaviours are defined solely by the group to which they will apply, those lacking a voice are disempowered.
You said, 'Many activities are considered immoral in one society and completely acceptable in another'. But you did not say whether you believe that to be just a sad fact, or if you beleive that to be a satisfactory state of affairs.
Lucy Eban
Carl, I so appreciate the logical consistency of your position. You accept the universe was made in 6 days. You hold that Scripture clearly and unambiguously condemns as sin all homosexual behavior in all its manifestations. We can rely on you and Rosemary here to be against women preaching, and against divorce – just as the Scripture clearly and unambiguously condemns.
Where a struggle begins is with those who “remarry” divorcees, have women priests and bishops – but then inexplicably draw a line in the sand with homosexuality!
As to Bishop Victoria’s piece. This is not based on the actual Anglican Covenant text (I have yet to read a piece by someone in favor of signing the Covenant who actually works his/her way through that actual text). Her hope for what the Covenant will do is actually in contradiction to the actual text (which speaks not of staying in relationship “no matter what”, but of vague “relational consequences”. Bishop Victoria describes “very careful rules about how we must relate to the other two Tikanga, Maori and Pacifica” and yet is ready to advocate for a document that is befuddled – as far from “very careful rules” as you can get!). But, then, this is from a person who doesn’t check an actual dictionary, and so asserts that “women” isn’t an adjective, and who fails to accept what a massive departure from scripture and tradition her own ordination is.
Alison
Lionel Deimel
Sexual behavior is moral behavior only because it is believed to be. Society can declare it so
Moral behavior has nothing to do with the experiential judgments of man. It is imposed upon man from without, or it does not exist. Man is a finite creature and cannot establish morality of himself. He is too transient and limited to be capable of establishing objective norms.
God can declare it so.
God has declared it so. He is the agent who imposes morality upon man, and it is He who has determined that all sexual behavior is intrinsically moral. As it is written: "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Heb 13:4" among many many others.
One can easily imagine a society (a kind of commune, perhaps) where sexual behavior is a matter of indifference.
One does not even have to imagine it. One can simply appeal to many instances in the long sordid history of man. What has this to do with the morality of the conduct? Men often decide that evil actions are in fact indifferent actions, or even good actions. That says nothing about the morality of the behavior but much about the evil heart of man.
Many activities are considered immoral in one society and completely acceptable in another.
Towards the end of World War II, the Red Army dissolved into an orgy of rape as it traversed Eastern Europe. It was official state policy to allow it. Officers who tried to stop it were arrested. No one was punished for it. So, yes, I can imagine sexual behaviors that might be held up as acceptable in one society even as another society condemns that same behavior. It means nothing. Man is not the judge of his own life.
carl
Carl. Why do you have such a disrespect for God's gift of sexuality? One does realise that there are rules for good behaviour in the exercise of that gift. But used in the exercise of a committed, life-ling, loving and monogamous partner-ship (permitted by legal and civil authority), sex can be a great and wonderful means of expression of one's love for one's life partner.
I fear I said just enough to get myself into trouble in this discussion, and it would likely take a book-length essay to get out of it.
I reacted to Carl’s statement that “Sexual behavior is intrinsically moral behavior.” I did so because (1) the truth of this statement is not at all self-evident, and (2) there is a tendency to equate sexual behavior with morality, while overlooking a variety of other sins. In some circles these days, Christianity seems only to be about sex, which is surely perverse.
Let me simply say that I am unimpressed by the assertion that sexual activity is intrinsically moral, but that in the context of most societies, past and present, sexual activity does have moral implications. Those implications flow from the consequences of sexual activity in a particular social context, rather from sexual activity per se. This situation is not one on which a person can make a moral judgment. It simply is.
I doubt this response will satisfy either Carl or Lucy, but it’s the best I can do for now.
"Carl. Why do you have such a disrespect for God's gift of sexuality?"
& what's your problem with polygamy? or polygyny? or polyamory? or bisexualism? Why can't you accept that some people are CREATED to relate sexually to both sexes and to love multiple partners? or intergenerationally?
Why are so reactionary and judgmental about differently created people?
John Rietsma (advocatus diaboli)
Wow - a blog where I can comment along with the great Lionel Deimel, Fr Ron, Bosco Peters, Carl, Sarah, and so on.
New Zealand is like Switzerland, neutral territory. Thanks Peter+ I enjoy the intelligest and unconfrontational chatter one gets down under - you are doing us all a favour.
Father Ron Smith
Why do you have such a disrespect for God's gift of sexuality?
You shouldn't ask questions that are founded on a false assumption, so let me begin by denying the implicit premise of your question. I don't disrespect God's gift of sexuality. Part of respecting God's gift of sexuality is honoring the boundaries He placed around it. Those boundaries are not summarized by the words 'authentic consent.'
Marriage, sex, and children were created as a unity. Marriage creates the covenant relationship in which human sexuality can exist. Sex is a unitive act that binds husband to wife and wife to husband. The relationship naturally leads to the procreation of children who receive the benefit of a stable relationship in which to grow. All of this typifies the mystery of the relationship between Christ and the Church. All sexual activity outside of this framework is immoral. That includes fornication. That includes adultery. That includes homosexuality. That includes violation of all the other existing structural boundaries.
And, please, do not accuse me of advocating some ridiculous position like "Sex must always result in conception." Also, do not start listing off specific instances of couples who are infertile as if this breaks the typology in place. They don't.
used in the exercise of a committed, life-ling, loving and monogamous partner-ship
I must have asked you this question at least a half-dozen times over several threads. Who made this rule? By what authority did he establish this criteria? If a man rejects this rule (and there are legions of people who reject it) what binds his conscience such that he must obey it anyways?
carl
Those implications flow from the consequences of sexual activity in a particular social context, rather from sexual activity per se.
Consequences defined by whom according to what standard?
If the answer is God, then the standard is derivative of the Holiness of God, and the morality of the behavior does not shift according to context. What is more, He has revealed this standard to us in blindingly clear terms. Adultery for example is always wrong, and no situation can make it right. Fornication is always wrong, and no situation can make it right. Homosexual behavior is always wrong, and no situation can make it right.
If the answer is not God, then I will ask the same questions I ask of liberals over and over and over again. Who defines these things, and by what authority does he define them?
carl
Post a Comment