Saturday, February 2, 2013

What is persuasive in Auckland?

Updated update: I do not agree with everything a commenter here says, but am interested by his observations about 'cultural Marxism' and thus find it fascinating that none other than Cranmer's blog latest post has a reference to this phenomemon, here.
UPDATE: Likely Monday before I get a full report of today's proceedings in, but, in the meantime, a commenter has pointed us to this interesting Down Under article in the Oz media. A brief note relating it to the hui: we managed, at all times, to work our discussions in the context of the worship of God, our discipleship following Christ, and do everything to the glory of God.

Today's post from Auckland

Great venue (Auckland cathedral). Pleasant company (whatever my views on what people say, I like their company). Great food (for a slightly spreading middle ager, not too many calories). Yes, yesterday was a good first day at the Hui. And a long day. It was after 9.30 pm when I arrived back at my accommodation.

Okay, I heard plenty that I disagreed with, but how about noting what I have found persuasive here? The following thoughts, I underline, are my summarising thoughts in my words. Do not mistake them for the 'views' of 'the other side'!

(1) Whatever we make of the arguments for change in our church, we have a situation in which people who love Christ and walk with him as his disciples differ on the question of how we live according to God's Word. A proposal put forward yesterday, but not greatly taken up in discussion, is that we need to pay attention to Romans 14, which is a Pauline addressing of the matter of when Christians disagree sharply and potentially divisively. Evident to me, as far as the church is represented at this hui, is that no one wants to leave our church or see anyone leave our church. We can endlessly bat to and fro the meaning of Scripture on sexuality, but the breakthrough could come through consideration of other parts of scripture.

(2) The situation we are in as both church and society is not only about the question, "What does Scripture say?", it is also "What does our discussion (let alone any resolution of it) say to people self-identifying as gays and lesbians about their value as people. We may not intend to oppress or destroy anyone by our exegetical discussions and our processes in making decisions, but the effect of our talking can be to suppress people being themselves, even to ghettoize or exclude them, or worse. That is an extraordinary pastoral situation to be in as a church.

(3) Through various presentations a quiet question and one that has been emerging for sometime in global debate is the question of whether Scripture addresses the matter of Christian disciples who live responsible lives under God in stable, faithful, permanent same-sex partnerships. At the end of yesterday my reflection is that this is a real and lively question to consider. I heard nothing by way of exegesis, hermeneutics, or theological reflection which suggested a substantial, convincing "positive" answer to that question is at hand. That is, we are a long way from the question being answered by an assured theology of blessing of such relationships (that is, through blessing, signalling that God approves as God does of marriage).

Conversely, as a conservative trying very hard to listen to God, to people's experience of life in Christ, and to understand what it means to be a frail, fallible human being (that is, as sexual sinner in a church of sexual sinners, which sometimes is marked by (say) divorces, subsequent remarriages, confessed addictions to pornography, adulterous affairs, etc) I am a long way from dismissing the question. I sense I am not alone among conservatives here.

If I can I will report in later today. Otherwise it might be Monday ...


carl jacobs said...


"What does our discussion (let alone any resolution of it) say to people self-identifying as gays and lesbians about their value as people."

Homosexuality isn't an identity. It's a behavior. We derive our identity from out Creator, and we understand that identity by what He reveals. We do not self-derive our identity from our own internal examinations of our own desires be they ever so authentic. Remember also that the value of a man is intrinsic. It is independent of his behavior. So you shouldn't be worried about what your discussion says about the value of gays and lesbians as people. It says nothing at all. You should be concerned about what your discussion says about their behavior.

The idea that there is a 'gay identity' is a rebellious attempt at self-creation. It is an assertion of independence from the created order and it should not be legitimized. It is not now and never has been and never will be a part of the created ontology of man. "Male and female created he them." Man for woman. Woman for man. Complementarianism is inherent in our basic design, and self-evident to even the most casual observer. It is this very existence of human sexuality itself that reduces homosexuality to nothing but confusion.

This is why Paul uses homosexuality as an obvious picture of unregenerate man rebelling against the evidence of Creation. Just as unregenerate man rejects the natural use of a woman and lusts after other men, so unregenerate man rejects the natural worship of God and lusts after idols. He suppresses what is obvious. Heterosexuality is obvious. The imperative to worship of God is obvious. Homosexuality is a willful suppression of the obvious. Paganism is a willful suppression of the obvious. This is the parallel that Paul makes. If homosexuality results from willful suppression of knowledge of the truth, then it is not of human nature. Be careful therefore to whom you listen.


Anonymous said...

""What does our discussion (let alone any resolution of it) say to people self-identifying as gays and lesbians about their value as people. We may not intend to oppress or destroy anyone by our exegetical discussions and our processes in making decisions, but the effect of our talking can be to suppress people being themselves, even to ghettoize or exclude them, or worse."

I disagree. People who self-identify as "homosexual" are operating under a demonic lie. That lie is the real oppression. We cannot possibly oppress them by speaking the truth in love, and we do them no favours by repeating the lie that they have a same-gender identity.

People who struggle with sexual brokenness need the truth and the healing power and grace of God.

"he question of whether Scripture addresses the matter of Christian disciples who live responsible lives under God in stable, faithful, permanent same-sex partnerships"

A person in a same-sex partnership is not a disciple. There is no such thing as a responsible same-sex partnership. There is no such thing as responsible sin.

Sin is sin. Soft soaping this and buying into the liberal-Marxist perversion of truth and language gets us absolutely nowhere.

Anonymous said...

People who struggle with same-sex attraction can and do find real freedom in the healing grace and power of God's love. God can and does provide healing for same-sex attraction. Our God is powerful to save! THAT is true liberation, not the demonic and oppressive legalism of political correctness spouted by Liberal-Marxist "churches". They would happily keep people who are afflicted with same-sex attraction oppressed and enslaved to sin for no better reason than their mindless devotion to an infantile political ideology.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant analysis of the state of Anglicanism.

"In the ecumenical sphere, Anglicans have substantially retreated from numbers of key Christian issues in recent years. We find ourselves unable to support the Roman Catholic Church over right to life issues and remain largely silent regarding end of life ethics. Such causes, essential matters of life and death, do not appear to elicit significant interest from liberal Anglicans. Yet they lie at the very heart of the gospel which has as its centrepiece the new life Christ offers us at Easter and which is set over against the contemporary secular “culture of death”.

There are, of course, those who will say that “ traditionalists need to move with the times”. However, my argument is that the Christian faith is a revealed religion whereby Scripture and Tradition provide a rock from which to evangelise in every age. And our traditions are often more important than we realise.

The modern Anglican Church no longer seems much informed by revelation or tradition. In its current state it teaches little and leaves nominal adherents floating in a sea of personal choice uninformed by little, if any, reference to God.

Unless Anglicanism can set out on the difficult journey of faith recovery, we can expect to hear more about ageing gracefully, the violence of Melbourne’s CBD, climate change and the evils of banking and gambling. But don’t expect to hear too much of Jesus – nor of contentious moral issues. An Anglicanism of compassion without faith and sound doctrine is no longer a church but a socio-political organisation."

Anonymous said...

Off topic, but a fascinating and very creative attempt by the Orthodox Church at outreach to the punk/goth/metal subcultures in the USA. It's a zine called 'Death To The World'.

Quite beautiful and interesting articles.

Anonymous said...

What same-sex "marriage' has done to Massachusetts.

An extremely disturbing report on the flood of oppression, bigotry, hate, and outright terror that has been unleashed against against the people of Massachusetts and especially against it's churches since legalising same-gender "marriage".

You think this will not happen in New Zealand?

Question: In the examples below, who are the real bigots?

"By the following year it was in elementary (thats primary schools in NZ!!!) school curricula - with hostility toward parents who disagreed. Kindergartners in Lexington, Mass. were given copies of a picture book, Who's in a Family?, telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, just like their own parents. When David Parker - parent of a kindergartner - calmly refused to leave a school meeting unless officials agreed to notify him when discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and jailed overnight."

"In 2007 a federal judge ruled that because of "gay marriage" in Massachusetts, parents have no rights regarding the teaching of homosexual relationships in schools. The previous year the Parkers and Wirthlins had filed a federal civil rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judge dismissed the case. The appeals judges later upheld the first judge's ruling that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children; and schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt out their children. Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!"

"In 2012 someone threatened to burn down a Catholic Church in Acushnet which posted the words "Two men are friends, not spouses" on its outdoor sign. The church immediately received a flood of profane phone calls. At least one person threatened to burn down the church. An activist nailed a sign to church's fence saying, "Spread love not hate." Activists staged a protest outside of the Sunday Mass to intimidate parishioners with a sign saying, "It is legal for two men or women to be spouses." Neither the police nor the District Attorney pursued the threats as a hate crime or other offense."

"In 2009 angry homosexual activists terrorized the Park Street Church in Boston while it was holding an ex-gay religious training session inside. They demonstrated next to the doors and windows with signs, screaming homosexual slogans. One of them held a bullhorn against the window outside the meeting, bellowing at the participants inside. Police did nothing to stop them, even though they were standing inside the historic cemetery adjacent to the church."

"In 2005 hundreds of homosexual activists terrorized the Tremont Temple Baptist Church with makeshift coffins, screaming obscenities through loudspeakers as the national pro-family group Focus on the Family held a religious conference inside. The crowd was so threatening that attendees could not leave the church for the lunch break. The Boston riot police stood in front of the church doors, but did nothing to disperse the protesters who were also completely blocking the street."


Anonymous said...

Resources on our true Anglican heritage.

"By constitution the Church of England is a Reformed, Protestant, and Evangelical denomination."

liturgy said...

Re your update, Peter: are you suggesting that the inability to support right to life and the silence regarding end of life ethics, the focus on violence, climate change, and the evils of banking and gambling are not being discussed in the context of the worship of God, our discipleship following Christ, and doing everything to the glory of God? Are you suggesting that Jesus is more central to NZ Anglicanism (cf our provincial Christmas message)? Would we even dare to reveal how many receive communion in our churches in our 4million-population country this day? You have just been to the fourth hui on this particular issue, our province also has a Commission running on this. Can you list off some other things our province is devoting such time, money, and energy to [while parishes with 20-50 attending meet this morning]. Our situation really doesn’t sound that different to the article you are highlighting.



Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bosco,
I am only asserting that on this particular matter, and on this occasion, we rather wonderfully managed to conduct our conversations in the context of a shared commitment to discipleship and living to the glory of God. That is, our church may not be on a slippery slope to secularism.

You would have to persuade me and others that there was another way to conduct ourselves on the issue of human sexuality. To not invest some money in conversation would be to certainly divide as a church. To invest money in conversation does not guarantee we will not divide but it offers some chance we will not.

As to why those who press for change in this area at risk of dividing our church, I think you would need to raise the question with them rather than me. I am quite clear on my reasons for resisting change and/or managing change so that conservatives might remain in our church: a novelty is being proposed for our church without agree theological consensus supporting it.

mike greenslade said...

Hi Peter.
If you are interested in 'cultural marxism', you will find all about it behind the grassy knoll, dancing and smoking a spliff with Elvis.

Don't worry - Westboro have it sorted for us.

Anonymous said...

We has several hundred at St Christopher's today.

Perhaps those with 20-50 need to look seriously at the kind of theology being preached, the level of support for youth and young families, and the kind of worship being used.

Liberal theology, poor or no youth and young family support, and dated music (Hymns for Yesterdays Church) is a recipe for decline and death.

Peter Carrell said...

Dear Commenters,
To have your comments published I need them to be focused on issues.

But issues here are not about how people begin a sentence.

In commenting about issues I ask you to use respectful language of other Christians and Anglicans, even if you have a strong disagreement with them.

I have just deleted rather than published two comments that fall below such standards. In an ideal world I would moderate/edit comments to bring them to standard. But my world is far from ideal and my time is short.

Anonymous said...

The post above should have read "We had". Typos are an extension of Murphy's Law.


was there a problem with my last post?

Andrew Reid said...

Hi Peter,
Just a brief note on the Anglican situation in Melbourne which Fr James Grant refers to in his article. While the diocese does have a tendency to focus on the wider political and social issues of the day, many Anglican parishes have their eyes fixed on Jesus, proclaim him faithfully and complement it with gracious lives and good works. I share his frustration with the public face of the diocese, but your readers shouldn't feel that the situation in Melbourne is lost or similar to other liberal dioceses around the world. We recently attented the CMS Victoria Summer Under the Son conference, which was a group of some 700 Melbourne Anglicans expressing their commitment to local and global mission in Christ's name. We're not a majority, but we're not a remnant either.

Tim Chesterton said...

A person in a same-sex partnership is not a disciple

My goodness!

Well, we could use that sort of language about things Jesus actually talked about, of course.

'A person who owns two coats and hasn't given the extra one away to someone who needs it is not a disciple'.

'A person who gets divorced and then remarries is not a disciple'.

'A person who stores up treasure for themselves on earth is not a disciple' (note he does not say 'excessive treasure' but just 'treasure').

'A person who does not give away all they have is not a disciple'.

'A person who gets angry is not a disciple'.

'A person who kills an enemy instead of loving them is not a disciple'.

'A person who invites family over for dinner instead of people who can't invite them back is not a disciple'.

A disciple is a follower of Jesus. All of the above statements would be justifiable from the actual teachings of the One being followed. But I think most of us would agree that the statements are rather harsh. The fact is that all of us have areas of our discipleship where we are being less than faithful, and other areas where we're not doing too badly. To randomly pick one area of disobedience (if we're even agreed that it is disobedience, which many Christians are not) and use it to invalidate every other area of a person's discipleship seems way over the top to me.

liturgy said...

Fair enough, Peter, for you to respond to my comment in a certain direction, but I want to return to my point that there is so much energy, time, and money devoted to this issue.

It is of interest to me that the special Commission reports to the Hui that they are only receiving an average of one submission a week and so they are keen to try and drum up more interest. Most Anglicans wouldn’t have a clue that the hui was even on. Even on this site it is only the same old half a dozen that participate in the dialogue.

Parsing differently your point about we are stuck if we try going head-on at the bits of the Bible we can connect to sexuality – my wondering is, had we put this kind of energy, money, and time into some other more central parts of our mission, might we have found that we are not dying a la Melbourne, and that any issues we had around sexuality were not as intense because we have our foundations more firm and our focus more clear.

I guess we will now never know. Sex is always far more sexy.



Peter Carrell said...

In an important sense, Bosco, we are putting time and energy intensively into our mission: the time and energy being put daily and weekly into our mission through our ministry units (meaning not only individual parishes, schools, etc) but also our diocesan youth, social work, etc ministries.

Hermeneutical Hui and such represent a very small amount of time and energy by comparison. Perhaps the investment made in the Hui and such is not so much about sex being sexy but about sex being an issue of such profoundness that we need to reflect as a whole church?

Father Ron Smith said...

" Perhaps the investment made in the Hui and such is not so much about sex being sexy but about sex being an issue of such profoundness that we need to reflect as a whole church?"
- Dr. Peter Carrell -

I agree with you in this instance, Peter; in that sexuality - God-given - is perhaps the most basic human function (certainly in the area of procreation - but also, in the important area of loving and faithful connection). It is this latter function that we seem to be have the most difficulty with - but which Jesus himself, did not seem to dwell on - nearly so much as the other - less private - functions of interaction with other human beings.

If the Church had not focussed so much on what it sees as the dangers of the mis-use of our common human sexuality, there might have been a lot more time to interact more agreeably on issue of far more importance - that Jesus did actually major on in his teaching and exhortation. He did, however, take the trouble to criticise heterosexual unfaithfulness!

Loving action was the true focus of the ministry of Jesus. He never had much time for the self-righteous.

Anonymous said...

Contrary to Liberal myth Jesus did place an important emphasis on sexual purity. Thus the Church, in seeking to remain faithful to Jesus, must also do so. Jesus said marriage was one man and one women for life, thus to be faithful to Jesus, the Church can only define marriage as one man and one women for life.

Jesus was also interested in other issues. But that fact does not allow us to ignore him on sex and marriage.

Jesus was interested in His disciples doing the will of His Father. Thus the only truly loving action is that which is in conformity with the will of God. Same-gender marriage and same-sex relationships are thus out of bounds for the Church and the individual Christian disciple.

The Church must stick to God's grace alone, and not import the self-righteous legalism of Liberal-Marxist political correctness.

liturgy said...


I must have missed the years of agonising, the threats of separation, the court cases, the refusal to share communion, the hui year after year, the powerful commissions when heterosexuals decided to abandon the “for life” part of non-liberal-myth, non-liberal-marxist-politically-correct-driven part of Jesus’ important emphasis on sexual purity.

It is interesting to me that some of those heterosexuals who have abandoned that “for life” teaching are suddenly very insistent on the “one man and one women (sic twice?)” part of the equation for homosexuals who are seeking the “for life” part they have themselves abandoned. Even at the hui.



Father Ron Smith said...

Thanks, Bosco, for your clear understanding of the emphasis Jesus place on monogamous faithfulness in sexual relationships.

As far as I can see in the Scriptures, Jesus only made one remark which might perceivably have been to do with homosexual persons; that in Matthew 19, verse 13, where he spoke of eunuchs who have been so 'from their mother's womb' - that's as near as he seem to have got to mentioning intrinsic gays.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bosco,
I am not aware of any clergy (conservative or liberal) who have given up thinking that marriage is "for life". None who have, for instance, counselled couples in pre-marital preparation that they do not need to take their vows with the utmost seriousness.

You presumably are talking not about to a change in the doctrine of marriage but the needed pastoral care in church and in society when marriages break apart with awful destructive force on families and, ultimately, on society.

Are you advocating that the church should not participate in second or third marriages? If so, you have dominical support, and a good point to make to those of us who have participated in weddings of divorced persons.

liturgy said...

Peter, I am not as sanguine as you about Anglican clergy. Does the seventh marriage of a man (all previous partners still alive) really fit in your description? Do you really know of no priests whose “counselling of couples in pre-marital preparation” consists of little more than choosing the options for the wedding?

Am I the only one who is shocked when at the hui there is “a plea from several speakers for serious work to begin on the theology of marriage.” Serious work on the theology of marriage. Begin!

So we did not even begin to do serious work on the theology of marriage when heterosexuals wanted sequential monogamous pairing, but when homosexuals want to commit to lifelong fidelity – whoah!!! Let’s just wait a minute (I mean decade or two!) Before we do that we need to begin some serious work on the theology of marriage.

Thankfully, I am not alone. At the hui at least one person concluded that, even before beginning some serious work on the theology of marriage, he could see that if, as so many keep noisily proclaiming, this is not about homosexuality but about faithfulness to scripture, we would be much more likely to exclude divorced people than homosexual people.



Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bosco,
To be fair to the speakers proposing work on the theology of marriage, the specific recognition by them is that if as a church we moved from 'merely' seeking support for blessing of same sex partnerships to formally embracing such blessing under the title/category "marriage" then this should be the subject of theological endeavour. And fair enough too: a novelty is then being proposed which begs the question of theological support.

I suggest worrying about divorce is a red-herring in this particular context: if as a church we forswore never to marry divorced persons again, would that not remove an apparent reason for marrying persons of the same gender. Surely, a stronger theological case should honour such couples than "because we marry divorced persons we can marry you too"?

Father Ron Smith said...

I discussion on your last post, Peter; we need to consider the fact that Jesus DID counsel against divorce of heterosexual persons. He is never recorded as ever having said that a eunuch could not marry a eunuch. If all arguments are based on Scriptural provenance, the words of Jesus are quite clear about divorce - a matter that the Church seems well able to accommodate. There are no words of Jesus about intrinsic gays not being allowed to marry.

Anonymous said...

Marriage is for life. I have always said that. But Bosco's point is mistaken.

Failure in one area does not justify further failure in another. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The Churche's failure re divorce is not an excuse for same-sex marriage.

Anonymous said...

You're right, Shawn, and I struggle to understand the point Bosco is seeking to make.

Is he saying: 'Anglicans no longer impose a discipline (as they used to) regarding divorce, so we can't or shouldn't do oppose homosexual "marriage"?'

If this is his point, it is manifestly fallacious and illogical.

Or if he is saying something else, he should spell out what he is saying.


liturgy said...

Ah, Shawn, it didn't take long to get back into the let's-just-make-up-stuff-and-say-Bosco-said-it response.

Where was my "point" that "The Churche's failure re divorce is an excuse for same-sex marriage"?

I can acknowledge I'm not as sharp, or possibly even as interested, as some in all the fine details of this kind of discussion - but suggesting that kind of reasoning would have to be pretty darn stupid!

So when I read that response, basically all I see is "Bosco is REALLY thick!"


Straw-man Bosco

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bosco, Shawn, Martin
Lest we descend to a ping-pong match re He said/No I didn't.
It would be helpful to be clear about what conclusion you are arguing for, Bosco.
Even I thought it was that if we have permitted remarriage of divorce we should permit same sex marriage.
I think I am wrong (in the light of your response immediately above) and now read you as simply querying why some people have so much energy for one issue re marriage and not for the other. Am I now correct?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron,
Another deleted comment. Please comment on the issue at hand and not on the manner of another commenters argument (unless dealing with a direct matter such as a commenter misquoting you or misunderstanding you).

Anonymous said...

"Or if he is saying something else, he should spell out what he is saying."

That would be helpful. My conclusion was a reasonable assumption, as Peter confirms. But if I am wrong, then a little clarification would help shed more light.

liturgy said...


I re-read my comments in this thread and struggle to see where I was arguing for what I agree would be a “manifestly fallacious and illogical” position that “The Churche's failure re divorce is an excuse for same-sex marriage”.

Let’s leave to one side the tendency to read manifestly fallacious and illogical reasoning into the comments of others.

To be “clear about what conclusion I am arguing for”? Well actually I didn’t think my comments were arguing for anything at all. I didn’t think each comment here needed to be arguing for some conclusion. I thought I was just joining the conversation. But, every time I do join the conversation here – something like this tends to happen. I think I keep misjudging the culture of those who dominate here.

So, yes, if there has to be a conclusion that I am arguing for, Peter’s more careful read of my comments would be a fair short summary.

I was affirming Peter’s insight that banging away at the half dozen verses we disagree about is not going to get us further. We are stuck there. His suggestion, in this post, was to approach it more laterally (his example: Romans 14). I was affirming that laterality – but clearly we quickly headed straight back to the comfort of the “manifestly fallacious and illogical” position.

The conclusion I am arguing for is to be more honest with ourselves. Honest about our lack of deep theology (or even shallow discussion) in other areas (episcopacy, ordination, liturgy, the Trinity, marriage, Christ’s divinity, abortion, revelation, euthanasia,…) Honest about what drives us with such energy about gays (cf. heterosexual issues). Honest about our lack of honesty with ourselves about issues that should focus our energy (how big are we? What is the quality of training? Are we merely a shrinking aging leisure activity with, in Christchurch, the added tragedy that some of our under-insured club-houses have been destroyed?) Honest with ourselves that we never really thought deeply about changing our divorce rules, that when that was done few would have envisaged clergy married three times, taking the wedding of someone on their seventh marriage, divorce & episcopacy (a la the Bible), every second (or so) church wedding being of a divorcee…

Maybe, just maybe, if we had paid more attention to important things as we did them, just maybe, as with Peter’s Romans 14 approach, we might have been approaching the current discussion with more honesty and integrity and have been on a better path to explore this particular track from. I certainly do not agree at all that in a theology of marriage, discussing our approach to divorce is a red herring.

Are they sufficient conclusions for me to be arguing for?

Rather than “The Churche's failure re divorce is an excuse for same-sex marriage”?



Peter Carrell said...

Thank you Bosco for your clarification!

I will not publish comments which further debate the question of what Bosco did/didn't say.

I will publish comments which discuss how we can be more honest as a church about what we have decided, what we may decide, where we are headed and what shoals or glorious destinations lie before us.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Shawn
To be consistent with what I have said above I need to moderate your comment.

I am happy to publish this as it is a statement of your view (and not a debate of what he did or didn't say):

""I will not publish comments which further debate the question of what Bosco did/didn't say."

Fair enough. But I want to be on record that I object to his claim that "Let’s leave to one side the tendency to read manifestly fallacious and illogical reasoning into the comments of others." "

I am also happy to publish this as it is a contribution from you to ongoing debate about the issue at hand:

"And I think we ARE in a position to argue against SSM, regardless of whatever supposed deficiencies there have be re the theology of marriage in the past.

One of the primary reasons we have not developed a strong theology of marriage in the NZ Anglican Church is because of the liberal domination of Church institutions over the last decades. Marriage was just too old fashioned and reactionary to deal with when we had much sexier subjects like the Treaty and left wing notions of social justice. "

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Shawn,
If you want to ask a question of another commenter what their view of something is, you are most welcome to put the question in a comment. It is then up to that commenter whether they respond or not.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Peter.

I would like to say to Bosco that at no point have I ever deliberately or maliciously mis-represented what he has said.

But clearly there is miscommunication, and I want to take responsibility for any part I have played.

I will make a particular point of being very careful to ask for clarification before commenting on your posts, and if I do get it wrong, please do not assume it is deliberate. I am happy to receive correction if I do.

MichaelA said...

On a slightly different note, both Jesus and his apostles did permit Christians to divorce in some situations.

We can't base an argument on the premise that divorce is not permitted for Christians in any circumstances.