Friday, August 30, 2013

Quo vadis for ACANZP?

After a great correspondence at Radner Undone?, Christopher Seitz has offered a couple of significant comments which I post here for discussion.

Effectively Professor Seitz is saying, 'When all is said and done on the respective theological arguments for blessing or not blessing same-sex partnerships, the question is how the majority argument will treat the adherents of the minority argument.'

The twist in what he says is that he is working and writing from the context of North America where the majority argument is the argument in favour of such blessings and the minority adherents are feeling driven out of their churches.

Naturally the question arises Down Under, which way (quo vadis) are we going on these matters?

Anyway, here are the comments:

"C Seitz said...






I’d like to pose a different kind of question. One more from the realm of social-religious history.

I have read the exchanges and much is predictable in the conclusions though the way one gets there is often curious (is Genesis 1-3 not foundational and does it not describe a basic Christian anthropology, in a way the tradition has always reflected?). Clearly we are seeing an argument made on behalf of something unprecedented: rites and pastoral care that see marriage redefined so as to include two men or two women. That part all agree. We are being asked to go to a new place.

Now this would not be the first time the church wrestled with a new thing. The 16th century was a famous one for formal disputations over matters like indulgences, treasury of merit, papal infallibility, and so forth. What is different here is the format. Experts from the ancient universities of Prague, Vienna, Paris, Heidelberg cannot now be assembled, or exact ground rules worked out with civil authorities. We have instead blogs, conferences, general conventions, the Telegraph and other UK broadsheets, and various other fora.

So my question is: with this new thing will come ecclesial division, just as before, so how will that be conducted?

Will Bishops and Dioceses within Provinces, and whole Provinces themselves, which view the new thing as beyond their ability to warrant, be allowed to move forward with the status quo rites and pastoral teaching?

Will they be able, in other words, to inhabit churches whose previous practices they do not hold to be out of date, and so remain as before?

The individual conscience idea is just that: an idea, based upon a dubious warrant.

I am speaking here about whole dioceses inside provinces (provinces that wish to do the new thing); and whole provinces. It seems to me that at this point division is inevitable. We have one group endorsing the new thing that describes homophobia as being unwilling to embrace same-sex marriage. If these are the conditions obtaining to the new thing, invariably we are going to have division. Will the proponents of the new teaching seek to constrain all to conform, or see to a peaceful division, allowing churches, dioceses, provinces to remain with the teaching previously agreed by all?

C Seitz
Peter Carrell said...
Excellent question, Chris. Thank you.
C Seitz said...
You are welcome, Peter.

I have never understood how people want the church to move to a "new place" but also want to constrain members of the same church to follow them, even when it is against their conscience and even when all they want to do is stay with the same theological truths all shared previously (seen in constitutional rites, teaching, understanding of scripture as received in the tradition, etc).

People like +Mark Lawrence are not "leaving" the faith of TEC. Sadly for the progressives, they are in fact dropping the biggest possible anchor. They honor the church they inhabit. They understand others want it to go to a new place. I think this will require a new constitution in TEC, and a new BCP.

For those who wish to stay with the agreed rites and teaching that all formerly inhabited, can they do so? Do these formerly agreed understandings just time out? This is an odd account of the church in time.
Also, I do not think people should delude themselves. These new teachings and understandings of how we understand marriage will in the nature of the case cause division. Honest revisionists admit this and want it to happen. That is at least truthful."

One thing in favour of our church is that our Three Tikanga arrangements have demonstrated historical 'form' on finding a way for the voice of the minority to be treated as importantly as the voice of the majority ... can we do this again?

Addendum for a Sunday read, from Damian Thompson:

"By that point they will be no more in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury than with the Grand Mufti of Egypt – and the label “Anglican” will have fallen out of use. Already it encompasses fundamentalist bigots in Kampala and spaced-out pantheists in San Francisco; the last Lambeth Conference, in which bishops faced each other in mock-Zulu tribal meetings, was the stuff of high comedy. Even in England, “Anglicanism” is past its sell-by date: as the contorted Synod debates over women bishops and gay priests reveal, it’s simply an attempt to sanctify pragmatism.
So are we approaching the last rites of the Church of England? Not at all. There is a demand for a Church that follows public opinion rather than leading it; whose magisterium is shaped by good manners rather than canon lawyers. Plus, the cathedrals are lovely."

Now, why does he say that? Read the larger comment here.

16 comments:

Father Ron Smith said...

"One thing in favour of our church is that our Three Tikanga arrangements have demonstrated historical 'form' on finding a way for the voice of the minority to be treated as importantly as the voice of the majority ... can we do this again?"
- Dr. Peter Carrell -

Thank you, Peter. This is precisely what the LGBT community has been asking for in the Anglican Communion for a long time now - a place for minorities in the Church!

Brian Dawson said...

I hope you don't mind a rare comment by me on your blog Peter.

I think Christopher raises a fair question, but also fails to quite understand a few points.

I am not aware of any diocese or province being 'forced out' of anything. I do see people, parishes, dioceses, and provinces choosing to remove themselves from situations they can no longer live within, as is their right. Bishops are not forced to ordain those they don't believe they should, priests are not forced to marry or bless couples they don't believe they can, in short there is no forcing out.

I have sympathy for those who can't agree with my position. I personally believe the best way forward for our church in the short to medium term is a mixed economy approach, but I also recognise - and respect - that for some even that is too far. They will not be able to stay within a church that accepts the ordination of people in same-sex relationships and / or same-sex marriage. If those things are permitted does that mean those people will be forced out? Possibly, but currently there is a group of people not just forced out, but excluded from coming in on the basis of what some people believe. They have no choice in the matter at all.

So while I have sympathy, ultimately I know who is doing the excluding.

Pax

Brian

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Brian and Ron,
I certainly see what you are saying.

But the way things are looking (not least by looking at the example of the Anglican churches in North America), it looks highly possible that our church could work itself to a position where (using labels to save words) LGBT communities are included at the expense of conservatives.

It would be great to learn more, Brian, of your mixed economy approach. I find nothing of that in Ron's approach which seems quite cheerful about the prospect of the loss of conservatives from our church.

Father Ron Smith said...

"it looks highly possible that our church could work itself to a position where (using labels to save words) LGBT communities are included at the expense of conservatives."

In answer to this projected possibility, Peter; one would need to look at whether - or not - common participation in the Eucharistic Meal would be threatened, by one side of the argument or the other.

This would define more clearly the possibility - or not - of 'living together' in one body. If one side would find this impossible, which side would it be?

After all, this is still the outwardly defining stumbling block against Anglicans being invited to worship with Roman Catholics. The reasons for this 'apartheid' may, at the moment, be different from the issues of gender or sexuality; but the underling premise is not too dis-similar. The 'conservative (RC)' side is refusing inter-communion on doctrinal grounds!

One part of the Christian community does not recognise the authentic 'catholicity' of the other part - to the degree that 'inter-communion' is deemed (by one part only) to be impossible.

On issues of gender and sexuality, I see the Anglican 'conservatives' as being the moral pressure group, perhaps being ready to withdraw from Eucharistic Fellowship with the proponents of Inclusivity.

This has already happened in other parts of the Anglican Communion. Whether or not it could happen here may depend on the willingness of the conservatives to 'live with' the reality of Gay Inclusion.

(The argument reminds me a wee bit of a poster I once saw in the rear window of a passing car: "Feeling the absence of God? Guess who moved?")

mike greenslade said...

"But the way things are looking ... it looks highly possible that our church could work itself to a position where (using labels to save words) LGBT communities are included at the expense of conservatives." (PC)

Kia ora Peter. You make an interesting point. It reads like you are equating the current rejection of LGBT people with the potential rejection of conservatives. I hope I am mis-reading that.

There is a significant difference between the two 'exclusions'. One is imposed on others, while one is self imposed. One is imposed on the basis of rejection of a fixed human condition, the other is on a theological perspective chosen by the believer. One is truly exclusion, the other is factionalism.

I have no doubt that conservatives feel great pain within this situation. It is, however, fundamentally different to the pain felt by those who are currently excluded due to their sexual orientation. To equate the two is just plain wrong.

Anonymous said...

one would need to look at whether -or not - common participation in the Eucharistic Meal would be threatened, by one side of the argument or the other. Fr Smith.

I do find this very difficult to understand. Non-evangelical Anglicans, it seems to me, have a distinct advantage in knowing what evangelical Anglicans believe. Evangelical Anglicans, however, could be forgiven for being confused about what other Anglicans believe. For example (and it is merely a convenient example), Fr Smith uses the honorific Father, but is not in communion with ++++Francis nor +++Bartholomew. Fr Smith's arguments on occasion indicate that he does not favour all the 39 articles. Non-evangelicals are certainly not sola scriptura fans, but neither do the views of some on same-sex marriage necessarily accord with church tradition, which many "high" Anglicans claim to follow. What evangelicals may see in other Anglicans are respect for equality and justice, but there is nothing necessarily Christian at all about those concepts, which are the vague aspirations of secular philosophy. So,the talk about communion above is a tad simplistic.

Anonymous said...

Forgot to give my name!

Nick

Ephraim RAdner said...

Part of the difficulty here is that "living together", at least in a Christian sense, is about more than contiguity. One must be able to speak openly. Indeed, in ecclesial terms, one must be able to "teach".

Ecclesial division comes, not simply when one group doesn't "like" another, but when two forms of teaching attempt to coexist, with all the elements in play that such Christian teaching involves: prayer books, sermons, catechesis, and of course, actual liturgical acts.

At this point, we are indeed seeing such vying teaching emerging as the node of conflict: it is not simply a matter of accepting that so and so has this or that "personal view", and that's "just fine"; what happens when that "personal view" is being "taught" with all the equipment of Christian teaching? Conservatives cannot abide a changed BCP (to take but one example), while liberals cannot abide those who refuse the changed BCP.

Civil law makes the issue clear: what was once "tolerated speech" can easily become illegal "hate speech". At that point, we have indeed crossed the line of division, because sanctions of one kind or another are imposed.

We have been in this situation within the Anglican Church now for several years. And, yes, it works "both ways". But that's just where the problem lies.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Mike,
I don't think 'rejection' is a helpful word here. I am not aware of anyone rejecting anyone in our church currently. (I am aware of people feeling rejected/excluded).

I am talking rather about the theological commitment of our church as it expresses what we believe and the possibility that we will change the formal expression of that belief through canonical if not constitutional change, with the result that we will agree with the beliefs of one group/their supporters and the expense of the beliefs of another group.

It is a theological issue (as well as other issues). It may be worth remembering that if all conservatives left the church today, our church's formal beliefs would not change. The Synodical process would still need to be gone through.

Father Ron Smith said...

I'm sure conflict on various theological issues has been found in the Church in every age. I suppose that, when the issue of slavery was addressed, there would have been those with vested interests who would have left the Church. In our own day, there have been those who took issue with the new Prayer Book - and those who disagreed with women's ministry who have left the Church. That does not necessarily mean that these new understandings were wrong. In fact, most Anglican now feel they may have been long overdue.

Bryden Black said...

Thanks Peter for isoating these particular matters.
As I read the comments to date, one thing stands out clearly: most approach the Church as a mere sociological phenomenon; there's scant attention to the theological depth required of the Credal four notes or marks. To which I ask: does it matter one wit in fact how we therefore associate if most are behaving as if they belong to a voluntary association ...?!

Father Ron Smith said...

" most are behaving as if they belong to a voluntary association" - B.B. -

I don't think too many Anglicans would ever consider that they have been press-ganged into being 'Church' That sort of thinking belongs only to the culture of abject fear. (And I'm not talking about holy fear - that is something altogether different practised by those who honour God because they recognise God's lordship in their lives).

Bryden Black said...

Context Ron; context.

Brian Dawson said...

A belated response from me ...

"I don't think 'rejection' is a helpful word here. I am not aware of anyone rejecting anyone in our church currently." (PC)

Actually currently anyone currently living in a same-sex relationship is rejected from ordination (or in some cases, quite famously, even the opportunity to be discerned for ordination), so there is explicit and deliberate rejection there, and I agree with Mike that this is not the same as feeling pushed out because you can't agree with what's being said or done.

I also agree with you, Peter, that there is a theological component here. But can you see a possible compromise? I can't.

On the mixed economy models, my understanding is that these are under discussion in the House of Bishops. Essentially this would be a return to whence we've come, whereby one diocese may happily go where another would fear to tread. It would be a shift away from the 'no-one moves til we're all ready to go the same way' approach that has only really been around for the past dozen years. In the long term that may not be a viable - or helpful - option, but in the short to medium term I think it is our most likely and helpful option.

Brian

Father Ron Smith said...

" What evangelicals may see in other Anglicans are respect for equality and justice, but there is nothing necessarily Christian at all about those concepts, which are the vague aspirations of secular philosophy. So,the talk about communion above is a tad simplistic.

- Nick - August 31, 2013 -

Sorry for harking back, but, on surveying all the comments, I espied this little gem.

When 'Nick' claims that 'respect for equality and justice' is just "vague aspirations of secular philosophy", he is surely dismissing core values at the heart of Jesus' ministry portrayed in the Gospels. Why, even the O.T embraces such bibilical concepts.

The old Manichaean understanding of the the world as intrinsically 'evil' has no place in either early or present-day Christianity!

Anonymous said...

Fr Smith has paraphrased what I said and has not actually answered the point. There is nothing necessarily Christian about equality and justice in that it depends on whose definition. It does not, however, follow that I am saying that Christianity has no regard for the concepts : a classic fallacy in logic. Perhaps I would have been clearer, had I used the word "exclusively" rather than "necessarily" and said that equality and justice are often the vague aspirations of saecular philosophy. I could have added a couple of UN conventions as well.

Nick