Wednesday, May 27, 2015

A Kiwi response to the Scots showing the English the way forward (1)

(1) "“Oh, you might say, but we need to press for the 'truth' to win. I agree but I find there are two different versions of what is 'true' about same sex marriage and they are pushing together like two scrums with no signs of one buckling and the referee is getting impatient for the ball to come out. And the different scrums are composed of friends of mine. I would like to not ditch one set of friends for another.”

Hmm, two different truths .. 2+2 makes 4, AND 2+2 makes 5 .. both true? Both acceptable? Requiring those in the math class to learn a new set of ‘truths?’ Peter, if you have friends in both scrums, as indeed I hope we all do, then what sort of friends are they that they don’t deserve to hear your particular version of the two truths? I suppose I must ask again, where exactly is the line you draw .. or is there not one at all?"


My response:

Part of the difficulty of getting our heads around the nature of the differences among Christians over same sex partnerships is that some see the differences as clearly as "Hmm, two different truths .. 2+2 makes 4, AND 2+2 makes 5 .. both true? Both acceptable? Requiring those in the math class to learn a new set of ‘truths?’"  while others see the differences less clearly. 

For instance, what if the analogy was between wave and particle theories of light rather than between 2+2=4 or 2+2=5? These theories can be opposed to each other with much argument on either side. They are also able to be accommodated - at least they were when I studied physics decades ago - so that both theories are simultaneously true!

Are we a church which can acknowledge that we cannot even agree on the nature of the differences between us on these matters?

Then the question of 'the line you draw ... or is there not one at all?'

First, a general comment about 'lines': I am sure we all have them. 

There are lines which mean Anglicans do not want to be (say) Presbyterians and vice versa, as well as potential lines which mean Anglicans might contemplate leaving the Anglican church or at least staging some kind of ecclesiastical protest. 

For instance, I imagine all Anglicans here would have trouble if General Synod agreed to ditch the Nicene Creed from our liturgies. That line is very clear.

But what if General Synod agreed to drop the filioque clause from the Nicene Creed? Would that be a 'line' that led to protest or departure, or a change which one could (reluctantly, grumblingly) live with?

Speaking personally, I have a line around the definition of marriage in our canon on marriage and marriage liturgies, the definition which makes a man and a woman essential to the Christian understanding of marriage. If this definition changed, I would be sorely tried.

Do I have a line on the matter of blessing of same sex partnerships? I have a theological line in this sense: I do not see where the authorisation of such blessings comes from (save that we assert that authority on the basis of (e.g.) the authority we have taken to bless (e.g.) battleships). 

But I live in an Anglican church, in a global Christianity where fellow believers are taking different views on these matters (as expressed here in some confident, robust, well argued comments that all is in order in respect of same sex marriage and the ones out of order are those such as myself who beg to demur). Can I draw a political line around my church, let alone around global Christianity which constrains any accommodation of difference of viewpoint, which rules out all views opposing my own views? At this point I cannot draw that line and for these reasons.

First, for reason of acknowledging the role dissent may play in church life.  If the majority boot turns out to be on the foot of those with a progressive approach, I would hope that space would be permitted for conservatives who dissent from a changed view re blessings of same sex partnerships. Should I not, quid pro quo, as a matter of recognition of the politics of the church, allow that if the conservative view prevails on marriage (as I intuit it may do in ACANZP) then a dissenting view might be permitted on the blessing of same sex partnerships?

Secondly, for reason of respect for fellow Christians and the views they hold as we all grapple with changing times in the Western world. The referendum vote of the Irish people these past few days to legalise same sex marriage is a sign of a tsunami of change over an issue that is turning out to be a challenge for all Western Christians in all churches. The challenge is now not just for Anglicans! 

In such a world it is understandable that many Christians (perhaps even in the Roman Catholic church itself) are asking whether this particular Zeitgeist might be accommodated through a loving response from the church. What they are asking fellow Christians to consider is whether this Zeitgeist is towards good or towards evil? 

We all get it that the Zeitgeist in the 1930s in Germany was towards evil (and recognise that many German Christians failed to discern that). But this Zeitgeist is away from promiscuity, away from casual sex, away from a society in which young gay people feel helpless dissonance and sometimes commit suicide. Is it towards evil? That question puts the church, all Western churches in a dilemma. Dare we answer 'Yes' and doom ourselves to  further loss of membership as people, especially young people turn their backs on us. Dare we answer 'No'? Dare we answer 'Yes' and 'No'?

How is the church in the West to respond to the amazing shift in understanding of marriage going on around us (including among our closest friends and family members)? 

Obviously some commenters here represent the view that the churches should simply go with the Zeitgeist, no further questions please. The answer to the above question is a resounding 'No.'

Some commenters here represent the view that the church should resist the Zeitgeist. Also, no further questions please. The answer to the above question is a resounding 'Yes.'

I am suggesting that out of respect for differing responses to the Zeitgeist we in ACANZP might be a church which says 'Yes' and 'No'. We man up and acknowledge that we are a church with differences, that we are a church where arguments can be mounted and firmly held both for maintaining a traditional Christian understanding of marriage and for offering a prayerful response to those taking up the state's provision of marriage between partners of the same sex.

If we do this, might we keep open lines of communication between 'church' and 'society' in the 21st century which are in grave danger of being shut down.

That is another insight about 'lines' in this situation! We needs lines of communication as well as lines in the sand :)

What do you think? Am I barking mad or barking up the wrong tree?

6 comments:

Father Ron Smith said...

"I am suggesting that out of respect for differing responses to the Zeitgeist we in ACANZP might be a church which says 'Yes' and 'No'. We man up and acknowledge that we are a church with differences, that we are a church where arguments can be mounted and firmly held both for maintaining a traditional Christian understanding of marriage and for offering a prayerful response to those taking up the state's provision of marriage between partners of the same sex." - Dr. Peter Carrell -

Thank you, Peter, for your insightful and helpful unscrambling of the local situation regarding the recognition (or not) by ACANZP of monogamous same-sex relationships - as being, possibly,'according to the will of God'.

One of the grounds on which you have based your premise that such relationships may be permissible by our Church is that they do avoid the necessity for sexual promiscuity - a valid reason for heterosexual marriage recognised by Saint Paul: "It is better to marry than burn".

Sex, of course, is not the only motivation for same-sex marriage. Even the prayer Book indicates that marriage is for the mutual flourishing of two separate people, without necessarily involving procreation. Not all marriages are all about sex! There is such a thing as agape in marriage!

Whatever the Church may do (or not do) about its doctrinal statement about what marriage involves; the outside world now has a different view from what has traditionally been accepted. The Church either accepts the people involved in same-sex marriage, or it rejects them.

I wonder what stance Jesus might take if he were here in person? (Remember how Jesus upended the view of treatment towards (other) sinners by the Establishment?: "Which of you has not sinned?")

Anonymous said...

From Rosemary Behan ..

Well Peter, I was writing a reply, but after today’s post I give up. You are ignoring the fact that the people who make up our church .. Jesus’s church .. are as Parris says, crying out for strong leadership. A leadership our Roman Catholic brothers in Ireland obviously failed to give, and you cannot give .. yes, I believe you are giving in to culture, and definitely to the zeiitgeist. I can’t wait to go home and be with people who do NOT make our children wear gender neutral school clothes. Everything He says teaches me says that sitting on the fence .. being lukewarm .. is not considered hunky dory .. just wishy washy. Below, I will include my reply as far as I had gone .. but it’s not worth it. Despite the number of replies you had to your first post .. most of them from folk MUCH more erudite than me .. you picked me .. so for what it’s worth, here it is.

It isn’t an ‘analogy’ we’re talking about Peter, it’s the’ truth’! You say so yourself, so let’s not bring physics into it. I don’t see, and I’m quite sure most don’t see, how ‘truth’ can accommodate two opposites both being true. This isn’t a question of lets say, Calvinism verses Arminianism, where Scripture leads us to an accommodation is it?

Then you say, “Are we a church which can acknowledge that we cannot even agree on the nature of the differences between us on these matters?”

I’m not completely sure what you mean here, is it relevant? Jesus said that we are either for Him or against Him .. there isn’t a middle way Peter, not with regard to the ‘truth,’ which is why surely, there are some lines we cannot cross?

Your thinking vis-à-vis ‘lines’ seems quite unclear, and the examples you give seem to be examples where one not only CAN make up one’s mind with Scripture as a guide, but one SHOULD, as you say, but none of those examples demands a single truth .. a right way or a wrong way.

You say, “Speaking personally, I have a line around the definition of marriage in our canon on marriage and marriage liturgies, the definition which makes a man and a woman essential to the Christian understanding of marriage. If this definition changed, I would be sorely tried.”
[to be continued]

Anonymous said...

Sorely tried????? What on earth does that mean? As a mother, I have been ‘sorely tried’ many times, but when I can turn for help from my Lord and Master, and the answer is so clear cut that even you say your understanding of it as one [not two] things, then surely ‘sorely tried’ isn’t a decision. I’m ‘sorely tried by the decision of my church to ordain women, and will continue to defend my position within that church because I sincerely believe they made the wrong decision out of ignorance. Again however, ignorance isn’t the question here is it? Scripture is as far as you and I are concerned .. clear. It’s really a question of standing for the truth.

Maybe I’ve buried my head in the sand, but I have yet to read a ‘robust, well argued comment that all is in order in respect of same sex marriage.’ You ought to post them Peter! AND, this is not a difference in viewpoint .. if only it was!!! Then you give your reasons for ‘acknowleding the role of dissent in church life.’ Sigh .. what happened to the old days when I was forbidden by my vicar from following my own interpretation of things? [Sarcasm on] Oh, so the Western world is right, and everyone else is wrong. Riiiiiiiight. That must be like five hundred trillion flies eat s***, so they must be right. [sarcasm off] And what do you mean by ‘a loving response?’ Is it loving to give no leadership but make “allowances.” Is that what Jesus did?

Oh, all the above was just a preamble. The REAL reason we must be both yes and no, is so that we don’t alienate ANYONE. Funny that. All the churches you and I know where there is phenomenal growth, especially among young folk, and who all have many more new converts that they can properly cope with, are led by folk who not only hold an opinion, but teach it from the front. You will lose those folk of course .. but that doesn’t matter to you does it? You’ll be so PC you’ll be saying that our aim is NOT “Go into all the world and make Disciples, baptising them and teaching them.’

Rosemary Behan

Anonymous said...

All valid opinions, I would like to offer mine in relation to this statement from Rosemary, "I don’t see, and I’m quite sure most don’t see, how ‘truth’ can accommodate two opposites both being true." As well as, "That must be like five hundred trillion flies eat s***". Sarcastically, correct?

Firstly, Antarctica (as a continent) has the highest average precipitation levels out of all the continents on earth, however, it is also the driest continent on earth. Both factually true, however, it is considered by many to be the world's largest desert. Food for thought.

Secondly, no one person is capable of accurately estimating the number of flies on Gods' Earth. Try to imagine this, it is estimated there is 17 quadrillion "s*** eating" flies on earth. My question for people who don't see truth in that estimation is, how wrong could they be?

To conclude this opinion. I have personal experience in a marriage falling apart (pre ceremony), I made mistakes and she made mistakes. It is what it is. My parting thought...if you love it, set it free. If it's meant to be, it comes back just not for free.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Rosemary
I really want to clarify one thing above anything else ... this post is not 'picking' on your comment/question and ignoring the others. It is part of a series I intend to make as responses to a series of comments/questions which I want to respect by replying to.

In a number of ways I cannot escape the points you make against me because the line between striving for unity in the church and being the church which is all things to all people is very thin! I am not going to claim that I never veer across the line from one side to the other.

On one matter I do want to make a specific response, the matter of leadership. When I read (say) the comments of the various Michaels/Mikes commenting on this site, I find myself making none of them happy with me (albeit for widely differing reasons). And if I think about the two "Rs", Rosemary and Ron, I am often not saying things that either of you agree with (again, for widely differing reasons)! I suggest I am giving a lead which is not, in fact, that popular and which is not immediately and obviously pleasing people.

It does matter to me whether we lose folks or not. But I readily concede that in a situation where almost any decisive leadership (status quo, change, an attempt at both) will lose some folk, leadership is on a hiding to nothing if the measure is losing no one from our church.

A final reflection (I know I haven't responded to all your points). On the matter of "‘robust, well argued comment that all is in order in respect of same sex marriage.’" I suggest we are seeing those well-argued comments here on this site as those who disagree with the status quo make their arguments. But 'well-argued' is not the same as 'convincingly argued' and I also note on this site that counter arguments are also well made.

Father Ron Smith said...

" I can’t wait to go home and be with people who do NOT make our children wear gender neutral school clothes. "

It seems that the Amish community might be best for anyone thinking in these terms. At least, they stick to their selective uniformity. But I do not see what this has to do with Christian spirituality - or the worth of a person, irrespective of what they might be disposed to wear.

(n.b. 1: St. Paul hasn't done too well with his prescription of 'Hats for Women', in Church). It seems those 'uppity women' don't want to wear them)

(n.b. 2: Good to read about Deborah, the feisty woman judge, in Scripture. I'll bet she wouldn't be told what to wear - in or outside of church!)