It is my privilege to have received recently two Kiwi critiques of A Way Forward and I have the permission of the authors to publish their critiques to Scribd and link you to their papers. I have also discovered a third critique, UK based, to which I want to link readers here.
Note, these are not all from the same perspective, and certainly not all from "my" perspective!
Les Brighton (NZ) writes here.
Peter Lineham and Mark Henrickson (NZ) write here.
Martin Davie (UK) writes here.
What do you think?
We are fully aware that our voices will be an inconvenience to the Church, a disruption to the longed-for order and unity within the Church. There is already disunity throughout the Anglican Communion, which is unlikely to be reunited in the foreseeable future. This disunity was not created by sexual and gender minorities, but by intolerance and hate. Furthermore, unity cannot be attained by exclusion. Unity by exclusion is contrary to the kerygma of Christ an
ReplyDeleted the Resurrection, which was to be proclaimed ‘to all peoples "
- Peter Lineham and Mark Henderson -
This para. in one of your linked Statements was well stated, in my opinion, Peter. Can't say the same for my opinion on the other two statements, which seem to me to be more 'in line' with your own professed understanding of the situation surrounding Motion 30.
Agape.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeletePlease do not read into my following statement any specific intention to exclude anyone from our church at this time, but as a matter of simple logic and definition the authors are simply wrong to say that "Unity by exclusion is contrary to the kerygma of Christ." Preaching the gospel has always excluded those who reject the gospel or deny the gospel or diminish or add to the gospel, and the unity of those receiving the gospel has always been about the unity of those not excluded by the gospel.
There are reasons why Anglicans, troubled though we are to be united, are not united with (say) Mormons or Muslims, because in each case their response to the kerygma of Christ has excluded them from fellowship with the church.
My own suggestion to Peter and Mark on this point would be to refine the statement to something along these lines, "the unity of the church is not consistent with the gospel when the church excludes fellow believers who have also received the gospel."
Hi Peter
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting those links. I have read the two Kiwi posts and was struck first of all by the difference in tone between them.
Peter and Marks response was filled with the angry narrative of victimhood that one has come to expect from the LGBT lobby. I’d have thought it difficult to persuade people to your point of view when you begin by ascribing to them attitudes of ‘intolerance and hate’.
“This disunity was not created by sexual and gender minorities, but by intolerance and hate. “
“We note that there were no openly identified sexual or gender minority persons on the Ma Whea Commission panel; since this panel was appointed by General Synod / te Hīnota Whānui we take this exclusion as a deliberate (sic).”
“We believe that the closest parallel to the current situation about sexuality is the Anglican Church’s 19th century response to slavery.”
Les Brighton’s review of the way forward document on the other hand completely avoided personal denigration of ‘the other’ and focused primarily upon the theological shortcomings and contradictions of the text.
I happen to agree with Les, which will surprise no one, and particularly with his dismay over the manipulation of Biblical texts, his pastoral concern for young people, and the negative impact upon the good news of the gospel contained within this report.
Les also ventured briefly and politely into what it means to be a ‘gay male’ in particular. I have also sought to canvas this topic on an earlier thread. I sense most Christians have had almost no exposure to the gay scene, and are therefore ignorant as to what it would mean to legitimize this form of sexual expression for our youth.
What is clear from both of these responses, is that NO ONE is happy with the way forward document. Surely that must tell us something.
I’d have thought the LGBT advocates would have welcomed SSB as the Trojan horse for the legitimization of SSM within the Church as that is most surely what it is. Have they learned nothing from their success in the political sphere?
Disunity over trivial matters would be a sign of our immaturity, however disunity over motion 30, the specious notion of ‘two integrities’ and ‘the way forward’ document provides a slight glimmer of hope for the Church.
Brendan McNeill, a simple question - regarding your understanding of 'things Anglican'. How long have you actually been an Anglican? Your arguments often sound curiously like the sort of conservative ideas that lead people to start up their own 'churches' - believing that they have a hot line to God, based on a puritanical understanding of the Scriptures? A straight answer please, if possible.
ReplyDeleteHi Ron
ReplyDeleteI can only publish an edited version of your comment submitted here. The reason is that you go too far in making presumptions about another person.
Peter
""
I happen to agree with Les, which will surprise no one, and particularly with his dismay over the manipulation of Biblical texts, his pastoral concern for young people, and the negative impact upon the good news of the gospel contained within this report. Les also ventured briefly and politely into what it means to be a ‘gay male’ in particular. I have also sought to canvas this topic on an earlier thread. I sense most Christians have had almost no exposure to the gay scene, and are therefore ignorant as to what it would mean to legitimize this form of sexual expression for our youth." - B. McNeill
This statement betrays a dangerous misunderstanding of the situation of what it might constitute to be a 'gay male' - especially one who is a baptised and active follower of Jesus Christ. [... too many presumptions ...]
"
“Brendan McNeill, a simple question - regarding your understanding of 'things Anglican'. How long have you actually been an Anglican?” – Fr Ron
ReplyDeleteRon, the answer to your simple question is ‘not as long as NT Wright or Les Brighton’ – never the less, I’m delighted to find myself in remarkable agreement with these men.
Hi Peter
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading Les's exposition he is an engaging writer!
While Les's points resounded most with me I found value in both submission's.
In Peter and Mark's I concur with concept of the way forward, to avoid potential disharmony and undue confusion, would be best applied nationally rather than regional - actually I would go one step further in saying it is best to be first guided by what is happening re the ACC. I also think the consultation of people with same sex attraction would have added value to the report - whether they should have been appointed to the working group I think would depend on whether there were people with suitable mana within church bodies who identify as such. Given there were those in the working group who identified as sympathetic towards the position of same sex blessings I do not believe their was intential discrimination.
What both submmissions confirm to me is their is desire for greater theological consideration and investigation on this issue before any practicaliies are decided upon. And this can be seen at an international level too. For the spiritual consequences are not only national. It reminds me of what Welby said regarding how the ACC instruments together have in the past have contending many an issue of disagreement over a number of years before a decision to make a way forward was taken. Perhaps we are trying to rush God's timeframe?
Cheers
Jean
I think we are rushing, Jean!
ReplyDeleteHi Peter, grammatical mistakes from outside the arts faculty do not worry me, but when arts professors refer (in the third paragraph of Lineham) to their "principle concern", I find the whole letter ruined.
ReplyDeleteNick
Nick, had it not ioccurred to you - even 'en passant', that the writer might have been talking about concern for a principle? If you expect perfect grammar or spelling on the internet you may have a naive expectation.
ReplyDeleteWith regartd to both Peter's and jean's latest comments on this thread; I seem to remeber an old adage that say: "Justice delayed is justice denied". But, I guess we each have to listen to our own conscience on this and other important issues.
ReplyDeleteHi Ron
ReplyDeleteYou are presuming that "justice" is a form of revelation which trumps God's revelation through Scripture.
If "justice" is the basis on which the church determines what "marriage" is, then let us not restrict change to marriage to same sex couples: let all couples and all threesomes and foursomes and what have you be able to marry. Otherwise we are denying justice to them, and on your principle, that would be abhorrent.
"If "justice" is the basis on which the church determines what "marriage" is, then let us not restrict change to marriage to same sex couples: let all couples and all threesomes and foursomes and what have you be able to marry. Otherwise we are denying justice to them, and on your principle, that would be abhorrent. (Peter commenting on Fr Ron's post.)
ReplyDeletePeter to be fair to Fr Ron, he appears to find it objectionable that gay brothers should marry, but with that one exception, I think you have summarised his position quite well. Just quite why he would persecute these men and find their love abhorrent remains a mystery, after all 1 Cor 5 only condemns heterosexual incest and Jesus was silent on the matter.
Hi Nick
ReplyDeleteIf I understand you correctly, your principled and principal criticism of that particular paper is that it is unprincipled in its approach to spelling principal, and I interpret that to mean that the principle of doctrinal papers is principally that they are well spelled or spelt. And perhaps grammar and syntax also matter too.
But I am unsure whether I am in agreement with you on these principles as the principal key to understanding a doctrinal paper is its principles and not its spelling!
" let all couples and all threesomes and foursomes and what have you be able to marry. Otherwise we are denying justice to them, and on your principle, that would be abhorrent." - Dr. Peter Carrell -
ReplyDeletePeter, we don't need to descend into hyperbole about this. Have you ever heard me fighting the cause of 3-person marriage, ot the marriage of 'what-have you's'. Anyway, that would be quite against the law. Common sense tells us that same-Sex Couples may be legally married. It is what the Churc h is going to do about this that concerns me.
By the way, apropos the FoCA Meeting yesterday, I am informed that several local Baptists were attracted to the meeting, it would appear to have met their standards of conservative theology. Is that good enough for Anglicans?
Hi Ron, Jean, Brendan
ReplyDeleteA further thought about "justice" and relationships.
Justice does rub up against "definition" in another context, that of family.
A child and a parent are equal human beings if we ask questions such as Are they equal before the law? Are they equal in the sight of God?
But if we then said, "So justice means that a parent may not exert unequal power over a child," something recoils within us because, by definition, the parent is not the child, the child is not the parent, and the parent has a right to exert unequal power over the child, in order to ensure that through discipline the child grows to understand right from wrong, safe from unsafe practice, good manners from bad manners, etc.
Now justice nibbles at matters such as "discipline" (May the parent use physical force to discipline the child? being a question asked in countries such as our own in recent years) but justice, even in that conversation, has not altered the fact that the parent is in charge of the child (e.g. may discipline through time out, restriction on activities, diminishment of privileges and pocket money, etc).
The child, from the perspective of human equality, may cry out in rage "It's unfair and unjust that my parents have power over me," but society understanding the importance of distinguishing the parent from the child, the role of the parent in bringing up the child, etc, says back to the child, "Yeah, right!"
In the context of relationships essential to the ordering of society, justice is both important and vital, but it is not supreme over basic definitions of what a parent, a child, and (I argue) a marriage is.
I do sometimes wonder whether our relationshop in Christ (as; 'bride of Christ') is being given second place in these arguments to the marriage of human beings. Scripture makes the point that human marriage is for this world only. There is no marriage or being given in marriage in the after-life.
ReplyDeleteThere are two important things going on in human marriage: 1. The mutual comfort and support of a couple for one another, and 2. The procreation and nurture of children.
Human sexuality is part of the 'mutual comfort and support of one another' (applicable to any legal couple relationships) that will not be continued in the after-life.
Procreation is not necessary for a marriage to be contracted in Church - a factor borne out in the experience of many couples, so not strictly necessary for a vaild Christian marriage.
If human marriage is only for 'this world'; what, one earth, is all the fuss about? It is not a requirement for eternal life in Christ.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteI have never heard you fighting for the cause of the marriage of three people, but I am asking the question whether, on your own logic re justice, you ought to be fighting for that cause!
However I do not want to be lacking in concern for one question you raise: if a couple are married according to the law of the land, what is the church's response to that couple (whatever kind of couple they may be)? I happen to think that we ought to be exercising our minds as to how we respond, but our response, in my view, would/should be motivated by compassion and not by justice.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteThe response to your question about why we bother so much about marriage when it is for this life only is that through Scripture we see God being bothered as to how we live our lives in this life; alternatively put, we are called to be disciples of Jesus Christ, to live lives which have a certain shape to them rather than one which is merely conformed to the ways of this world.
It would be odd if everything about how we lived as disciples was of interest to God (time, money, use of resources and gifts, attitudes to others, forgiving of sins against us, etc) except that our most intimate relationships were of no interest to God.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteRe the FCA conference yesterday:
1. I personally recognised no Baptists but I did recognise 100s of Anglicans!
2. Considering that the lead speaker is a Canon of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, it would be a considerable piece of theological gymnastics to determine that what he said to us was in any way "unAnglican"! (It was entirely of a piece with evangelical Anglicanism as I have known it for 56 years. I very much hope that evangelical Anglicans remain accepted as Anglicans in the same way that Anglo-Catholic Anglicans remain accepted as Anglicans).
Well done Peter, that was impressive. I think the letter is personal. The intolerance and hate suggestion perhaps shows more emotion than proof. I thought the obvious error might indicate a bit too much personal feeling, though unlike Brendan I would not say victim viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteNick
Hi Peter
ReplyDeleteI believe I understand what you are intending to convey re justice or in particular social justice. While a component of social justice is inequality so is morality.
I do not know of too many major social justice issues whereby inequality is not caused in some way by immoral behaviour. Usually this involves the active abuse of people around abuse of power and unfair treatment. For example Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees because of their lack of morals in dealing fairly with those under their care - one requirement for you, another for us. Or Aparthied - one system for you, another system for us.
SSM or SSB within the church doesn't fit as neatly into the concept of social justice as I believe people are led to believe. Is it abuse or unfair treatment to maintain a moral standard? Such standards are set not only for Minister's of Religion but also Teachers, Doctors and many others. It wasn't the Pharisees moral standards such as caring for widows Jesus questioned but their own attempts to avoid them!
Where does popular culture get it's moral values from? Where do Christian's? Won't this inevitably lead to different conclusions?
e.g. Prostitution is morally acceptable therefore women who are involved in this activity are like all other workers therefore it would be a matter of justice and equality to deny anyone the freedom to open a brothel
My conclusion: it can be justified that denying or saying no to anyone or any group is matter of justice and equality depending upon where your morality stems from. I still believe most social justice issues stem from teaching aligned with biblical values but this is beginning to change and creates confusion.
Blessings
Jean
Thanks Jean
ReplyDeleteJustice is morally complicated and morality can be complicated by considering its relationship to justice!
Hi Bosco and Brian
ReplyDeleteIt does seem difficult to establish what the traditional understanding of tradition is!
I sense we are talking past each other a little, while also making some important points in response to what each of us is saying.
To go back to my rivers and lake and rivers flowing from the lake image, it seems possible (pace Bosco) to talk as though the whole valley in which the rivers and lake lie as "tradition"; it seems also possible to talk (pace the Roman Catholic church, in some documents, but point re V2 above noted) as though tradition=Tradition is some kind of parallel to Scripture (albeit sometimes mirroring the content of Scripture and sometimes not).
My sense is that when Anglicans talk "tradition" post Reformation it is both a shift from any sense of a parallel to Scripture and a shearing off the tradition/Tradition of extraneous elements, i.e. those that do not fit with Scripture, so that for Anglicans, tradition becomes (effectively) an accumulation of received interpretation of Scripture.
Of course that approach to tradition receives a bumpy ride in Anglican history, e.g. the Anglo-Catholics wish to restore shorn off elements to the tradition, and some strands of liberal/broad theology (especially when held by Anglo-Catholics ("liberal catholicism"?)) seem to be ad hoc (cf. here Fr Ron robustly holding firmly to a Catholic/traditional understanding of the Body and Blood of Christ while consistently arguing for change to a Catholic/traditional understanding of marriage).