Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Where is my 1 July post???


A few weeks ago I promised or at least seriously indicated intention to publish something on "the (new) way forward for ACANZP, responding to our Archbishops' invitation for people to make suggestions.

Obviously that hasn't happened since today, as I write, is 6th July.

I plead busyness and the like. I am hoping that next week which is "diary-flexible" I can find the space to think and the time to write.

In the meantime, below are some links to some articles by way of "preamble". I may add more links if I find some worth following.

Oh, yes, and as a political junkie I have been somewhat distracted by international political events in the last week :)




You may comment, respectfully, thoughtfully, graciously on SSM/SSB ... my "ban" for June is now lifted. I likely will not engage with your comments in order to carve out the space and time I need for my own thinking.


Anonymous said...

Reality: there is no single point at which one *holding the line* against SSM is not only scriptural but consistent. Faithful opposition to SSM entails as many further changes in the way people of the *North* think and live as, say, Christian pacifism or Christian socialism. And these changes are similarly grounded in the teaching of Jesus, and to those who embrace them, inspiring.

Corollary: Those evangelicals whose arguments have the breadth to be self-consistent are implicitly advocating even more *change* than the proponents of SSM.

Bowman Walton

Peter Carrell said...

I think I understand what you are saying, Bowman, but can you give an example ... also, is the converse not also true, that "faithful promotion" of SSM entails "further changes"?

Anonymous said...

Example? The Great Accommodation. If you watched Madmen, it all makes sense.

*Consistent* religious opposition to SSanything supposes the priority of procreation, and further implies that faithful women and men unite because they judge that children and family are goods more virtuous to pursue and more valuable to have (cf 1958 Lambeth Resolutions) than either the material goods of careerism or the cultish passion of romantic sexuality (cf Madmen). However, the marriage practise of the past few generations has accommodated materialistic careerism and cultish sexuality without serious complaint, whilst bracketing both procreation and the complex of somewhat gendered virtues of which family life is the centre (again, cf Madmen). The Great Accommodation is associated with Joan Holloway and Peggy Olson, women struggling for a full life in the sexist microcosm of Sterling Price & Partners. In contrast, the norm of Christ is associated with the entrapped Betty Draper and the ceaselessly philandering Don Draper. This is why liberal defenders of the Great Accommodation are as shrill and moralistic as those resistant to SSanything.

As a further extension of the Great Accommodation, SSM is plainly much less challenging to the status quo than the received norm. Who doubts that, if Madmen had continued for a few more seasons, Don Draper would have eventually discovered that, for at least a few episodes, his authentic self was attracted to a man? So it is not at all surprising that the majority in the *North* who took refuge in the Great Accommodation during the sexual revolution of recent decades somewhat inertially favours SSwhatever.**

Bowman Walton

** Put another way, Father Ron's complaint that *any Madmen who oppose SSM are being hypocrites* is in fact true. But the vast majority of today's Madmen surely favour SSeverything.

Anonymous said...

"Also, is the converse not also true, that 'faithful promotion' of SSM entails 'further changes'?"

Maybe. If, and only if, promoting SSM makes the Great Accommodation permanent. But that seems improbable. A young, rebellious generation not embittered by the Madmen could someday find gender and procreation inspiring again and decide that they want to be mothers and fathers with strong families. In that event, women and men will retrieve the truth about themselves from the scriptures, and worried synods will appoint task forces to discover why the holy search for perfect soulmates with perfect careers is losing ground to a pragmatic search for companionable mates who can rear good children.

Bowman Walton