Friday, September 1, 2017

A Beautiful Recommendation by FCANZ? [Amended]

[Amendment: the original post here drew attention to a confusion in the wording of the FCANZ post discussed below. My post has now been amended to reflect the new wording.]

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans of NZ (FCANZ) has published a response to the Motion 29 Working Group Interim Report (M29WGR).

The response can be found here. Below it is their original submission to the Working Group, in late 2016.

I like the way this response is introduced, with much appreciation and thankfulness for the approach taken by the Working Group. I also like the fairness of the response because some issues it sees with the proposal made in M29WGR are recognised as issues for those who support SSB.

Among various challenges to M29WGR made in the response, none of which are trivial, I think the most significant challenge concerns its request for alternative episcopal oversight as sine qua non to our church finding a way forward.

Interpreting a few tiny "smoke signals" in the weeks before before reading this response, I suspect that considerable conservative evangelical discussion within some sectors of our church is taking place about alternative episcopal oversight.

I suggest the FCANZ response should be read carefully on this matter, for two reasons.

First, making this request is itself a shift on the part of FCA (as one part of the NZ Anglican conservative evangelicals). Note at the link the submission made last year. It requested an extra-provincial diocese as a way forward. Alternative episcopal oversight against that request represents a commitment to a solution within the life of ACANZP itself.

Secondly, what is said about alternative episcopal oversight is grounded in an aspect of the M29WGR, the Christian communities which it envisages as means of safeguarding convictions.

Substantively, the FCANZ response in respect of alternative episcopal oversight raises an important theological principle: communion in an episcopal church necessarily involves communion with one's bishop. How is this to be so when communion with one's bishop is impaired? The response says this (emboldening is original to the FCANZ post):

"If Bishops allow the blessing of same-sex marriages within their hui amorangi/dioceses there will be some who believe this is unconstitutional and against the gospel of the Lord Jesus.  Their relationship with their Bishop will be impaired. Therefore, simply having an additional structure (such as a Christian Community) which exists alongside existing diocesan structures is insufficient.  Ministry units of a conviction different to their diocesan Bishop must be able to have alternative, rather than simply additional, episcopal oversight.   If such alternative episcopal oversight were to occur from a Christian Community, then the Bishop of that Community would need to have the same privileges and responsibilities as any other diocesan Bishop, and the Community have the same status as a Diocese.  
 
We appreciate that this is a significant development of the suggestions provided in the report, but one which we feel is a minimum necessity to truly safeguard the convictions of those who wish to uphold a traditional position. "

This is a considerable argument because it works from integrity of belief that if a bishop acts unconstitutionally and against the gospel of Christ then impairment of relationship with clergy and laity follows. In turn that raises the question how one might have episcopal oversight from a bishop with whom one is in an unimpaired relationship. The proposal in the cited paragraphs is that the M29WGR proposal for "additional" episcopal oversight (via a bishop who is visitor of one of the envisaged Christian communities) is strengthened and transformed to "alternative" episcopal oversight.

Incidentally, this works two ways in our context: those wishing to conduct SSBs could have alternative episcopal oversight via a Christian Community in order to ensure that from one diocesan bishop to another, permission to conduct SSBs continued.

What do you think?

In conclusion, a note re my original post on M29WGR:

(Slightly defensively!) What does this response do to my "beautiful Anglican accommodation" assessment of M29WGR?

First, yes, it highlights some aspects of M29WGR which could be (so to speak) more beautiful. Some significant criticisms are made, and they are (according to some conversations I have had, internet comment I have seen) shared beyond the part of the theological spectrum inhabited by FCANZ.

Secondly, it recognises that M29WGR is a compromise. Thus a question for our church is whether this compromise could be better (so the response) or whether it is, in fact, the best compromise (because, actually, the criticisms made by the FCANZ response are about matters considered by the Working Group and not acted on).

In particular, as far as I know, alternative episcopal oversight was considered by the Working Group but not acted on.

Nevertheless, FCANZ in this response is pressing the point - note the words "minimum necessity" in the citation above - that alternative episcopal oversight really, really ought to be considered if we are not to have schism.

If schism could be averted by this recommendation, we could still have a (very) beautiful Anglican accommodation!

For clarity: I am neither arguing for nor against "aeo" here. I may or may not one day reflect upon the (de)merits of "aeo" for our church. But what I am urging is that all readers here note that those wishing to avert schism appear to now have the issue of "aeo" to engage with.

44 comments:

Father Ron Smith said...

"Interpreting a few tiny "smoke signals" in the weeks before reading this response, I suspect that considerable conservative evangelical discussion within some sectors of our church is taking place about alternative episcopal oversight." - Dr.Peter Carrell -

It has always been said, Peter that "Where there is smoke there is fire". Well, my interpretation of FOCANZ' response to the Working Group's findings about Same-Sex Blessings leads me to suggest one way through for them.

Could not (say) the Bishop of Nelson be 'set apart' as the 'Flying Bishop' for parishes that would refuse to countenance Same-Sex Blessing on their patch? After all, he is a part of the W.P. and also an associate of GAFCON and the Sydney diocese. He might also be persuaded not to lead the movement for schism that could well proceed from the undercover activities of FOCANZ.

If necessary, the Nelson Diocese (say) could be considered a conservative Evangelical diocese associated with ACANZP - but not subject to the enabling canons that permitted Same-Sex Blessings in other parts of our Church.

The only problem with such an accommodation is that other considerations - for further separation on other issues than gender and sexuality - might still eventually lead to a schismatic breakaway. If this is what FOCANZ really want, perhaps they should put their cards on the table before the next General Synod.

Smoke has a strong tendency to cloud issues that need to be clarified. While it is still being generated (and fanned by interested parties), this smoke should be immediately extinguished, for the health of the Church in N.Z.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
I see no need to publish your second comment.
Names of officers and Board members of FCANZ are easily identifiable via their website.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,

(1) Those proposing alternative episcopal oversight within ACANZP-- including Father Ron above-- are effectively calling for a revival of *episcopal peculiars*. They might be interested in this article on the concept by Gerald Bray-- https://tinyurl.com/ycqhulx5

(2) But the overall report seems more supportive of intercommunion between two bodies that share some decisions (eg liturgical revision, codification of canons, etc) and institutions (schools, charities, etc). Its tone of kind regard for the concerns of SSB proponents is indeed refreshing, but the substance promotes provisions for both sides that are hard to imagine in a functional church. And that is my main worry-- not that SSB will or will not happen someplace, but that ACANZP will remain so deadlocked by a background conflict of theological paradigms that more principled practise will be demoralisingly difficult for both of the two main sides.

(3) Nevertheless, my centrist and episcopalian heart was strangely cooled by the notion that one's relationship with a bishop depends on his or her doing what one wishes on SSB. Throughout the Anglican past, good bishops have decided that, subject to some negotiated local restrictions, their dioceses needed a home for a minority paradigm that they themselves did not practise.* And the purists of every generation have impaired their communion with their bishops and fellow clergy by fretting about such beautiful Anglican compromises. Unity is not quite unanimity.

* There are many examples, but I have most in mind the early C20 bishops in Virginia who made room in their evangelical dioceses for Anglo-Catholic parishes, subject to a few restrictions on eg benediction of the blessed sacrament, marian additions to the prayerbook, etc. Purist clergy on both sides of a line were displeased, but these parishes have done a world of good and they thrive today.

Bowman Walton

Anonymous said...

Friendship means something different, in my experience, to LGBT people. A lot of the time, our families aren't going to able to offer us the kind of support we need, either because of negative feelings toward the gay family member or simply because the experience of “not being straight” isn't comparable to the experience of “being straight,” so straight parents and siblings don't know what to do or how to relate. In that way, my friends are my family. I'm closer to them because I chose them, and we chose each other because we have similar life experiences on a level that's impossible for straight people to understand. I love my families, both blood relation and friends, in different ways.

--a reader responding to an article about friendship through the lifespan in The Atlantic

BW

Father Ron Smith said...

I took the trouble to look up the Board memberhip of FOCANZ, Peter. I see that a former Anglican priest, now minister of a schismstic Church in Hamilton, is one of its members. That surely does not bode well for FOCANZ continuance within ACANZP. As for other members, I find it interesting that one is an ex-Bishop of Nelson and others - including the Chair - are priests in our diocese of Christchurch.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bowman
Yes and no.
It is also peculiar to be in a church contemplating SSB; so peculiar arrangements re episcopacy may be called for!
What your analysis also misses is that we are already a church used to having differing episcopal jurisdictions over one area. In our (Pakeha) Diocese, for instance, we have a ministry unit that once came under the jurisdiction for the Maori diocese of the South Island. Something happened and they voted to change jurisdiction. To be sure, a rare situation. But, the point is, not unknown.
In one of my archdeaconries, for a variety of reasons, we have agreed to the sale of one of our churches to the Maori bishop for the South Island, for the proverbial $1.
It might be quite difficult to have "aeo" here ... and it might be quite simple! And, because we have something of it already embedded in the culture of our church, it might work :)

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
I don't know all the FCANZ Board personally, but most are valued colleagues and some are friends of long standing.
I am not about to turn my back on them, whatever might happen.

Bryden Black said...

Dear Ron, a wee word of warning abt your description of that congregation in Hamilton: were they pushed or did they jump? Did they jump or were they pushed? A thought ...

Anonymous said...

"... that is my main worry-- not that SSB will or will not happen someplace, but that ACANZP will remain so deadlocked by a background conflict of theological paradigms that more principled practise will be demoralisingly difficult for both of the two main sides."

Peter, it really looks as though ACANZP is already three Anglican churches that quite rightly share a common structure for governance in a geographical zone. Whether that can "work" is not controversial.

Whether good or bad, SSB is something that cannot be done with the unity that a single church requires. Those who want something more unitary than three de facto churches could reasonably oppose even the consideration of it. And indeed, the FCANZ response tacitly acknowledges that some are still resolved to regard ACANZP as a unitary church unless and until SSB finally begins, somehow and somewhere.

Meanwhile, those who favour SSB at some cost to unity are necessarily opening discussion on what the scope of the shared governance should be. Some, maximalists, might think that the scope should include everything churchly except SSB; but what makes SSB an exception?, and why would that exception be unique? Others, minimalists, might think that only things that cannot be decided singly should be decided together; for better and for worse, this is a devolution of power from a large circle in chronic disagreement to smaller circles of relatively dense agreement.

The details of devolution are not unimportant. Gerald Bray's (and Father Ron's) episcopal peculiars (aka "alternative episcopal oversight") are far better than the notion of people in the South Pacific claiming to be extraprovincial to Canterbury. But either way, is there any doubt that some devolution is being favoured in the FCANZ response?

Bowman Walton

Father Ron Smith said...

Your comment, Bryden, about the Hamilton congregation may yet be applicable to their associates in FCANZ, who, by mere voluntary association, may be headed in the same direction. Then, the question for them, too, may well be: Did they go, or were they pushed? Sitting on the edge of a volcano can be a very seruous situation. However, if the people concerned insist on sitting there, the slightest wind could blow them over the edge. If they complain about that, then the obvious answer is: they shouldn't have tested the limits. They didn't have to go there. Schism is an ugly word, and an even uglier process!

Rosemary Behan said...

Sitting on the edge of a volcano can be a very seruous situation. However, if the people concerned insist on sitting there, the slightest wind could blow them over the edge. If they complain about that, then the obvious answer is: they shouldn't have tested the limits. They didn't have to go there. Schism is an ugly word, and an even uglier process!

POT .. KETTLE .. BLACK

Anonymous said...

Peter; isn't Rosemary Behan correct? Fr Ron supports a doctrinal change rejected by all churches that existed in the fourth century. He then has the impertinence to refer to the congregation in Hamilton as schismatic. This is the type nonsense that we are currently enduring in the Vatican.

Nick

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
Perhaps we could focus on ways in which we might hold together as a church rather than talking about sitting on edges of volcanoes and what have you.

Speaking from the conservative side of things, I find there is, in some accounts of "inclusion" (I speak of conversations off the blog as much as of anything being said here currently), such a desire to include those whose lifestyles is, at the very least, not immediately obviously approved by God, that it is bizarre to think that such inclusiveness seems inordinately cheerful at the prospect of excluding people who have believed what all the church believed until recently and who continue to believe what most of the world's Christians continue to believe.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bowman
To be honest I am not sure that I entirely follow the steps of your argument!
However, to your question re devolution:
(1) M29WGR envisages devolution in several ways (dioceses determining SSBs, or not, and if permitted, then with dio-approved liturgies; parishes and individuals able to choose not to perform SSBs; safeguards for "character" parishes via Christian Communities of that "character").
(2) FCANZ seeks strengthening of the last part of that devolution with "character" bishops, which in turn, could weaken the unity of dioceses (though that might depend on good will and grace etc). Is their proposal an extension or an evolution of M29WGR?
(3) To a degree what FCANZ proposes could lead to a "fourth tikanga" (i.e. within the association of episcopal units/tikanga = General Synod, rather than through an extra-provincial diocese), which itself further devolves our church.
(4) Nevertheless there is an element of unity which remains unchanged, namely the unity which is communion of the bishops because a minimal requirement of our church for any form of "aeo" would be that the bishops offering "aeo" were themselves in communion with the bishops whose decisions re SSB catalysed "aeo."

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Nick
Rosemary is correct to point out that Ron is as much sitting on the edge of the volcano as anyone else it.

Over the years I have never found that comments along your lines have made one whit of difference to Ron's view of the church which is highly pneumatological, in the sense that the Spirit has revealed today truth which was hidden in past centuries, including the fourth. Thus it is an error on the part of orthodox traditionalists and traditional orthodox to counter the revelation of the Spirit by referring backwards in time to a former understanding of truth.

If the true church of God has been led into all truth by the Paraclete, then those who leave for a different truth are necessarily schismatic.

Yes, noting a few things on the internet these past few days, Cardinals challenging outspoken but influential priests, and the like, I fear the Anglicanization of Rome is all but complete :)

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter; that's what I call creating god in my image; the paraclete who leads the church into my preferences with so-called new revelation that suits me. That's how Adam and Eve got into trouble.

Nick

Sam Anderson said...

Hi Peter,

It was encouraging to read this post, and your positive tone towards the FCANZ's recommendation.

This really seems to be the only way that conservatives could continue in this national church. The problem is, as it stands, the report doesn't go far enough for progressives: would they need 'something more' to get behind it?





Father Ron Smith said...

Thanks for your recent comments, Peter, which reflect the statement of Jesus that: "The Hply Spirit will lead you into all the Truth". That Truth is still being revealed, progressively, in the very same way that the Word "became flesh and dwelt among us - full of grace and truth". The Truth Jesus spoke about - the continuity of the Spirit's revelation - is often resisted by those who prefer the status quo. However, for Christians to believe that revelation from the Holy Spirit ended with the publication of the Scriptures would seem to limit God's desire to continue using the Holy Spirit to counsel and advise the Church in its continuing mission in our changing world.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Sam
I find it hard enough second guessing what evangelicals are thinking let alone progressives :)
We have out Synod this coming weekend and it will be interesting to gauge reaction across our spectrum of convictions.
Did your Synod discuss the proposal?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Nick and Ron
I invite you to read each other's most recent comments!!

Seriously:
(1) it is a good test of whether the Spirit of Truth is leading us into all truth or whether the spirit of the age is leading us into a series of preferences which suit us, whether the conviction we arrive at is lined up with Scripture or against it. After all, even if
(2) the Spirit of Truth is indeed continuing to guide and advise the church, it would be more than a little odd if the guidance and advice contradicted previously revealed direction!

Father Ron Smith said...

Jesus said; "The Scriptures told you... but I am telling you...." a reiteration, Peter? Or a radicsl change in direction? Why were the Scribes so oppositional to Jesus? Because he was rocking thr boat? Jesus associated with Sinners. A Big non-no to the Scribes.

Father Ron Smith said...

Dear Peter, I think Nick is still smarting for your reference to Rome becoming Anglicanized. That obviously fills him with dread, How is he evr going to trust the Magisterium again? Incidentally, I think Pope Francis would make a lovely ABC.

Regarding th work of the Holy Spirit, Peter. Having, myself, felt Her influence in my personal life - against all the odds - I have no doubt thst God is still "working His purpose out as year succeeds to year".

Sam Anderson said...

Hi Peter,

First, this is an excellent point that you made: " it would be more than a little odd if the guidance and advice contradicted previously revealed direction!"

Second, we discussed the proposal in our 'clergy session' but not as a whole synod. We were allocated one hour to discuss it, very late on the second day, but things were running behind schedule and, after giving a summary of where we are up to, Bishop Richard asked that we do not discuss it any further. He signalled that we will have another, one-day, synod next year devoted to the WG's report.

Finally, to Ron Smith. It seems rather appropriate that Jesus, as the incarnate Word of God, be in the position to expose the true heart of the law for the people of God. I'm less optimistic in the capacity for human endeavours to do the same. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus was extending the scope of the law, whereas progressives are doing a 180 degree turn on orthodox Christian belief and the Scriptures.

Sam Anderson said...

Hi Peter,

First, this is an excellent point that you made: " it would be more than a little odd if the guidance and advice contradicted previously revealed direction!"

Second, we discussed the proposal in our 'clergy session' but not as a whole synod. We were allocated one hour to discuss it, very late on the second day, but things were running behind schedule and, after giving a summary of where we are up to, Bishop Richard asked that we do not discuss it any further. He signalled that we will have another, one-day, synod next year devoted to the WG's report.

Finally, to Ron Smith. It seems rather appropriate that Jesus, as the incarnate Word of God, be in the position to expose the true heart of the law for the people of God. I'm less optimistic in the capacity for human endeavours to do the same. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus was extending the scope of the law, whereas progressives are doing a 180 degree turn on orthodox Christian belief and the Scriptures.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter; Jesus's restatements of the law did not lower the bar (quite the opposite on divorce). Furthermore he accepted sinners but told them to go and sin no more.

Nick

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
I think Nick has a sense of humour! Please don't talk about people here "smarting" - that is to unwisely head into speculative territory about what people are feeling.

The difficulty I and others here have with your approach to "new revelation" whether it is characterized as the Spirit leading us into all (= new) truth, or new insight into what Jesus would say in the mode of his "but I say unto you" approach to law is this: by what authority does any individual presume that they know the mind of Christ today and/or the definitive leading of the Spirit?

That authority, dare I say it, Ron, does not reside in you. Or me. Nor does it reside in individual synods of individual churches. The best we can humanly do is claim that such authority resides in the body of Christ on earth, that is, the catholic church (small "c" intentional). In turn that raises the question how the whole church determines what Christ is saying to it as one body. Cue answers from the RCC and Eastern Orthodox churches. The best Anglicans can do is to attempt discernment through the ABC, the Primates, the ACC and the Lambeth Conference, seeking alignment across those bodies. Has it escaped your notice that that on SSB/SSM there is no Anglican discernment of the mind of Christ and the leading of the Spirit: just a series of conflicting opinions.

In any case, even if there were a united Anglican discernment, that would still fall short of a universal conviction of the whole church on earth.

Father Ron Smith said...

"by what authority does any individual presume that they know the mind of Christ today and/or the definitive leading of the Spirit? - Dr. Peter Carrell

Precisely, Peter. This applies to both sides of this argument - as well as any other theological question. My question of you might be; how do those opposing Same-Sex committed relationship know that Jesus would not accept them in the world of today - especially when most heterosexual relationships are not free from the perceived sin of promiscuity? After all, the Gospel message is about loving, faithful relationships.

As for Sam Anderson's comment, might I point out that Jesus was critical of the indifferent application of the mosaic Law (challenging the acknowledged right of the Scribes to stone the woman 'caught in the act of adultery) - to the point where he summarised the Law as being the need to Love God and, then, to love one's neighbour as ones self. Jesus was considered, by many of his contemporary Jews, to be disregarding the Law.

Peter Carrell said...

No, Ron.
You are completely wrong.
There is no requirement for the church to continually check with Jesus whether the status quo (i.e. the received and universally agreed will of God) has changed or not.
We do not need to keep checking whether, e.g. stealing has suddenly become the right thing to do rather than the wrong thing; or whether we might stop celebrating the eucharist because Jesus no longer requires us to "Do this ...".

Please do not add slander to your arguments: "most heterosexual relationships are not free from the perceived sin of promiscuity". Besides, it does nothing to strengthen your argument and makes it look like your argument consists of "one wrong justifies another wrong"!

There is no Gospel message about loving, faithful relationships if by that is meant that any kind of sexual relationship that is loving and faithful is endorsed by the Gospel. Jesus said nothing which directly or indirectly implies that to be true as some kind of general rule by which such relationships are judged. After all on the matter which Jesus spoke directly about, remarriage after divorce, he said nothing about such relationships being fine if they are loving and faithful.

The burden of proof lies on those who would innovate, not on those who would contend for the continuation of the Tradition (= historical and continuing interpretation of Scripture).

To be frank, perhaps we should have two Anglican churches: one for those who are cavalier about the Tradition (as you are here) and another for those who are circumspect about it.

If we are to hold together as a church - my preferred option - we need a much closer meeting of minds on how we make decisions as a church.

To return to the question of the proposal before our church: I support it but not because it paves the way for cavalier innovation such as you support. I support it because I am prepared to be part of a church which gives room for limited dissent from the generally agreed understanding of the Tradition.

Anonymous said...

"According to Mark (and Matthew even more so), far from abandoning the laws and practices of the Torah, Jesus was a staunch defender of the Torah against what he perceived to be threats to it from the Pharisees. The Pharisees were a kind of reform movement within the Jewish people that was centered on Jerusalem and Judaea. The Pharisees sought to convert other Jews to their way of thinking about God and the Torah, a way of thinking that incorporated seeming changes in the written Torah’s practices that were mandated by what the Pharisees called “the tradition of the Elders.” The justification of these reforms in the name of an oral Torah, a tradition passed down by the Elders from Sinai on, would have been experienced by many traditional Jews as a radical change, especially when it involved changing the traditional ways that they and their ancestors had kept the Torah for generations immemorial. At least some of these pharisaic innovations may very well have represented changes in religious practice that took place during the Babylonian Exile, while the Jews who remained “in the land” continued their ancient practices. It is quite plausible, therefore, that other Jews, such as the Galilean Jesus, would reject angrily such ideas as an affront to the Torah and as sacrilege. Jesus’ Judaism was a conservative reaction against some radical innovations in the Law stemming from the Pharisees and Scribes of Jerusalem...

"...if Mark was himself a member of a Jewish community and so was his Jesus, then the beginnings of Christianity can be considered in a very different light, as a version, perhaps a radical one, of the religion of the Jews. Jesus, in this view, was fighting not against Judaism but within it—an entirely different matter. Far from being a marginal Jew, Jesus was a leader of one type of Judaism that was being marginalized by another group, the Pharisees, and he was fighting against them as dangerous innovators. This view of Christianity as but a variation within Judaism, and even a highly conservative and traditionalist one, goes to the heart of our description of the relations in the second, third, and fourth centuries between so-called Jewish Christianity and its early rival, the so-called Gentile Christianity that was eventually (after some centuries) to win the day."

-- Daniel Boyarin. The Jewish Gospels. Kindle Locations 1519-1546.

Peter and Father Ron,

One could argue to Jewish scholars today that they are mistaken in seeing--

(a) Jesus as a passionate Torah conservative from the north taking traditionalist positions that were not marginal to C1 Judaism as a whole.

(b) Pharisees and Scribes as innovators from the south taking positions that seemed untraditional to other Jews besides Jesus.

--but one would surely lose.

Arguments that require that Judaism per se be wrong for Jesus to be right have no credibility. In the C18 to early-C20 they were accepted as a modern continuation of medieval supersessionism. Since the events that followed Kristallnacht 1938, the case for supersessionism has been found, not just tragic and dangerous, but false to the gospel documents of the C1. Churches of most major traditions have repudiated it.

More narrowly, arguments that point to Jesus's supposed opposition to Judaic tradition misunderstand-- indeed reverse-- both his positions and those of his pharisaic and scribal antagonists. Among Christians straining to see Jesus as a Romantic hero, such arguments ironically miss a brilliance in Jesus's halachic arguments that scholars of early Judaism such as Daniel Boyarin and Peter Schafer see easily.

Bowman Walton

Anonymous said...

"The problem is, as it stands, the report doesn't go far enough for progressives: would they need 'something more' to get behind it?" -- Sam

I do not know any progressives as pastors in ACANZP. Everything is better on the blessed isles, of course.

But from what I have seen of progressive pastors in a few American provinces, the "something more" that they "need," but may not yet want, is a pastoral paradigm for messy individual lives adequate to the discipleship demands of their social program. Decades of inveighing against the wicked patriarchy, evil homophobia, intransigent conservatives, etc have not given them the solid competence to tend to the cure of souls in the framework that they advocate. Drum-banging does more for a broken heart than we think but less than they think. The beautiful Anglican compromise is a call to, and a creative space for, that responsibility.

Bowman Walton

Sam Anderson said...

"Decades of inveighing against the wicked patriarchy, evil homophobia, intransigent conservatives, etc have not given them the solid competence to tend to the cure of souls in the framework that they advocate. Drum-banging does more for a broken heart than we think but less than they think." Bowman Walton

Very interesting point, Bowman, that I'd not considered before.

Father Ron Smith said...

"To be frank, perhaps we should have two Anglican churches: one for those who are cavalier about the Tradition (as you are here) and another for those who are circumspect about it." - Dr.Peter Carrell -

I could take umbrage at this casual assessment of my association with 'The Tradition', Peter - having lived with it for rather more years than yourself.

However, I will ignore the implication by stating categorically that my theology is based on a broader 'catholic' heritage than that of the post-Reformation evangelical sacramental-lite paradigm.

Nevertheless, like you, I am part of a broad Church - far broader, traditionally, than that of the GAFCON/FOCA advocates might allow for in their current push toward disassociation from the rest of us by dint of 'separate jurisdictions' (a non-catholic way of dealing with a non-credal issue that addresses simple human need for a significant minority of Christians and others in the modern world).

I may not get to Synod, by virtue of the fact that I am committed to celebrating the Divine Mysteries (Eucharist) at St.Michael and All Angels at 10 am on Friday and 9 am on Saturday. So may not have the opportunity to 'speak my piece" to Synod. I shall pray for God's most holy will to be done.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Sam. The thought is related to the beautiful compromise here-- https://tinyurl.com/y7q68pqd.

In a grand old TEC diocese that shall remain nameless here, two good women with difficult pasts-- a lesbian priest and her unbaptised spouse-- undertook to have a child together, one contributing her egg and the other her womb. I will protect their anonymity, but there were and are some hardships.

Now it is one thing to bang on for interfaith marriages, in vitro fertilisation, surrogate motherhood, SSM, SSP, etc. The idea that stigma against these things in society does real harm is true as far as it goes. But freedom from social stigma does not in itself enable an individual to live all of these things-- or any one of them-- through many years as a way of being in Christ. Nor does it do any good to say that people who make risky choices deserve unempathetic pastoral care or lame community support, as if God had given up on them. To the contrary, may God bless any who sense his call to serve in this milieu! But the abstract social critiques that we have heard on That Topic do not begin to be adequate to the cure of souls.

Bowman Walton

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
I do appreciate your commitment to the broad catholic if not Catholic Tradition in respect of faithfulness to its liturgies, its creeds and its practice of inclusive love and welcome to all seekers after truth.

But on the matter of how the Tradition shapes our conduct and ethical practice, with particular respect to sexual ethics, you join with many Christians who, in my view, treat the Tradition somewhat cavalierly. In particular, when you ask those who hold to the traditional ethics of the church to check with Jesus whether he still holds us to them, I think that is - I will try to be more diplomatic - a very loose understanding of what the Tradition might mean.

A benchmark here being how our Catholic and Orthodox siblings understand the Tradition on such matters. Even Pope Francis' ambiguities re the eucharist and remarriage are pretty tightly scripted towards the Tradition and not away from it.

Quite why Anglo-Catholics differ on such matters so significantly from Roman Catholics and Orthodox (while otherwise following them so closely) has always been a mystery to me!

Father Ron Smith said...

In particular, when you ask those who hold to the traditional ethics of the church to check with Jesus whether he still holds us to them, I think that is - I will try to be more diplomatic - a very loose understanding of what the Tradition might mean." - Dr. Peter Carrell -

And if I did actually 'Ask those who hold to the traditional ethics of the Church to check with Jesus whether he still holds us to them" - then I just might warrant your reproof. If you can point out where I actually said this, I would be grateful.

Speaking of 'benchmarks' on the differing attitudes of Faith Leaders on the matter of homosexuality; you may, or may not, have read of Pope Francis' comment on the matter - to journalists on his return from a foreign country - to the effect: "Who am I to judge? If they love God!" So, not all other Christians are as sure of God's condemnation of God's children who happen to be homosexual; as you and most of your correspondents appear to be.

Just one further point about ethics. One branch happens to be 'Situational Ethics', which take account of the realities of context - a point seemingly missed by insistent ethical traditionalists (which type I am not).

Agape, Ron

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron
This is the paragraph you wrote in a comment above which concerns me:

"Precisely, Peter. This applies to both sides of this argument - as well as any other theological question. My question of you might be; how do those opposing Same-Sex committed relationship know that Jesus would not accept them in the world of today - especially when most heterosexual relationships are not free from the perceived sin of promiscuity? After all, the Gospel message is about loving, faithful relationships."

My concern is with the way in which, when I suggest that there is a difficulty in knowing how we would know that the Spirit was leading us in such and such a direction (not found in Scripture), you do not respond to that difficulty but, instead say my question applies "to both sides of this argument." And then you wonder how those who (following Scripture) oppose same-sex committed relationships "know that Jesus would not accept them in the world today."

Thus I offer that concern to you when you write, immediately above, "And if I did actually 'Ask those who hold to the traditional ethics of the Church to check with Jesus whether he still holds us to them" - then I just might warrant your reproof. If you can point out where I actually said this, I would be grateful."

Anonymous said...

Peter; I do have a sense of humour, but I might not need one. The Pope has said recently that marriage can only be between a man and a woman and we cannot change it - see http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/09/03/pope-says-marriage-can-only-be-between-a-man-and-a-woman-and-we-cannot-change-it/
Of course you do not have ssm before your synods, but ssm as I understand it is the real goal of progressives. The Pope is clear that ssm is not an option for us. I doubt that the Pope's famous "Who am I to judge?" comment can mean any more than that. It's hardly a change in the Tradition and, as you point out, Amoris Laetitia (if that's what you mean) claims to follow Tradition. In any case, the Pope said more than Fr Ron has quoted.
I know very little about Anglo-Catholics, but in so far as some of them might be progressive with their moral teaching, that would be highly puzzling if those same people were rigid with tradition in the ritual sense.

Nick

Sam Anderson said...

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your very helpful comments in this post!

Hi Nick. You wrote "I know very little about Anglo-Catholics, but in so far as some of them might be progressive with their moral teaching, that would be highly puzzling if those same people were rigid with tradition in the ritual sense." Well, indeed!

From my, admittedly, limited exposure to such Anglicans, it seems that the more progressive one is with regards to moral and theological doctrine, the more rigid that person is with ritual and form. The converse also appears true: Anglicans who are more rigid on doctrine seem to be much less so on form.

The results are paradoxical: 'progressive priests' who try to blend in with society, and yet stick out like a chasuble on an All Black, and 'conservative clergy' who are very much out of step with society's views, but who blend in like a Hipster on Cuba Street.

I wonder: where, if anywhere, do we think the future of the church in New Zealand lies?

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter; Sam identifies a quirk of Anglicanism. In terms of where the future of the Church lies in NZ, I'd suggest it's with the Evangelical Cuba St hipster. There is no point in dressing up social liberal values in a chasuble. Those people who don't find the chasuble weird still work out pretty quickly that they can get those values without going to Church. Ultimately, though it's just my opinion, liberal Churches have a weak brand; there's nothing distinctive about them and you can find their product in social justice. Evangelicals are, however, in branding respects much stronger; more like Catholics. The brand is distinctive. Distinctive brands sell.

Nick

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Nick
I mostly find your advice agreeable, especially as an evangelical.
The bit that worries me is the word "hipster".
I never see that word in newsprint without a photo of a man with a luxuriant but neatly trimmed beard.
On the one hand I personally am facially, follically challenged re becoming a hipster. On the other hand I am not sure that it is biblical to trim one's beard.
Would Jesus have done that?
:)

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter; I'm sure there were beard trimmers galore on first century Cuba St Jerusalem. In fact, my recollection is that the early church required priests to have a beard to prove they were men. I can't imagine Jesus spent too much time on externals though. I can't imagine he had a chasuble either.

Nick

Peter Carrell said...

Dear Nick
Jesus did wear a seamless robe (alb?) and there were barbers in Jerusalem.
But I wonder if John the Baptist ever trimmed his beard?
Hard to imagine :)

Sam Anderson said...

Dear Peter,

Take heart: while the ability to robe one's face in hair is certainly a great aid to those with Hipster Aspirations, it is not, yet, the sine qua non . The hat you are wearing in your profile pic, as long as it is being worn ironically, would absolutely qualify you to take the moniker 'hipster' with confidence :)

Dear Nick, there may well have been beard trimmers on Cuba St Jerusalem, but did not our Lord remind us that 'wide is the path that leads to destruction, and many find it'?

Peter Carrell said...

I will have you know, Sam, that that hat was a de rigeur part of my tramping outfit (Able Tasman) and no irony was involved :)