Fulcrum has posted this week a balanced, comprehensive statement following, and responding to GAFCON 2018. It covers all my own appreciations, concerns and questions.
I am happy to post comments about this statement and/or about GAFCON 2018. I will not post comments which mention, even slightly, our local, unfolding situation in the Diocese of Christchurch.
185 comments:
It is surely helpful Peter to see how Fulcrum views GAFCON. And most of their comments are suitably probing, wise and legitimate. For all that, some further probing questions/observations are still needed. Nor does one necessarily have to be a postmodern master of suspicion to ask/make them.
A number of years ago Richard Foster wrote a book premised upon the three religious vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience: Money, Sex, and Power. Viewed through such a lense, how does the present crisis of authority in the AC present itself? For example, how is the ACO financed? How are the Lambeth Conferences financed? Why, after TEC’s wee sanctioning, cited by Fulcrum (comment Q.4), was Lambeth 2018 deferred to 2020? (Not hard to do that math!). Money and power as well as sex come immediately to the fore!
Questions surrounding “authority” are important and Fulcrum raises them. Yet there is always an oddity when Anglicans get onto their high horses around this matter. After all, our own origins still prompt legitimacy questions. Nor does this just side with Rome versus Henry VIII. I mean; if I were pope and threatened with invasion by Charles of Spain and my papal states were in the direct firing line thanks to Catherine of Aragon’s close ties with Charles, I too would think twice about granting Henry an annulment. More power and sex matters there! And I am already on the record (synod 2017) re our own Report from the Working Group about M29, which raised vital matters of ecclesiology and authority, notably via the WG’s use of Kenneth Locke. “Flaky” is a kind summation! (That other thread)
I could continue. Yet all these comments merely lead me to one final observation. One of the more significant books I have encountered this year is Ephraim Radner’s Church, published through Cascade last year. His main point is twofold. Historic ecclesiology tends to be negative, pitted around contrasting oneself with some ‘other’. This then tends to lead to abstractions from the concrete realities of church history - for all of us. Instead, secondly, we might/should learn to view the Church, via the figural reading of Scripture, as Israel. Israel’s history then becomes a lense through which to engage concretely with church history, past, present and future: we are enabled to 'read' our own story, of blessing and curse, of failure and faithfulness, of suffering and glory, of repentance and redemption, as “brothers, Esau and Jacob”, precisely via the story of scriptural Israel itself, as we all go about our historical existence as the missionary body called to witness to Jesus the Messiah of Israel among and to the nations. Sure; there’s more, far more , to Radner’s thesis. But what it does is to radically refigure our present AC ‘dilemmas’. Not only does Foster’s insightful probing offer us a key, a threefold key, by means of which to gauge the actual dynamics of our present AC. Radner additionally cracks open many an attempt to get a handle on all our dilemmas - not least your own on previous threads Peter - and now Fulcrum’s. But perhaps all this is just too radical even for a church supposedly derived from the Reformation and therefore always due for further reformation in light of the judgement and mercy of the Living Word of Scripture ...?
Dear Peter, having read Fulcrum extensive 'apologetic' for the outcvome of Gafcon 3,
Iam still not convinced that Gafcon's intention is to remain in the Anglican Communion. It's irrevocable (seemingly) stance against the possibility of Same-sex committed relationships of faithfully-bonded cougafcoin's own barrier to ples (akin to heterosexual marriage) being acceptable to God is still - to my mind - remains Gafcon's own barrier to full communion (koinonia) with those of us in the Anglican Communion as it now exists who have reason to believe that the Love of God accepts that same-sex attracted people have no other way of expressing their innate sexual longings for faithful human monogamous partnership.
For Gafcon to 'claim' full relationship within gthe structure of the Communion - while yet refusing to sitat gthe same table with other members of the Communion is a travesty of the Truth - a charism Gafcon claims to represent but which demands the reality of 'full Communion' with ALL - not just oine's own selected friends.
Dear Peter, and other readers. I apologise for the apparent incoherence of my first comment on this thread. Using a small keyboard has, for me anyway, its distinct disadvantages. Also, here, in this part of the North Queensland Coast of Australia, Internet connections are tricky and unreliable (I know, the poor workman always blames hius tools).
In order to amplify the tenor of my original post, may I say that I found Reform's response to GAFCON 3 to be eminently predictable, but also, quite misleading - in its insistence on GAFCON's intent to stay within the Lambeth-based Ameglican Communion.
GAFCON, many of us are convinced, is out to take over the leadership of Anglicanism wordlwide, but will not succeed because of its outdated philosophy of 'Sola Scriptura'
Hi Peter,
I didn’t bother reading past this.
1. On what authority, and by what processes of discernment, does the substantial authority come, which the GAFCON Primates’ Council claims for itself, to define what is a Province of the Anglican Communion?
What authority does Gafcon need? What authority does your Church have at all? Does the Pope have any more authority than Gafcon ?
All a bit facile really.
Nick
Dear Bryden and Nick: re authority
I am with Bryden, in a search for the true meaning of church, keen on understanding continuity between Israel and the church (and must read Ephraim's book).
I am not really with your "facile" comment, Nick, for this reason: the specific point Fulcrum makes is about authority to define an "Anglican Province." I see Fulcrum making a point about logic/authority more than power/authority.
If GAFCON were saying, "We are leaving the AC, determining ourselves to be an alt-AC, and that means we reserve the right to define which churches are "Anglican provinces" (or even just "authentically Anglican")," then, fair enough, they have the power/authority to do that and, relative to the Pope/authority, have dear King Henry VIII - such a nice fellow! - to call upon for precedent. (And Bryden makes an Henrician observation ... above.)
But GAFCON is saying, "We are inside the AC, we are part of it, but, because we do not think much of its power/instruments of unity [ACC, Lambeth, ABC], we will determine, thank you very much, membership of the ... [body we do not think much of, do not respect its rules for defining membership]." I suggest Fulcrum is calling GAFCON out on the logic of its specific claim to authority to make certain decisions, not on its general powers to say what it likes, to do what it likes and to go where it wants.
Dear Ron
Your latest comment has some ad hominem material in it which falls below the standard required here: comment on the comment and not on the commenter.
Also: ALL Christians are welcome to comment here, whether they are Anglican, former Anglican, post-Anglican, non-Anglican.
Here is my edited version:
"Dear Nick, []
Interestingly, though, your own Church seems to be having quite a shake-up in the area of 'authority', with Pope Francis wanted it to be shared with the local Church where it more truly belongs. With Anglicanism; although we do have our own 'Primus-inter-pares' in the ABC, he is not, nor ever has been, an infallible papal Ruler.
GAFCON is well within its rights to call itself an international Church - but it will not be the same as the Traditional Anglican Communion, nor will the rest of the Anglican Communion (non-Gafcon) ever consider itself to be subsumed under the Gafcon banner. This is one reason why Anglicanism can never be suborned, or subject to the Gafcon leadership - whether from Nigeria Uganda or its newest Province of ACNA.
In the end, each Anglican Province has its own local Constitution and Episcopate - existing as the local Anglican Church It has no legislative connection to Canterbury or Lambeth - except in its 'Bonds of Friendship' as fellow Churches of the Anglican Tradition based on its apostolic heritage in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. What the Gafcon Provinces CAN DO, and probably will do - by the way they are shaping up - is to form its own fellowship of 'Confessional' (FOCA) Churches, set around Gafcon's 'Jerusalem Statement of Faith' which has nothing to do with the most recent 'Lambeth Quadrilateral' - a bond made between consenting national Anglican Churches in recent history."
GAFCON theologian Professor Stephen Noll proffers this response to the Fulcrum piece:
http://contendinganglican.org/
Fulcrum is really the liberal or open evangelical mouthpiece of Lambeth and the Anglican Communion Office. It stands foursquare for the principles of loyalty to the Archbishop of Canterbury, English leadership of the Anglican Communion, and English episcopal lockstep. That no English diocesans attended (although there were plenty of clergy from the largest Anglican churches in England) is testimony to the centralized power of Welby and Sentamu. The bishops and deans being appointed now are precisely the ones that Welby wants. It's the boardroom politics he's familiar with from his oil company days. Unlike his predecessor, Welby has little interest in or aptitude for theology. But he does know how boardroom works and how to engineer results. How else to explain the appointments he has made?
William
Dear William
Noll's response is a considered and serious engagement with the Fulcrum response - thank you for pointing us to it.
Your remarks about ++Welby are ad hominem and normally should not be published on that ground but I think a ground for publishing is that the actions of senior leaders are actions which potentially or actually symbolise a large course or tendency and such tendency should not be beyond public scrutiny.
That is, I am not keen that you continue to vilify the person, Justin Welby, but I accept that observable tendencies (a certain kind of person is made bishop and not another kind; there is less theological explanation for various actions and statements than one might expect) raise questions about the direction of travel of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
In short: I won't publish another such comment unless you provide some links to articles offering either evidence for your claims or other articles in the public domain making similar claims.
Well, Peter, I appreciate that you did publish my piece on your blog, on which you have absolute rights of ownership, as well as the absolute right to express your opinions as you wish. That is clear.
But I dispute your assertion that I have made an 'ad hominem' attack on Welby or vilified him. 'argumentum ad hominem' is a fallacy in logic of attacking a person's character instead of his arguments. And I criticized neither Welby's character nor his argument here. What I said was:
"Unlike his predecessor, Welby has little interest in or aptitude for theology. But he does know how boardrooms work and how to engineer results. How else to explain the appointments he has made?"
The first sentence is manifestly true. Unlike Williams, Carey, Runcie and Coggins, who were all published theologians and seminary heads, Welby was an executive for a French oil company and the few things he has written have been about business ethics, not theology. Welby himself has agreed that he is theologically under-qualified compared to his predecessors. And my other sentences about boardrooms and appointments seem rather obvious too. Welby stands for managerialism and securing the appointments that he - or the party he represents - wants. And the instrument he is using is called "Safeguarding". How else does one explain the following facts on the English church scene which are not well known in New Zealand:
- the dreadful way that the memory of Bishop George Bell has been trashed on the basis of a decades-later allegation of molestation by one elderly woman, with Welby concurring in the condemnation of Bell;
- the sacking of Archbishop George Carey from being an honorary assistant bishop because of the way he dealt with disgraced Bishop Peter Ball;
- the appointment of the decidedly untheological former Chief Nurse Sarah Mullally as Bishop of London (the third ranking post in the C of E) to push "Safeguarding" in the C of E (and to garner support from the women clergy in the C of E);
- the appointment (at 63!) of Vivienne Faull to Bristol after the chaos in York Minster where she was Dean and had her fair share of disputes;
- the letter by Idowu-Fearon trying to discourage attendance of Gafcon;
- the exclusion of all conservative evangelicals from appointment as bishop or dean (as Dr Lee Gatiss of the Church Scoiety complained recently).
This is what I mean by 'managerialism', which is certainly in tune with the culture running through public life today. But there are severe limits to this, too. It's no good having lots of bespoke generals (even in spangly miters) if you don't have many infantrymen - or the money to pay them. That's the path the C of E is currently walking into.
There is a lot more I could add but church politics is boring even to those involved in it. If I have said anything 'ad hominem' or vilifying here, I would be glad for the correction.
William
William
Hi Peter;
Gafcon claims “we are the majority of the Anglican Communion seeking to remain faithful to our Anglican heritage”. If the majority comment is true, then Gafcon can define what it wants. The rest of you don’t matter long term. Or have I misunderstood (and being a Papist I will have missed some nuance). The way I read the Gafcon letter, the C of E is a hopeless case in Gafcon’s majority opinion. Gafcon blesses the English Mission and leaves people with views similar to Fr Ron’s to like it or lump it.
Nick
Hi William
When you write things such as "That no English diocesans attended (although there were plenty of clergy from the largest Anglican churches in England) is testimony to the centralized power of Welby and Sentamu." then you are making an assertion without a foundation also being provided. So you initial comment (compared with your better evidenced-and-argued next comment) became a series of "ad hominems" against ++Welby. Statements such as "The bishops and deans being appointed now are precisely the ones that Welby wants." betray no understanding of how the CofE appointments' system works: the ABC does not have total control, though clearly has influence. So, again, an ad hominem. Touting experience from the oil company days and jumping right over that to years spent in English ministry positions, including Coventry and Liverpool, offer no sign of recognition that ++Welby might be a church leader who has learned to lead through a life in the church. Trying to compare Welby with Williams as theologians is like comparing Edison with Einstein and saying Edison is not much of a physicist. ++Welby is more than capable of saying things well and in a theologically responsible manner.
Hi Nick
I think you have GAFCON well worked out except you miss the nuance that it wants to stay in the Communion but not observe its polity. Wasn't that the problem with the SSPX?
Peter, you have missed the point in the things I said and (to misquote 'The Princess Bride') 'you keep using that word "ad hominem". I do not think it means what you think it means."
- Nobody (bar nobody) becomes a bishop (or dean) in the C of E without the Archbishop of Canterbury's consent. Jeffrey John showed that. Sarah Mullally's appointment was blatantly political. What Gatiss says about appointments is true.
- Yes, I know he worked on cathedral staffs in Coventry and Liverpool and was briefly Bishop of Durham. Managerial posts. And his formative years was as an oil company executive.
- Edison was an inventor. not a physicist. He came up with useful things, after many errors.
- English diocesan bishops do act in lockstep. They call it 'collegiality'. Only retired people like Nazir-Ali or those outside the magic circle like Rod Thomas can act with some independence.
- And again: none of this is 'ad hominem'. The world doesn't quite operate the way Lambeth press releases depict it. Would it surprise you that archbishops in the past - or even local diocesans - had human frailties as well as (some of) the gifts of the Spirit?
William
Hi William
Ad hominem is focusing on the individual and their faults at the expense of a more accurate focus on the system/group/structure. The CofE appointments' process is more than capable, with or without a lead from the ABC, of working out the merits of appointing a woman to London or of appointing bishops who will work collegially rather than divisively or simply disparately. (The same "system" incidentally, also seems to be ruling out "Red Deans" and theologically radical bishops such as Jenkins and John A.T. Robinson.)
Perhaps the Edison/Einstein analogy doesn't work. I will simply say that Welby is a better theologian than you are making him out to be, not least because he has a good understanding of ecclesiology. I suggest a sound ecclesiology is driving his leadership more than a bent for good managers/managerialism.
Hi Peter,
I feel that you misunderstand the situation when you that it "wants to stay in the Communion but not observe its polity." GAFCON doesn't need to 'stay in'. GAFCON is rapidly becoming the communion.
Somehow, liberals--who pride themselves on being 'progressive'--don't seem to understand that the Anglican world is changing and the structure is 'progressive'. It seems very clear that a 'reordering' taking place. The centre of gravity is shifting. Again, it is humorous that liberals--who hate any sort of western/white centrality or colonial power bases--still clamber to defend the historic significance of the See of Canterbury and refuse to recognise that the sun is rapidly setting on that day.
I would suspect, Peter, that you would applaud and support democratic uprisings of the people in countries where there is a corrupt or inadequate regime, yet for some reason you fail to see--and if you do see you don't support--that this is what is happening within the Anglican Communion.
So GAFCON does not need to 'stay in.' Nor does it need to 'observe its polity' as if such a thing is immutable. GAFCON simply is what it is and, as Glen says, those who disagree might just have to come to grips with this.
Sorry, in my last post I referenced 'Glen' but I meant to say 'Nick.'
Hi Sam
The Anglican world is changing and part of that change might be that the AC shrivels to nothing much and GAFCON is all in all.
Your comment above, however, does not actually respond to my question whether GAFCON wants to remain in the Communion or to leave it (albeit taking the majority with them). If it wants to stay and change the polity, then why does it not do so by outvoting the minority at ACC, Lambeth and the Primates?
The polity is not immutable but it won't change if people stop turning up to Lambeth etc.
As for the ABC: there are vestiges of colonialism in the Communion and we work to remove them. But the See of Canterbury is not colonial: it is historic, it is our "Anglican" Patriarchate, history matters and I won't support an Anglicanism which proposes to cut itself off from Canterbury.
Various Reformation churches abolished bishops and archbishops but the CofE was not one of those.
William-
I'm surprised that you stray into ACANZP blog territory with your complaints about (presumably) your home patch of the Communion, the Church of England.
Methinks you do protest too much.
The 'top' four of five senior bishops in the C of E are all conservative evangelicals - Canterbury, York, Durham and Winchester. And a handful of other diocesans, to boot.
None of them may be quite as 'conservative' on what some people consider the litmus test of sound doctrine - ie they ordain women. However, check their voting records and their affiliations, and they are all conservative evangelicals.
Granted, other evangelical diocesans, such as Liverpool, Bristol and Gloucester, may not pass your 'test' for various reasons.
But the other of the top five - the new bishop of London - is hardly a raving liberal, is she? She stands foursquare behind the 'London Plan' which sees London's own 'flying bishop' +Fulham ministering to parishes and ordaining candidates who will not accept women's priestly ministry. She has pledged to work with the five guiding principles and respect the integrity of those who cannot in conscience receive her ministry.
That's the senior leadership you currently have in the C of E, so why so much dismay?
William I have no idea of the internal politics of the COE, however, ++Welby spent 11 years working in oil and 20 years in the Church before taking up his current appointment. When Bishops etc are appointed in the COE +++Welby has one vote out of 14 in the choosing and the Prime Minister makes the final choice from two recommendations. It doesn’t appear on the factual level to assume he holds a position of personal bias.
Hi Peter,
You and I have a different understanding of the communion. For me, the communion is simply the voluntary relationship between the individual Anglican provinces. It relies on mutual recognition. It is democratic. So, again, you've missed the point about 'staying in' and about 'changing it'. GAFCON could do as you've suggested: attend Lambeth and change it by sheer numbers. But here's the point that you don't seem to appreciate: it doesn't need to. And, more importantly, why should it? GAFCON is changing the polity from without by ignoring the old structures and simply overshadowing them by becoming the new, larger, dominant structure.
The inexorable march onwards of GAFCON must be terribly frustrating to watch when one is on the outside: which is why Ron and others (and to point, yourself) are getting so upset by all this. Ron's indignant protestations, ignorant false assertions, and personal attacks are all a rather sad indication of someone desperately trying to win an argument that's already been lost by shouting louder and becoming nasty.
As for whether or not you support GAFCON, Peter, I don't think anyone here has expected you to be in any way supportive of GAFCON. Your allegiance is clearly to the institution first and foremost: you're a stayer, a 'down with the ship' kinda guy. It's a shame, really.
Hi Sam
"Communion", as you surely know, theologically, is much more than "voluntary relationship." That is, the Anglican Communion, choosing the word "Communion" rather than (say) Association or Federation, is binding itself to a theology of church which is centred on the church as the body of Christ. (The eye cannot say to the kidney, "Look, it's been nice being in a voluntary relationship, but, frankly, I don't need you anymore, so good-bye.") Thus provinces in this union relationship are invited to understand and to continue to understand themselves to be in an eternally binding relationship, and not in a voluntary compact for as long as it suits.
"Communion" also speaks of the prospect of growth - others want to join the Communion, and of enlargement, e.g. one day we are in true communion with the Eastern Orthodox Communion or the Roman Catholic Communion or the Lutheran Communion. But "Communion" does not entail - theologically - a loss of members.
Obviously, sociologically, the AC is a voluntary association. Provinces can come and go. There is no judiciary to compel (say) Nigeria to continue to be a member province, or to corral the bishops of (say) Uganda to get on a plane to Lambeth 2020. Further, if enough provinces form a large enough alternative entity, GAFCON, then a new form of voluntary association (?) / communion (?) can develop (evolve from the AC?). Yes: all things are possible.
I still do not get from what you say how GAFCON can be all such things and say, with a straight face, that it seeks to stay in the AC and to renew it. From the communique's own words, "renew" only makes sense if the AC is shorn of member provinces perceived as recalcitrant. But that renewed AC would not be the AC, it would be GAFCON. Why doesn't GAFCON simply say, "for us the AC is dead, we are having nothing more to do with it, and we announce ourselves as the larger Communion of Anglicans on the planet"?
I am not sure why you talk about my "allegiance is clearly to the institution first and foremost ... It's a shame, really." That sounds like being a faithful Anglican, committed to the Anglican church, is a bad thing. But are you not also in the same league? You clearly have a greater allegiance to (the new institution) GAFCON than to the old one; and everything you write here implies you are a "stayer" with GAFCON!!
The difference between us is that I am not going to say that your staying qualities and deep allegiance to GAFCON is a "shame"!
Hi Sam. I suspect that your short time as an 'Anglican', in Aotearoa New Zealand, would not have equipped you to properly understand the wider implication of what being part of the Anglican Communion means. I, for instance, have been an Anglican in the Church of England, in which I was Baptized anbd Confirmed many decades ago. I have been an Anglican living in both Australia and in Fiji, and in other countries passing through on my travels. That has given me, I think, a much broader understanding of what it really means to be an Anglican (over a period of 89 years) - in communion with Canterbury and the Lambeth Bishops. ACANZP is truly 'Anglican'.
What Gafcon is contemplating - and may well bring about - is its own version of Anglicanism - but based on its conservative, separatist; "Jerusalem Statement of Faith" which is NOT an integrated document binding all the Anglican Communion Provinces around the world - unlike the Toronto Accord which still applies to the fellowship of participating Churches - from which Gafcon shooses to 'Walk Apart'.
Effectively, this is a new sort of fundamentalist reformation in Anglicanism, which will apply only to conservative, Sola Scriptura Provinces concerned for their own 'purity of doctrine', whithout which they cannot envision the power of Christ to Redeem and save.
What Gafcon does NOT obviously realise, is that "Jesus Christ came into the world to SAVE SINNERS" - not necessarily the pure and holy, who may believe that salvation is for the 'good' alone (like themselves) and Not for Sinners like me.
Believe me, Sam, the traditional Anglican Communion, gathered in fellowship around the historic See of Canterbury (though not ruled by it in any 'papal' way - and still committed to further exploration of possible Unity with Rome in ARCIC) - will survive the breakaway of GAFCON/FOCA, simply because it is anb established part of God's Church, against which the 'Gates of Hell' will NOT prevail.
Hi Peter, there probably are some similarities between SSPX and GAFCON in terms of not observing polity. On the other hand, SSPX is a minority and GAFCON is apparently a majority. Both groups seem to me to be faithful. I’d certainly happily go to SSPX mass. The GAFCON letter has a lot to recommend it if you are tired of Voldemort’s own topic. Sam has picked up my point on rules and majorities.
Nick
"... so why so much dismay?"
Why indeed, Jean?
That the dissidents have such a penchant for narcissistic wounding of those who do not agree with them is the most interesting thing about them. Even usually thoughtful Stephen Noll offers a surly reply to Fulcrum's irenic comment on GAFCON, and it is unnerving that even he ducks their sensible question about the authority of the GAFCON Primates Council etc. If even he cannot answer such an obvious question, then is the pretender to the imperial throne wearing no clothes either?
On the face of it, I should be among the most enthusiastic supporters of GAFCON. I disagree with the liberal provinces along broadly similar lines, agree that some of them have illiberally persecuted conservative Anglicans, and tend to give the young ACNA the benefit of the doubt.
But the attack mindset in GAFCON's happy warriors seems pathological and unscriptural.
BW
Dear Ron,
I wanted to address your penultimate paragraph separately as it is on a different topic. It really is wearisome to have to read this sentiment, or variations of it, repeatedly. "What Gafcon does NOT obviously realise, is that "Jesus Christ came into the world to SAVE SINNERS" - not necessarily the pure and holy, who may believe that salvation is for the 'good' alone (like themselves) and Not for Sinners like me."
You consistently paint evangelicals as a sort of puritanical finger pointing bunch of self-righteous hypocrites. As those who recognise sins in others, but not in ourselves. You seem to think that if one sinner should call attention to the sin in another, they thereby declare themselves to be righteous. I, for one, recognise the deep sin in my own life. I repent of it. And when I don't, I hope that others will call me to account so that I might do so. I am a sinner.
I also want to say that most conservatives, certainly all those whom I know and respect, do not enjoy holding to the truth that homosexual activity is a sin. It is not something we enjoy talking about. On many levels it would be much easier to be take the liberal position: easier for conversations within the world and the church. No good parent enjoys disciplining their children, but no good parent fails to bring discipline where required. Who wouldn't rather be the 'fun uncle' who always says 'yes' and never 'no'?
But we believe that the loving thing to do is to tell people the gospel: that God saves sinners from their sins! Alleluia!
But how can one repent of something if we no longer call it sin? When the gospel went to the gentiles in Acts the apostles said, 'So then, even to the Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.' What leads to eternal life? Repentance.
And so, despite the social awkwardness, despite the increasing distain within society for those who say anything other than praise LGBT viewpoints, and despite the pressure to read scripture another more acceptable way, we hold to the faith for we believe that the gospel is life and health and freedom.
It would be really helpful if you stopped using this mis-characterisation of conservative, even if it does express how you feel about us.
Dear Sam
I initially published your comment (largely reproduced below) until I saw you mention in a negative way, a colleague of yours and mine in our church, by name. Do not do that. No matter what you feel about this situation and other people's involvement in it, naming people is not helpful - and wastes my moderating time!
SLIGHTLY EDITED COMMENT FROM SAM:
Hi Peter and Ron,
Thanks for your responses. Peter, I don't understand the word 'communion' in reference to the global Anglican Church in the deeply theological way that you do, and certainly not as an 'eternally binding relationship.' I find such a position to be baffling. I think it is, precisely, a 'voluntary compact.' That doesn't mean that it isn't important or rich or worth preserving, but our first loyalty must always be faithfulness to Christ. Christians are to obey their earthly masters in all things permissible, but not when they go against the word of God. The same applies, I think, in church relationships: If someone wanders from the truth we must warn them, and attempt to bring out brothers back, but at some point we must 'have nothing to do with them' (Titus 3:10). Paul writes this about a 'divisive man'. What would he say about those who deny the resurrection, want to call God 'she', or say that God blesses that which he calls sin?
Yes, Peter, increasingly GAFCON = AC. Not yet. Not fully. But in time.
Regarding your final paragraph: I am only committed to GAFCON to a point. Indeed, I am only committed to Anglicanism to a point: there is a lot to like about it, but I am committed to GAFCON and Anglicanism only to the point that they are faithful to the word of God. Should GAFCON take steps that are contrary to the word of God on signifiant matters and, despite warnings fail to turn back from their error, I would part ways with them also. The strength of my allegiance to GAFCON over against the ACANZP is directly proportional to the fidelity of each group to the word of God.
Peter, I believe that your ultimate loyalty is to the ACANZP, and perhaps the ABC. You show, consistently, that this is more important to you than biblical fidelity. I don't believe that 'the other side' comes to it's position from the bible: this specious argument is a recent liberal tactic. We keep hearing it over and over: 'we're all reading the same scriptures and coming to different conclusions.' That's nonsense, and I hope that you really believe it either. But you repeat this lie. And you will stay within an increasingly unfaithful church when you should leave and take up the charge to preach the gospel to the world that needs it. But you won't. And that is why I think it is 'a shame'.
Thanks for your comment, Ron. I have very little interest in what the Anglican Communion is or has been for the past 100 years or so. That the AC has given safe harbour to liberals and apostates is to our shame, not our pride. Just because the Anglican church has become something, does not mean that is what it is, or should be. Boringly, and consistently with above, the only reference point for what the Anglican church is, or should be, is the word of God. By such standard, the ACANZP is absolutely, emphatically, and patently not the 'truly Anglican'. A grotesque distortion of Anglicanism? Yes. And unfaithful version of Anglicanism? Absolutely. But 'truly'? No.
The thing Anglicans in New Zealand need fear is not that the gates of Hell will overcome from without, but from within. In some places, and in some people ([edited] as an obvious example) this grotesque distortion has reached the point where it is not part of Christ's Church and so Jesus promise that she would not be overcome no longer applies.
By way of contrast, the Jerusalem Declaration shows what contemporary, non-western Anglicanism holds dear: fidelity to the Word of God. To the extent that it does, it is 'truly Anglican' and will not be overcome.
Dear Sam
With respect to your comment at 7.28 pm above:
(1) Why do you continue to hold a licence in ACANZP?
(2) Is holding a licence in ACANZP inconsistent with your views of ACANZP? ("By such standard, the ACANZP is absolutely, emphatically, and patently not the 'truly Anglican'. A grotesque distortion of Anglicanism? Yes. And unfaithful version of Anglicanism? Absolutely.")
(3) Who tells you what the Word of God means? Is it an authority other than the authority of this church ("the Doctrine and Sacraments of Christ")? On what basis do you judge yourself to be faithful to the Word of God while a licensed teacher in an unfaithful church?
(4) If "our first loyalty must always be faithfulness to Christ" then why do you run my loyalty to Christ down, a loyalty to Christ's own prayer that the church be one, in favour of your preference for separation and division?
(5) If I should leave, should that be before or after you? Are you looking for a lead here or have you already resigned your licence?
These are serious questions, Sam, because words are important and they should mean what they say.
Do you mean what you say about how terrible the church is that you are licensed by and under whose discipline you serve?
Dear Sam, from your comments here, you have shown yourself to be a perfect example of what most long-term Anglicans would call 'Sola Scriptura' believers. Now that may well suit you and your GAFCON-inspired friends but it is NOT typically Anglican - not even Anglican Evangelical. Now this may surprise you, Sam, but by now you will have gathered that most Anglicans in New Zealand are NOT aligned with Gafcon, and that is why our dear sisters and brothers who are part of the departing parishes seemingly cannot live with us. I, certainly would have been prepared to live with Sola Scriptura Christians, and to share the Eucharist with them but, obviously, this is their (and your) decision - to walk away.
Anglicanism (ask Mr Hooker) is based on the 3-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Sweet Reason. Any theological basis contrary to this - such as the Gafcon ethic - is not truly Anglican, as agreed by the Toronto Accord. The number of individual Anglicans in the Gafcon Provinces may, indeed, outnumber those of us in the other Provinces which, however, DO outnmber the actual provinces allied to Gafcon.
Incidentally, there are Evangelical Anglicans who ARE agreeable to the Blessing of Same-Gender legally married couples - people of a long and faithful history of deep Evangelical piety in our Church. Please do not discount these people - even here in Aotearoa/New Zealand who think differently from yourself. They, too, are part of ACANZP - and that - precisely - is why you cannot claim that you are typical iof ALL conservative Evangelicals. I suggest you click on 'Accepting Evangelicals' you may learn something contrary to what you yourself understand about them.
Agape. Fr. Ron
Hi Nick
What is GAFCON's plan for (genuine/true) Anglican ministry in (say) Gore or Westport? Or Levin or Dannevirke? Does it have a missional strategy for Tikanga Maori? Plans to plant churches in Polynesia?
Hi Peter; there won’t be a plan for Westport because it’s in a diocese GAFCON would recognise as authentic. I don’t know enough about GAFCON to comment on the other places. I find GAFCON interesting because usurpation often is and I wonder what we might see in the RC. The difference in the RC is that our chosen remnant is a minority which prefers Trent to V2. It considers Anglicans and Greek Orthodox as heretics. Your remnant claims to be most Anglicans, but essentially with some remnant views (albeit not the same ones as RC trads).
Nick
"I also want to say that most conservatives, certainly all those whom I know and respect, do not enjoy holding to the truth that homosexual activity is a sin. It is not something we enjoy talking about."
I participated in a decade of Fulcrum debates on That Topic. With few exceptions, rigorists apologised for the difficulty that their position was causing others, including gay persons they knew and liked well.
Unsurprisingly then, they pleaded again and again for some sort of scriptural argument from the other side. One was fairly blunt that he would be relieved to have almost any scriptural pretext for changing his mind.
Sam is right about this. Full stop.
It is important to understand what was being sought. Obviously, a scriptural proof that gay sex was plainly approved by God would have been a debate-stopper. But back then, even scriptural support for some less conclusive propositions would have narrowed the gap.
Peter + and ++ Justin and sometimes +++ Francis seem open to a sort of "good disagreement" in which, to sanctify the Name with a holy unity, each tradition agrees to disagree with other credible others about what the revelation from God means. For example, Jean and I seem to have that sort of disagreement about holy communion; her position concerns the physical nature of matter, and mine the inaugurated eschatology of Presence, but neither one is without generations of deep devotion and able scriptural defense.
For their part, conservatives commenting at Fulcrum were not naive about the inevitability of some such disagreements in any enduring fellowship. However, the most thoughtful of them did draw a distinction between a tolerable coexistence with those who follow a different but plausible reading of scripture, and an intolerable one with those who seem not to be following holy writ at all.
Alas, because "a corporation hath no soul" (Lord Chancellor Cook), just so a *synod* meeting as a corporate governing body doth no exegesis or hermeneutics. The reports of TEC's Task Force on Marriage contain a biblical defense of its view of marriage, but these advisory documents do not speak for the General Convention. And analogous working parties of the ACC and the ACANZP have produced reports that are likewise more diplomatic or rationalizing than apostolic and authoritative.
So if someone asks, say, "What authoritative interpretation of the canonical scriptures warrants M29?," there is no reasonable reply that can be given.* Any of us may think of some more or less plausible exegesis of scripture that we think might support it, but none of us can accurately say that your ACANZP has adopted that reading, nor even that your General Synod was very likely applying it in passing M29. Against an admittedly bald reading of the Six Texts there stands a shapeless void. And in that void, synods now implicitly hold all the powers claimed by the medieval papacy. **
That authority gap really is intolerable whether one opposes SSB or pronounces SSBs. A body that does not even profess to know the will of God from the scriptures is not the Body.
The question is whether either staying with the well-organised void or leaving it for a sentimental movement does anything real to fill the gap. Indeed, although one cannot be sure of this, GAFCON seems to be so very synodical that it is in even more danger of that omnivorous authority gap than the churches it despises. What, for example, is the GAFCON position on the imprisonment of homosexuals? ***
* Contrast: when a pope denied the validity of Anglican orders, the ABC and ABY issued a Latin reply that authoritatively corrected the several historical errors that had led the pope astray, and no Anglican of note accused them of pretending to be popes themselves, but by the time of the Robinson matter the ABC was deferring to synods, even in a matter that the Primates had explicitly delegated to him, and only those now in GAFCON objected.
** The governing body of ACNA not so long ago voted to retain the Filioque, just as that of TEC votes triennially on whether baptism is required for admission to communion. Both bodies purport to belong to the apostolic Body. By what right then does either church make either decision?
*** Already, even as GAFCON disrupts the traditional Anglican ecclesiology of the Ten Easy Lessons, Stephen Noll is unable or unwilling to answer Fulcrum's basic questions about the ecclesiology for which they do it. Those who have been overlooking the wild pronunciamenti of GAFCON's primates because they have wiser heads beside them on the platform should pay close attention to this unexpected silence because it is material and perhaps critical to the question whether Covenant/Fulcrum or GAFCON is the wiser conservative response to TEC's SSM, ACANZP's M29 etc.
BW
Hi Nick
I am not so sure about your chosen remnant : ) of the practising Catholics I know well (Ie: personal friends or family) many take a broader approach than the ‘true’ Catholic teaching (e.g. see all Christians as saved and part of a wider family and one a woman even preaches at her local church at the request of the congregation and overseeing Priest). They are all faithful attendees of their Parishes.
Blessings
Dear Peter,
There is much I could say in response to your several questions. For now, in the interests of a Friday night spent with my wife, curry, and Netflix, I will be very brief.
You asked "Do you mean what you say about how terrible the church is that you are licensed by and under whose discipline you serve?"
Yes I do.
And yes, I do feel troubled about being in such a compromised church. I have not yet resigned my position, but that is certainly on the cards: my wardens, congregations, bishop and fellow clergy know this.
But I have resolved not to take any action until after our synod in August.
Dear Ron,
I'm sorry but I will also have to make this comment brief.
I'm well aware that most of NZ is not with GAFCON etc. More is the pity. It is nice that you would be prepared to live with Sola Scripture Christians and probably see it as intolerance that they cannot live with liberal revisions to doctrine and practise. I actually do appreciate that. As a paedo baptist I can accept that within a church you can legitiamitaly hold two different positions on baptism. My family in law are all baptists. They cannot live with these two positions. In that situation I am the generous liberal. And it feels good! But that is because I do not have the same convictions as they do, and unless I did, I would never really understand where they are coming from.
The example of Hooker, rehearsed endlessly by liberals, is a mischaracterising of his position: there was always a primary leg and that was the Scriptures, which governed and ruled the other two.
Finally, it's very easy to wear the evangelical label, even 'conservative evangelical.' But wearing the label does not make it so. It's inevitable that there will be some who some who call themselves as such, but do not appear (in my view) to be so. That may seem judgemental. I believe, however, that 'by their fruit you shall know them.' In my mind, those who support changes in doctrine such as those we are considering show by their actions not to be evangelical after all.
And yes, know that it's a case of 'no true Scotsman...' but I'm ok with that.
Hi Jean, I possibly was not clear. Most Catholics who go to church are Vatican 2 Catholics like me and your friends. We consider ourselves Christians and accept the baptisms of other Trinitarian traditions. We also have a small number of non-Vatican 2 parishes. They go to Latin mass and prefer the Council of Trent, which considers non-Romans as “on the way to finding us”. They are also Christians. My point is that the latter group is not unlike GAFCON. The major difference is that our Trads are a minority. We also have Catholics who are not in full communion with us eg SSPX. They do recognise the supremacy of Francis, but have some complicated but valid objections to V2.
Nick
Dear Sam
Thank you for your honesty and disclosure re your own position within the polity of ACANZP. I appreciate that and I support your continuing journey towards a conclusion which enables you personally to minister according to your own conscientious reading of Scripture.
Bowman,
You ask "What is the Gafcon position on imprisonment of homosexuals.?" That is a question worth asking, and I asked it of the late Mike Ovey of Oak Hill College. He revealed that there had indeed beeen discussion of this issue within Gafcon https://www.eternitynews.com.au/world/christian-oppose-jailing-homosexuality-response/
Dear Sam (in lighter vein) have you ever tried sitting on a stool with one leg longer that the other two? The resulting imbalance could imperil one's safety. And the sense of Hooker's lovely paradigm is lost. The true genius of true Anglicanism lies in its proper balance - especially when one realises that the wisdom of the Scriptures came through the human underrstanding (limited?) of the person interpreting the message. After all, the charism of reason is what sets humans apart from mother animals. we are each given the gift of reason through which to interpret personal relationships - with one another and with God - this is where the area of individual conscience lies. We casn never supplant anotherrt's gift of private coscience. This is why, obviously, you are currently feeling uncomfortable with your own situation.
May God grant you the peace and security you desire and deserve. Agape, Ron
Hi Nick
Thanks for the clarification I did get the wrong end of the stick but now understanding what you were implying with the similarities and differences between the ‘factions’ within our two Churches. I enjoy having your perspective when perusing Peter’s blog.
Blessings
I have to confess one thing that ‘scares’ me is TEC’s current undertaking of writing their prayer book in gender neutral language, e.g. no reference to God as He or Father. It comes too close to altering the Word for me; a kind of creating God in our own image. Notwithstanding I do view God as having male and female characteristics; yet there is something about God as Father even for those for whom earthy concepts of father have created difficulties in picturing God as such. It is this personhood of God that is a big differentiation between Christianity and Islam as per the book “I dared to call Him Father”
Hi Jean
I am slightly cautious re pronouncing on TEC "news" as their recent GC has chopped and changed some things as it has gone along ... hard to keep up ... but I think it has agreed to a more subtle course of action than the one you refer to ... albeit it is going to have its liturgical cake (keep its 1979 book intact) and eat it (continue to foster additional/new services in (I assume) gender free language ...
Hi Peter,
How can any of you present a consistent and cohesive argument about the One and Holy Church, which Christ established on earth.Since Rome put both Peter and Paul to death,why should it be able to claim superiority over the Eastern Church? Was not the Anglican Church part of the Roman Church?
Ron,the thing which sets humans apart from other animals is not "charris of reason" [what ever that is]; but the the fact that He created us in His 'likeness and image"; to dress His creation.It was when we [Adam and Eve] did not use their powers of reasoning to see through the Serpents deception,that we all became sinners. As a Sola Scripturalist,I am well and truly aware of how vulnerable my 'human reasoning' is to deception; and the most reliable truth to test it against, is God's revealed Word, with the help of the Holy Spirit. It is when we use our God given gift of reasoning
in our own power, to determine our relationship with other created things or even God Himself; that we venture into the 'original sin', that is "eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
Hi Peter, yes it does seem to be changing all the time, the current one I think is to immortalise (maybe the wrong word!) parts of the old prayer book and revise current one but in the context of church life as well as a task force due to report in 2021 with a taskforce. I am not usually that up to date with Church affairs just came across it when browsing Taonga! : )
Hi Glen
I am not sure what you mean when you talk about Rome putting Peter and Paul to death ... that was imperial Rome not ecclesial Rome.
One, holy, catholic and apostolic church is God's church, but some human claims are made that the Church of X or the Church of Y is the church-on-earth in which God's church best exists or subsists or even simply "is." Such claims are often shonky (says this Anglican!) but some claims are less shonky than others ... generally the Roman church and the Eastern Orthodox, also Oriental Orthodox churches have good claims to make ... the Fourth Split of the True Gospel Church of Cincinnati, Ohio less so!
At most an Anglican claim in England itself is that the Church of England is the continuing church in England from ancient times and this is a branch of the church of God. Quite what we Anglicans Down Under claim is less obvious, given that while we were here first, the Methodists and Roman Catholics were not long after, and none has ever been "the" church of NZ.
John Sandeman, thank you so much for your recollection of a conversation with Mike Ovey. I hope that the GAFCON conversations that he described to you are continuing.
Some on both sides have taken positions on SSM more as virtue signaling-- "Should not everyone admire my courageous vote for compassion?" "Not as much as they should admire as my courageous vote for adherence to scripture!"-- than with a plausible pastoral concern for the homosexuals who are directly affected by the votes they cast. On both sides, pastors will surpass narcissists by doing something concrete for the 3%.
Everyone should do something measurably effective to reduce the incidence of harrassment and suicide among young people with same sex attraction. Where SSM is legal, living that life seems to have pastoral challenges distinct from those of MWM, and one hopes that churches there will stay around after the wedding to help out with them. Where persons are incarcerated for homosexual acts, one hopes that these prisoners will be prayerfully visited and helped when they are released.
BW
Nick's comments imply a point that I've made more often in Fulcrum than here: there is no Christian tradition that does not have its dynamic and classical expressions. Liberal Anglicans reluctant to make robust provision for conservatives, and conservative Anglicans reluctant to remain in communion with those who are less so are both blind to the same reality.
Even where one pole has abandoned the other, it has developed its own opposition from within after a generation. In my country, there are confessional Reformed churches that all formed as conservative reactions against liberals in their mother churches, but today they all have their own left wings, and anybody would line them up from left to right in the same order. Likewise, among the radically pluralist and humanist Unitarian-Universalists there are crusty curmudgeons that are retrieving the Christian roots of the old Universalist Church. There are even a few U-U evangelicals!
As Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel, so every morning in every place mothers give birth to more bawling liberals and screaming conservatives. The dialectic of these two temperaments is so perennial and universal a feature of human existence that it can only be the post-Fall distortion of something made by the eternal Father as an order of creation.
Thus reasonable people are sceptical of any proposal in art, politics, or religion that would perfect the world by eliminating either one of them. These proposals for a one-eyed humanity have the most appeal to those perfervid minds not yet mature enough to distinguish perceptions driven by their own temperaments from the state of the world itself. While there is no shame in being so blinded, it is their natural condition to be ruled by those who can see with both eyes. Some accept God's wisdom in this; others are cry-babies all their lives.
This psychological reality matters to Christians for a straightforward dogmatic reason: because the Son simply is the coinherence of all things, one cannot fully be Christ if one is agitating for the alienation of what he is reconciling. Conversely, one is regenerate in him if and only if the divisions that opened in humanity at the Fall are being healed in one's own heart.
BW
Amen, Bowman!
"Even where one pole has abandoned the other, it has developed its own opposition from within after a generation. In my country, there are confessional Reformed churches that all formed as conservative reactions against liberals in their mother churches, but today they all have their own left wings, and anybody would line them up from left to right in the same order." B.W.
While this is almost certainly true, does it mean that these churches should not have removed the other? Perhaps each generation needs to fight for the truth, and perhaps it does so knowing full well that this will not be the end of the fight.
Perhaps the immature position is not the one you described above, but the very opposite. Perhaps maturity is weeding the garden in full knowledge that the weeds will return, and that it will have to be done again. Indeed, knowing that in pulling up current weeds you make room for the growth of other weeds that hitherto remained unseen.
Perhaps the immature position is actually the slippers-and-pipe comfort of taking the middle road: the one who, kicking out his feet and placing his hands sagely behind his head, claims to understand and appreciate the diversity of the rich tapestry of perspective, belief and practise; the position that prides itself on seeing all sides of the cube; the self-assured certainty (that often presents as smugness) that their cool-headedness gives them a certain maturity and that those who take sides are simply wild and headstrong.
Maybe the weak are actually the strong, and the strong the weak.
In particular, Sam, maturity is proposing that the Diocese of Nelson secedes from ACANZP to join GAFCON?
Hi Ron
I am not publishing yr comment as it touches on the Chch situation. Also you may not be reading the question mark at the end of the sentence above. I am asking whether it is maturity when a proposal is made for a Dio to secede. In my view it is not.
Dear Peter,
Your comment at 4:47pm is disappointing in that it fails entirely to interact with my comment from 9:32am. It's purpose, rather, seems to be simply to show that you have read my motion.
Your comment at 8:46pm indicates that, in your view, seceding from a province is prima facie a mark of immaturity. This is insulting to many people around the world who have taken a difficult and costly stand with integrity and honesty before God. It also suggests that our very denomination is one born out of immaturity.
Dear Sam,
Your comment re maturity and immaturity was rather abstract and it seemed to me that its concrete application must be in the secession motion you are proposing to your Synod. I think that motion is both wrong and immature for the following reasons:
1. It is not to be compared with other churches in recent or 16th century contexts elsewhere in the Anglican world. In none of those contexts has the Anglican Church offered a way of remaining in the church and believing whatever one believes about SSB without fear of discipline. There is no need to for anyone to leave our church, let alone for a whole Diocese to secede.
2. It is not an act of bravery to boldly seek to secede. Rather it is an act of aggression against GLBT Anglicans. Seceding churches let alone dioceses are distancing themselves from GLBT Anglicans in a manner which will affect gospel conversation with GLBT NZers for decades to come.
3. The church in England left Rome to become the Church of England for a variety of reasons, which historians debate (maturity v immaturity?). For myself, there is no comparison between the birth of the 16th century CofE for political reasons, and for theological reasons concerning the gospel of grace v works, and 21st century departures for reason of ... people loving each other for life and asking for God's blessing on that love.
No, Sam, I do not see secession as mature in any way at all.
Dear Peter, having read your subsequent conversation vwith Sam on this thread, I now realise that Sam is contemplating the secession of the Diocese of Nelson - because he is actually a clergyperson of that diocese - not one of our own Diocese of Christchurch. If I had known that Sam was a Nelson clergyman, I would have commented differently.
I agree with you, Peter, that the historic parting of the English Church from Rome was both a political and a theological movement which has, sadly, provided excuses for further schismatic activity - for various other reasons - ever since.
However, the maturation of the Church in England from under the extant political and theological rule of Rome, enabled a more diverse understanding of God's intention for the place of the Church in society - not only in England but also in other countries - that brought about a possibility of a more diverse appreciation and eirenic openness to the grace and mercy of the Living God as exemplified in the life and teaching of Christ, himself. Some relics of the 'old regime' are still being revealed (originated by Good Pope John XXIII, at Vatican II) in the Roman Church under the beneficent reign of Pope Francis. (This, too, is still being resisted by conservatives in the R.C. Church, who see the present Pontiff as 'too liberal').
As you have written, Peter, the current spat about the Church's openness to the LGBT minority in ACANZP is hardly an excuse for yet another schismatic severance of the Church. If indeed it were, then why not part on issues like the use of artificial contraception (another breech of intentional procreation in marriage?); divorce and re-marriage (a breech of the Domincal teaching?) or women in ministry (a Sola Scriptura conservative construction of biblical patriarchal tradition?) - each of these 'departures' from previous tradition would have provided a better theological excuse for partition.
What is so repugnant about ordered and committed, faithful ame-sex relationships that should prompt such a drastic move away from the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus:
"That all may be one" ? Simple humility requires that we refrain from judging the moral probity of other people as less than our own (cf: The parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector).
Hi Peter,
The Jesus who prayed that we might all be one in Him, was the same Jesus who said:"That he who made them in the beginning ......../" So ,if we are to place
importance on His words regarding UNITY, then surely the same applies to the latter.
Dear Glen
Exactly.
And the more some of us are asking what Jesus would do and say in our day and age, the less convinced we are that gay and lesbian people are condemned by Jesus if they reach out in love to another person and form a lifelong partnership with them.
Let me ask you this question: when Jacob slept with his concubines, was he committing fornication or adultery? After all he was not married to his concubines so it must have been one or the other, mustn't it?
Or, is it conceivable that God does not condemn every act of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman?
Hi Peter,
When you say to Sam
“It is not an act of bravery to boldly seek to secede. Rather it is an act of aggression against GLBT Anglicans. Seceding churches let alone dioceses are distancing themselves from GLBT Anglicans in a manner which will affect gospel conversation with GLBT NZers for decades to come”
you seem to forget that some (and I am NOT referring to Sam) (1) consider that anyone who practises sexuality outside sacramental marriage is not a Christian at all - ie you are making no useful point because you are essentially defending fornicating heterosexuals as well and (2) are non-practising LGBT Christian Conservatives who might well agree with Sam that the line needs to be drawn. Lest I be seen to counsel schism (which I have no doubt is a special type of evil), I make it clear that I do not. Bowman has a talent in saying things better than I do and I agree with him.
Nick
Hi Peter;
A point of clarification re my comment just submitted. It is the counselling of Anglican schism by a Catholic that I would consider evil. If Anglicans want to draw a line, that’s an internal matter for them.
Nick
Hi Nick
I am trying to reflect the angst (if not worse) that GLBT Anglicans hereabouts are feeling as churches leave (so to speak) "because of us." That is an appalling burden to bear. I am also trying to reflect the general situation of churches, in this case, Anglican churches (whether ACANZP or "new" Anglican churches) seeking to engage with GLBT Kiwis in gospel conversations. ACANZP has the advantage of saying "we are in continuing conversation about what it means to come to Christ as a GLBT person, we have differences and disagreements within our church, but you are welcome and you do not necessarily need to break up your civil marriage if you choose to be part of us." "new" Anglican churches at some point - if not obvious already - would need to say to GLBT persons in gospel conversations, "We are different to other Anglican churches precisely because we have only one view on GLBT persons; we are defined by that view; that is the reason we have come into existence; so if you join us you will need to ..." (I don't want to specifically second guess what would be said to a civilly married couple, but I can imagine it would not be that inviting.)
I leave it to you - if you chose - to say anything about the RCC and gospel conversations with GLBT persons and/or what RCC teaching means for GLBT Catholics ... but you and I know that there is some lively reflection/debate going on within the RCC church about what it means to "welcome"/"evangelise" GLBT persons.
Unsurprisingly, Nick, T. S. Eliot said it even better than we do--
"But the Church cannot be, in any political sense, either conservative or liberal, or revolutionary. Conservatism is too often conservation of the wrong things: liberalism a relaxation of discipline; revolution a denial of the permanent things." -- T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture: The Idea of a Christian Society and Notes Towards the Definition of Culture.
BW
Dear Peter
You write: “Seceding churches let alone dioceses are distancing themselves from GLBT Anglicans in a manner which will affect gospel conversation with GLBT NZers for decades to come.”
This is where we begin to talk past each other. While we use the same language, we mean different things. “Gospel conversion” for orthodox Anglicans means to ‘repent, believe and be baptised’. (Acts 2:38)
However, it is difficult to determine what “Gospel conversion” means for those including yourself who support SSB. Is repentance from sin still a prerequisite for ‘gospel conversion’, or will belief and baptism suffice?
If it is the latter, then this truly is another gospel.
However, if you still believe repentance is required, then can you explain why practicing homosexuals don’t have to repent of their sexual sin?
Dear Brendan
I agree, gospel conversion for orthodox Anglicans means to repent, believe and be baptised.
Repentance involves conviction that I am headed in the wrong direction and need to turn my life around. That applies to gay and straight people.
I think you are talking about repentance from specific sins. Again, for specific sins, repentance means conviction that I am doing the wrong thing and I need to stop doing that and live according to God's precepts.
Gay and straight people coming to Christ will be convicted of specific sins - it is a work of the Holy Spirit.
But sometimes what I think is a specific sin, and what you are convicted of are two different things. I happen to think smoking is a specific sin but I acknowledge that there are Christian smokers who do not repent of smoking. That is between them and the Holy Spirit. You won't catch me railing against smoking from the pulpit. You also won't find me leaving the church because some Christians in the church smoke (nor because no bishops publicly condemn that). You also won't find me saying what you say about me, about those who preach the gospel but don't include earnest entreaties to smokers to repent.
Anyway, my main point re conversation stopping is not to do with the above paragraph! My point is, I think there will be very, very few gospel conversations between GLBT Kiwis and Christians who belong to churches defined by their anti-SSB views. GLBT Kiwis sense hostility a long way off and won't bother you! (And you may not think anti-SSB views are hostile but it is not how you perceive it that will matter, but how GLBT Kiwis perceive it.)
Dear Peter,
I'm sorry that you misapplied my comment on maturity/immaturity to my motion to our synod. That was never in my mind as I wrote my post.
Some contributors here often speak in somewhat abstract examples/illustrations and I don't think mine is any more abstruse than any of them. But, as I said before, in leveraging my comment to bring up my motion you have failed to engage with it.
I think my point is well worth engaging with and so I will state it again: hopefully more clearly. When a person weeds the garden the immature/naive gardener might think that the weeds will not grow back: that they have done their work. A mature gardener, however, knows that the weeds will grow back. But that does not stop them weeding: they do so in full knowledge that this is not the end of their work. The concrete application of this is that those who bring discipline or separation within the church might conceivably be compared to the second gardener: they know that this is not the end of erring doctrine or praxis, but they still go ahead knowing that they will have to confront error again in the future.
In response to this, you have simply asserted that you do not see secession as mature at all, but have failed to elucidate reasons why this is so. Reasons 1 and 3 at 8:22 only show why the situation in ACANZP is, in your mind, different to secessions which you imply are legitimate (which undermines your final sentence). Your second reason has little bearing on the discussion at all as it boils down to: hurting/upsetting people is, ipso facto, an indication of immaturity.
I am glad for these discussions, Peter, for I believe your own position, hitherto rather veiled, is becoming quite clear.
Hi Peter
Well, I agree with you. If those involved in sexual sins, be they gay or straight view a call to repentance as ‘hostile’ then we won’t be ‘bothered’ by many gay or straight kiwis in our churches. Maybe that’s why we are not bothered by many as it is.
Welcome to the sexual revolution.
However, there are many casualties beginning to wash up on the shores of our liberal beaches, including those for whom the sexual revolution has become a nightmare rather than a dream fulfilled, both gay and straight. For these people the good news of the gospel, including a call to repentance starts to make sense.
We will be there for them, God willing.
I wonder if Glen thinks that - along with his understanding of homosexual 'sin' he is equally disturbed by heterosexual 'sin' (contraception?). OR, does Glen not consider that to be a 'sin'?
Very well said, Brendan! Your brief comment is spot on on both points.
Bowman; thanks for picking up my unconscious bias. I deliberately went to the Starnbergersee in my 20s to feel The Wasteland. Are you also a fan of the Poet?
Nick
Dear Peter,
Your example at 3:49pm completely fails because there is no explicit teaching in Scripture that smoking is a sin.
Could you try again with another example of something that is consistently and explicitly prohibited in both testaments, and clearly runs against God's good design for creation?
Hi Peter, yes Romans are talking about LBGT issues. You call them GLBT which is not standard and you might want to sort that. The difference with us is that we have a well-defined structure that even Francis (possibly our Trump) cannot overcome and certainly not in his late life’s Winter. We undoubtedly have a large number of priests who took orders so that they did not have to face who they were, but this is not encouraged. In fact, Benedict made it clear that men with unresolved sexuality issues were not to be ordained.
Nick
LGBT.
Nick
Dear Nick,
Ah ... yes, LGBT it is.
Dear Sam
8.02 pm: what a fascinating approach to sin! Only that which is explicitly taught in both testaments against God's good creation. Does this mean smoking sneaks in as "righteous" (even though it is against the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit) but same-sex civil marriage (even though that is not explicitly discussed in Scripture) does not? Tell us more about your methodology!
5.14 pm: secession tends to lead to secession and thus is not a mature Christian approach (since maturity is always about the body and the body is one). The tragedy of the Reformation has been a splendid thing has become a many splintered thing. So my last sentence may or may not count against me! As for your illustration re the gardener, I am - honestly - not quite sure what you are saying: are you saying that the mature (weeding and ready to weed again) gardener is akin to the church leader who leads a congregation to leave knowing he might need to lead a separation from that new congregation when it turns out to harbour error? That is, is weeding an analogy for secession?
Going back to your post higher up, why would your approach be more mature than the approach which recognises the tension between conservative and liberal occurs within all churches and thus refuses to secede and favours living with the tension instead?
It may be brave to keep breaking away, but is it wise? Has the history of Protestantism taught us nothing? Do you learn anything from church history?
My approach - which might (in your sight) be the pipe and slippers approach - is certainly more centrist, arguably more reflective of Anglicanism's approach to difference through the centuries, but provides these days no smugness, let alone a pipe and slippers. The centre is beset from all sides!! You want me to leave ACANZP. Others in ACANZP want me to be less sympathetic to you/GAFCON ... what is a man to do? It is not time for slippers, let alone a pipe (which is, as you know, a specific sin against the body ...).
Aw, come off it, smoking is fine! For so long - beginning with James I - we have been denounced by intolerant fundamentalists for being what we are - smokers - as if smoking was a choice! Things were easier for us in the past until that radical new puritan health group arose, COFGON, and it's depressing that Peter Carrell has thrown in his lot with them. We tried to compromise, arguing that smoking should be allowed for consenting adults in private and making a case for SSB (same smoke breathing), but now we demand nothing less than Equal Morbidity! Are we incensed? You bet! And, yes, we have a great biblical methodology as well:
Your body is a temple of the Spirit, and in the Old Testament a cloud of smoke filled the temple....
Er, I'll get my smoking jacket.
Nick O'Teen
Dear Nick,
I have no objection to incense in God's Temple; only in my parish church.
Also, I need to walk back my commitment not to rail against smoking from the pulpit.
I realise that if I see people smoking while I preach I will say something :)
(That is the odd thing about the righteousness of smoking, isn't it: I have never seen a smoker light up inside church.)
James 1: what a man. He knew a thing or two about sinning ... and about politics, cunningly keeping the Puritans happy by approving their request for a new translation of the Bible. No, wait, there is an idea we could use right now ...!
Archbishop Benson and Hedges
"I believe all parties were wrong in many things last century."
-- Anglican evangelical Thomas Scott (1798) in Letters and Papers of Thomas Scott, 1824, p. 221.
Is Sam + really agreeing with ++ Katherine Jefforts-Schori!?
At 4:29 on 17th July, I pointed out that, whilst every unregenerate secular society on earth tends to liberal-conservative divisions that reflect openness/hostility to new experience (cf Costa & McCrae), *those who believe in Christ as described in Colossians 1* recognise and bracket the psychological cause of such divisions as they mature in the truth of verse 17, and consequently they also reject simple lib-con fractures of the Body as a matter of course. Since even reasonable unbelievers also reject the idea that art, politics or other culture should be exclusively avant-gardist or reactionary, this is not surprising. One does not have to be a Christian to see that those who prefer/avoid change have very filtered perceptions of the social world, but if one is "in Christ" in whom "all things hold together" then one regards a better integrated view of human situations as *necessarily* more connatural to the mind of Christ.
This is why our Lord said, not "blessed are the warmakers," but "blessed are the peacemakers" and why he enjoined his disciples to practise, not everlasting suspicion and gamesmanship of the unregenerate, but the non-violence and non-resistance of minds renewed by the cross. Likewise, the Johannine gospel and letters ring changes on three themes-- that allegiance to the Son unifies disciples, that the resulting *koinonia* differentiates the Body from merely worldly assemblies, and that those who leave the Body never knew the Son. Although St John places more weight on the last of these, the same three themes are easily found throughout the letters of St Paul. Concretely, the NT has not a few admonitions against mere contentiousness.
To see all of this as arbitrary rather than organic is to misunderstand it. The apostles were not prescribing a sort of etiquette that disciples should try to follow when they disagree; they were describing the true Body that they saw emerging when the Holy Spirit moved persons to acknowledge the identity of the Son. Their testimony is not advice: eg, become a Christian somehow, then work on being as agreeable as your fallen temperament allows. Rather it distinguishes true faith in the Son from its counterfeits: if you truly have an allegiance to the Son, then you too will see and feel the creation with the Creator's own love, this will transform your social relations as it has those of others, and you will then be incapable of the cranky fractiousness of unbelievers doing mere politics. Allegiance to the Son can make you charitable and pro-social, and just so it can make you a dissenter and martyr, but because of Who the Lord is, it can never make you a liberal or conservative wingnut.
That anyway is the sort of argument that many made to ++ Katherine Jefferts-Schori and her fellow partisans when they were busily weeding TEC's garden of clergy who were not suitably liberal. More recently, ++ Foley Beach made it when he recalled to the last Primates Meeting the many TEC clergy who were deposed from holy orders for disagreeing with the General Convention, and handed ++ Fred Hiltz a copy of the impressive Anglican Catechism edited by James Packer, who was all but hounded out of the ACC. I suspect that Sam's sympathies are with those weeded out of TEC and ACC-- as are mine-- but his recent comments seem plainly in favour of their gardeners' principles.
Anyway, it seems only mature in the Lord to ask-- why did one side of ACANZP insist on a new rite that a substantial part of the Body could not accept and for which it offered no theological rationale? And why does the other side even consider choosing schism over a plan allowing them to walk somewhat apart? So far, the rationales for these moves that we have all seen do not seem worthy of minds transformed by the worship of the Christ of Colossians 1:17. Do not even the pagans do at least as well?
BW
Hi Bowman
I am somewhat torn by your two most recent posts (which mirror a comment or two by you much above that in this thread).
On the one hand, far be it for me to ascribe any kind of perfectionism to our General Synod, generally or particularly about its recent decision re SSB: we are not above criticism.
On the other hand, I think there is greater maturity to our decision than your comments recognise. [And in making this claim I am not here and now saying anything about the (im)maturity or otherwise of those choosing schism; only about the GS decision.]
1. As a matter of fact, the GS did not approve a new rite, only the possibility of one, and then that is to be approved (if not written) by that rather traditional office of the church catholic, the bishop!
2. Precisely because of "the Body" and because of commitment to unity in the body of Christ, the decision of GS was a decision to maintain the unity of the body by not forcing a change of belief or practice; that is, a decision to include (formally, officially) what has been a reality of the body of Christ (indeed is a reality of the whole global body of Christ today): more than one view on the blessing of same-sex lifelong partnerships.
3. We can argue over what "substantial" means re that part of the Body could not accept etc, but in a democratic perspective it is a minority of the Body; and what is not accepted is not a "new rite" (if that means some kind of common rite to which all must adhere) but the permission for others to use a rite which is not common to all.
4. "for which it offered no theological rationale" is a partial truth. It partially describes our situation re the working group's task: not to do theological work but to come up with a practical solution. But that description does not describe the theological state of our church which is very much a state in which theological work has been done and in which theological views are held, but they are not united views held in common. In the particular case of support for SSB, the theological case includes consideration of love: God is love, where love is, there is God; God blesses people and wishes love to flourish among and between people; GOd blesses covenantal relationship - bonded relationship in which people will not let go of each other (Naomi/Ruth) and in which people love one another with deep, deep love (Jonathan/David). Conversely, the theological argument against SSB seems to recognise and value love between two people but the same argument proscribes sexual expression of that love unless between one man and one woman in permanent, faithful marriage. Both arguments are grounded in Scripture. Each argument sees considerable deficiency in the other argument.
Now, I need to leave it to you, Bowman and others, whether anything here seems "worthy of minds transformed by the worship of the Christ of Colossians 1:17" suffice for me to say that what GS decided is something which reflects the life of the Body as found in parishes, where people draw together to worship the Christ of Colossians 1:17 while holding opposite views on SSB.
Perhaps GS should not have decided to give expression to those opposite views via a mechanism for permission (not imposition); but I think what it has done is not quite as you describe it Bowman!
Dear Peter (1 of 2)
I have been reflecting on your comments to Bowman and the events within the Anglican church, and attempting to frame them within the context of what God is doing in our midst. Motion 29/7 allowing SSB was promoted and endorsed by our national synod. This resulted in resignations from Synod and other associated events are still unfolding. 58 Anglicans from NZ join more than 1900 other Anglicans around the world to attend the 10th Gafcon conference in Jerusalem, a group explicitly endorsing Biblical orthodoxy around human sexual expression.
Meanwhile ACANZP’s Archbishop Philip Richardson has just attended TEC’s General convention in Texas where about 10,000 Episcopalians have taken part. You will recall the Episcopal Church (TEC) has been suspended from the Anglican Communion because they implemented SSM, not that this seemed to bother our Arch Bishop. To be fair attendance does not necessarily equate to endorsement, but without clarification it can be reasonably assumed.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2016/january/episcopal-church-suspended-anglican-communion-gay-marriage.html
Not all Episcopal Bishops supported SSM, of those that remained following the fracture of the church, there were only 8 of 101 Bishops who refused to allow SSM in their dioceses. I note that Episcopal leaders at the convention have just over-ruled the eight Bishops saying gay couples will now be able to marry in their home parish, even if their Bishop objects.
https://religionnews.com/2018/07/13/episcopal-convention-approves-a-pastoral-solution-on-same-sex-marriage/
One assumes these Bishops had the same or similar protection and assurances for their conscience that any dissenting Bishop now has in New Zealand. Either way, they have just been thrown under the Episcopal bus.
Archbishop Philip was busy meeting with these very same leaders while he was over there. He says he finds these face-to-face meetings with other leaders invaluable: "Being able to sit down and have decent discussions with Primates from around the world about the situations they're facing, the priorities they see, the challenges they face, and just building those relationships is a huge plus.”
http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/news/the_communion/texas
There is a growing divide in the Anglican communion, with Gafcon on one side, and TEC on the other, with Lambeth in the middle (sort of). If there were any doubt, it is increasingly clear that our Primates and our province is more comfortable with a suspended ‘same sex marriage’ TEC than it is with an orthodox Gafcon. If you want a glimpse into the future for the province, then look no further than Arch Bishop Richardson as your guide.
2/2
So, what are the saints to make of all this?
Hebrews 12 makes it clear that we cannot escape God’s discipline, if indeed we are true sons and daughters. Verse 10 tells us the reason for his discipline; “that we might share in his holiness.”
Anglican leadership has abandoned its responsibility to exercise Godly discipline within the church for many years, particularly with respect to same sex relationships. This has been a serious failure; all failures have consequences. Something that should have been addressed with pastoral compassion years ago has now taken root in the church and is making demands of its own. Demands that Bishops and Arch Deacons alike have chosen to accommodate for the preservation of Anglican unity.
However, it has become apparent that God is more concerned for his holiness than he is for the preservation of institutional Anglicanism. We are seeing this play out globally across the Anglican communion with the growth of Gafcon over the last decade. The division that is now taking place here in NZ and elsewhere is an expression of God’s discipline in the church. What Bishops failed to do, God is personally undertaking. This pruning and refining process has been initiated by the Spirit of God. It is painful and more so because it has been deferred for so long. However, as Hebrews reminds us, discipline “produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.”
If I am wrong, and God views SSB/M simply as a matter of justice and equality then His blessing will rest upon those who are promoting SSB/M. Conversely, if this is an issue of sanctification and the holiness of God’s people, then the stakes are high indeed. I don’t believe there is middle ground to be had over this question. Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters”. Jesus is either for SSB/M or he is against it. We are gathering with him or we are scattering.
Dear Peter, In your interaction with Bowman and Brendan, you are being confronted with what I feel (in the gut, and heart, if not the brain), is a reflection on the wisdom of the much revered 'Thomas a Kempis' who, in his book 'The Imitation of Christ' ais something rather important (pp Today's 'New Daylight') 'Christ should be our first priority "if we desire true enlightenment and freedom from all blindness of heart". He also stated that a simple heart response to God was more important than understanding ABSTRUSE ACADEMIC THEOLOGY:
"Lofty word do not make a man just or holy; but a good life makes him dear to God"
The Comentator adds this "There is no one blueprint for this 'Imitation'.
In the current situation in our Church - we are not dicussing some abstruse academic point - there are real people's lives at stake - sometimes - in the case of LGBT youth - literally. The question here might be; Is our Church's attemp to deal in the most pastoral way possible with this small group of people whose sexual orientation - or gender identity - is different from the majority consonant with that of Jesus?. How would Jesus deal with them?
In his statement about the number of people from our Church who attended the recent GAFCON (58) Brendan is revealing the precise number of people who are determined to oppose the prospect of faithful same-sex partners to be blessed by the Church - with SSBs being 'allowed' (maybe like lepers at the leper's hole in mediaeval churches through which they were allowed to view the Divine Mysteries?) to join with fellow Christians at the Eucharist.
Brendan came to us from his role as an independent 'leader' of a house-Church which perhaps is not the most apt paradigm for the more openly accessible 'Body of Christ' in the Church. He brings with him his own particular theories on what constitutes the 'orthodox' in Christian behaviour - perhaps from the point of view of the 58 people who attended GAFCON. BUT, does that mean that he, and the Gafconites, are more 'orthodox' in their outlook than the many thousands of Kiwi Anglicans who stayed at home - many of them blissfully unaware of what was going on in Jerusalem?
What needs to be understood, too, in all of these conversations, is that there is not just one 'Sola Scriptura' view, either. Perhaps this is the reason Jesus taught through the medium of Parables; so that each person had to think through for themselves, and in their own situation and context, the root meaning of his message.
Jesus was crucified for his political and theological stance against hegemony - whether that be of social construction or of any claim to an insular biblical 'orthodoxy'. "They will know you're my disciples BY YOUR LOVE" (not your theology).
Dear Brendan,
It is always better to be in the tent talking that outside in the cold night air speculating on what is being said in the tent! And - as you observe - TEC is a rather large tent.
Indeed, God will judge us - TEC, ACANZP, GAFCON, CofE. It is important that we get things right: morally, legally, ethically, liturgically. There is a lot to live up to and none of us are worthy. Thank goodness God is "rich in mercy."
I do not agree with you above when you say that you wish ACANZP had sorted this situation out years ago. Do you really think that if, say, in 2000 we had stated: "this is the bottom, unchangeable line" that no new thoughts would have emerged when, say, civil union legislation was passed, and, if not then, when civil marriage [SSM] was passed? Do you really think that if such a hypothetical bottom line had been declared "once and for all" that no new pressure to reconsider would not have arisen subsequently as new, and more families discovered loved ones coming out as gay and bringing home their lifelong partner etc?
The church - I think I have said this more than a few times here - has faced many challenges re human sexuality, and it has, in grappling with emerging issues (or familiar issues becoming unmistakably more prevalent), made decisions and then changed its decisions - Anglicans most famously on contraception (between 1920 and 1930 Lambeth Conferences) and (at different points in 20th/21st centuries) on divorce and remarriage. (And, for clarity, I am not asking you to accept that SSB/M is an equivalent issue: I am only asking you to accept that Anglican churches [and others!] have a track record of making a decision and then reviewing it down the track.
Now, we may face the judgement of God (we may be under the judgement of God -declining numbers and all that): after all the "Catholic God" must necessarily take a very dim view of our responses to contraception and to divorce/remarriage, to say nothing of SSB/M. What if God is not Anglican!?!?!?!
But then, isn't life complex? That same Catholic God must take a very dim view of the majority of Catholic couples who disobey the church's teaching on contraception. I assume - from what you say - that they are all either under God's judgment or facing the awful prospect of judgment for such flagrant disobedience. (Along with, dare I say it, a substantial number of priests who are rather sotto voce [softly spoken] on such a matter, scarcely ever raising it from the pulpit.)
On the other hand, is it possible that God - the God of all churches - is richer in mercy than to hound us for all disobedience? Is it conceivable that God is richer in mercy than me ... and, may I say it?, than you?
Peter; I tend to agree with Brendan when he comments. What I no longer understand is (what seems to me) your move from defined concepts to the amorphous waffle Francis ( your theologically-educated inferior) uses. God bless Francis (and other people who mean good) but theology is Francis’s Achilles. What “mercy” are you talking about? Mercy for those who are in a state of grace or likely to go to hell? Francis doesn’t state the difference. We need to be clear, you cannot use Roman sinful disobedience to Humanae Vitae to justify your own Church’s disobedience elsewhere, if that is what you are suggesting.
Nick
Dear Peter, and all who have commented on this thread; Peter's last paragraph here (@ 10.53) should remind us that ultimately, we are all in need of God's forgiveness for the imperfection of our own lives. Relationally, we are warned by Jesus in the Lord's Prayer, that we should only ask God to forgive us our sin - by the very same measure with which we are prepared to forgive other people their sins!!.
Now this is epic in terms of our understanding of our own indebtedness to God.
This makes sense of the Steward who was praised by his master for using unearned authority to forgive debt owed - not to him but to his master. Using spiritual capital belonging to his master. A gift of forgiveness of the sins of others, Jesus said, when exercised by us, will redound to our credit. That shows a God of Love and Compassion such as no other religious system can bear witness to. The clue to this, in the Scriptures, is that "Christ died for us WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS"
It seems to me that the sin 'against the Holy Spirit' might be the sin of thinking that God will not forgive other sinners as well as he forgives us our own sins.
"Father, forgive us our sins AS WE FORGIVE those who sin against us!"
On the other hand, it was the 'unjust steward' whom Jesus was critical of. And we all know about his indebtedness (although he may not have been aware of it!)
Hi Peter [July 18th @11.10 PM.] and Ron [July 19th @ 5.49 PM.],
Apologies for the delay in responding to your questions,[as above]; and in answer, I say that the Old Testament is [a] God's Revelation to the Jewish People and [b] the record of both the positive and negative history of Israel's obedience /disobedience to that Revelation,and [c], an account of various figures, whose lives effected that history. Your question,Peter refers to Jacob; whose example can also be found in Abraham,David,Solomon.
Whenever, human connivance enters into our relationship with God's Revelation; disaster is not too far away, as with Abraham and Sarah. The results of their actions are still with us today in the "Middle East" and Islam. Nathan said to David:"Howbeit, because of this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born unto you shall surely die." 2 Sam.12/14. However, does God condemn
repentant sinners for their sin; Christ said to the woman taken in adultery:
"Neither do I condemn thee;go,and sin no more." John 8/11.
Ron, July 21 @ 11.34 PM; you write:"Father, forgive us our sins AS WE FORGIVE those who sin against us." It is sad that the ISSUE has been presented in a manner, which was certain to cause division and separation. The real question is; "Is sexual practices outside of one man and one woman,
consistent with God's Revelation; and if so, in what circumstances?"
I never wished to become embroiled in arguments of who is sinning against God. I can forgive people who sin against me; but I can not Forgive people who SIN AGAINST GOD.Was that not the accusation which the Jewish leaders made against Christ;[Who is this man who claims to be able to forgive sin against God?]? Likewise, I have no desire to start determining whether or not contraception is consistent with His Revelation; but it strikes me that abortion is not. If contraception prevents one pregnancy which leads to abortion; I know which way I would argue.
Dear Nick, I think your comment at 11:17pm is spot on.
Dear Ron, your post is sobering and caused me to self-reflect, so thank you. I trust that you take this attitude towards those on here (like me) with whom you often disagree...
Grace and peace
Sam
Thanks Glen
While appreciating your answer e.g. that connivance enters the picture; and also noting that some pragmatic considerations might also enter the discussion e.g. approve contraception in order to avoid the greater sin of abortion; I am not clear that you have ruled out the possibility that there might be sexual relationships which God neither commends nor condemns!
Dear Nick
Fair, critical comment (and, of course!, appreciation for comparison with Francis :).)
Let me try to be more precise (while building on what I said above re the Catholic/Anglican God etc):
- church rules and teaching may or may not reflect the exact (precise, exacting) will of God on matters as fraught, fruitful and fragile as human sexual relationships, despite those setting the rules and doing the teaching believing earnestly that they are laying out the exact divine will;
- it is possible, therefore, that the mercy of God in all its richness is a mercy which is kinder than human-set out rules and teaching might ordinarily imply;
- it would be very risky, of course, for we humans to assume we know God's mercy will overcome God's exact will, so we ought, generally speaking, to pay attention to God's appointed rule-setters/teachers (bishops, priests, deacons, theological doctors, etc);
- nevertheless, God's richness in mercy includes God knowing our situations better than we know ourselves, and with infinite understanding of our contexts, in a manner which rules and teaching often cannot take account of: the prima facie witness for this being the gospels, in which we find Jesus displaying a mercy the scribes and the Pharisees have not been able to imagine;
- further, the very incarnation of Jesus Christ gives us confidence that Jesus knows the burden of being human, as well as having a wisdom greater than that of Solomon in respect of living in times of trial and in the face of temptations;
- thus I am confident that God will be merciful (even if God is precisely "Catholic" on the matter) re the use of artificial contraception, because the burden of human sexual desire allied with the pressure to offer reasonable well-being to well-spaced children is something not always well-suited to strict obedience to Humanae Vitae; and God understands that, and God is kind. (Besides, reading a recent NZ Catholic celebrating 50 yrs of HV, I couldn't help noticing that a learned priest advancing the cause of HV via the gains in technology enabling an app to give precise knowledge of fertility (and thus also of infertility) across a month, fell into the trap of finding a technological solution to a natural conundrum ... which is, er, kind of what artificial contraception does ... );
- thus I am also confident, and not because one wrong entails another wrong, that God's richness in mercy also understands gay and lesbian Christians who find they cannot sustain celibacy but can commit to one faithful, permanent sacrificial loving relationship with a fellow human. And, while I cannot find sufficient revelational base to assure that couple of God's blessing, I am not, frankly, confident that they are thereby consigned to hell (as, it appears, some colleagues of mine up and down our fair Anglican province, are doing);
- further, I am not prepared to be part of a church in which gay and lesbian couples [whatever their fellow Christians make of them] are invisible, but always "the other", "the ones who must change if they are to be accepted by us as full members of our church" and a somewhat picked on other at that; such a church does not strike me as reflective of a church which understands itself to be founded on the rich mercy of God, by a crucified Jesus who died that the barriers between Jews and "others" might be broken down (so today's reading from Ephesians).
I hope that is a little more precise!
Hi Peter; thanks for your substantive answers. I’ll need some time to think through what you have said. I should say that although I consider your theological abilities superior to those of Francis, I obviously defer to the magisterium of my church. As always thanks for allowing me to comment here.
Nick
Hi Peter,
Solomon said that there is a time and a season for everything under the face of the sun; but I am not sure that this is the time nor the season for my human reasoning; it of course being constrained by the prohibition of not partaking of the "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". However, within that constraint, let me put forth my reasoned feelings for my stance.
[a] At a specific time and place in history.God lifted mankind above the rest of living creation by forming them in His likeness and image. That is, He breathed into Adam the "breath of Spiritual Life"; and He gave Adam a "help mate". In doing so, He lifted mankind's procreation above the instinctual mating habits of the animal kingdom; driven by the so called "greedy gene".In doing so, He said;" I want you populate the earth and have dominion over it in My name".He did not want one man with a dominant gene
who had accumulated power and position having a great number of wives. Thus,"one man one woman".[Look at Africa today.]
[b] When He delivered His people out of Egypt, He wanted them to leave the culture and practices of Egypt behind; including all the distorted sexual relationships;thus the forty years in the wilderness and the prohibitions of the Book of Lev. A Greek scholar and a Jew were having a chat about what they had added to human history. The Greek waxed on eloquent about Philosophy and Democracy and the Jew smiled and said:"Read the Songs of Solomon,we gave the world,'woman for pleasure' ". The hang up about every sexual act having to result in productivity, has resulted in the puritanical
belief that heterosexual married couples can not enjoy sex for the sake of their relationship. Another destructive attitude promoted within parts of Christianity is the belief that the wife is the property of the husband.
As to whether there are any sexual acts God condemns,read His Revelation to mankind. "I see it states that: He who made them in the beginning made them male and female and for that cause a man...." After 50 years of Botanical study, I still understand that the male gene is XY and the female is XX; but don't believe me; I am but an old gardener with dirty fingernails who does not go in for all this gender fluidity.I still understand, that to pollinate our plants ,we must transfer the pollen from the stamens to stigma of the flower.That is how we get fruit and it is by the fruit you shall know them.
How many examples of same sex pollination can you give me.
Peter, a tour d'horizon.
The authors of the Bible who mentioned sex assumed that it was more or less intrinsically linked to procreation, and so to marriage and the family. This assumption was not seriously disputed in churches before the middle of the last century, when suddenly it was no longer true. Churches had customarily given guidance in sexual matters that was based on the inspired authors' assumptions, but in the aftermath of the Pill such counsel has seemed weightless to the great mass of Christians to whom contraception is available. Four broad ideas have been proposed to fill the vacuum--
(1) Although sex is no longer intrinsically linked to procreation, Christians should defer to the original design of the Creator, living as though sexual relations were intended for procreation (eg Paul VI's Humanae Vitae) or at least for procreative relationships (eg John Paul II's Theology of the Body).
https://stmarys-waco.org/documents/2016/9/theology_of_the_body.pdf
(2) The biological complementarity of men and women (eg John Piper) is the new principle for sexual morality among Christians.
(3) The spiritualisation of eroticism (eg Sarah Coakley, Cynthia Bourgeault, TEC TFSM, some at ADU) is the new principle for sexual morality among Christians.
(4) A specifically sexual morality is otiose, but general moral intuitions (truthfulness, honesty, benevolence, equity, virtue, etc), although sufficient, occasionally do require authoritative application to complex circumstances.
One who reads the scriptures with faith may find resonant passages for all four of these responses. But the canon does not require any of these responses to make sense, either as a whole or as a witness to Jesus Christ. Important components of each response have no obvious scriptural support. We cannot say that "the Bible teaches" the applicable details of any of these ethics, and we certainly cannot say that the Bible supports any one over the others. In short, some or all may have value for a life given to God, but all are creative inventions of the past half century.
Not all Christians are comfortable with the thought that the theory that they favour is a recent invention. But it is a simple matter of record that until contraception became widely available, churches taught that sex is for procreation and nothing was heard of these other theories.
Churches with Reformation traditions-- especially Reformed traditions--purportedly base their teachings on the scriptures, but in this situation this is not strictly possible. Hence there is a gap between the guidance that some desire and the authority with which it can be given.
From what source can one know the will of God? Again there are five proposed sources appropriate to a novel situation--
(a) Holy exemplars. Christians of all times have followed the inspiring examples of especially holy men and women.
(b) Applied tradition. Sometimes documents from the past (eg canons of councils) suggest a way of proceeding.
(c) Gathered consensus. Some churches that rely on a robust doctrine of the Presence of the Holy Spirit (eg Quakers, monastic orders) will act only with unity, following a discerned consensus that no constituency opposes.
(d) Scholarly proposals. Reflection on the scriptures or other writings can suggest possibilities that would otherwise be overlooked.
(e) Synod majorities. Hypothetically, there could be a church somewhere that believed that majorities of its synods were divinely protected from error concerning faith or morals when they adopt ethical rules.
So then, how is a Christian or his church to discern which of these sources may be followed? That is matter for another comment.
BW
Hi Glen
You still haven't answered my question, so let me make it more precise: when a man took a concubine (not a wife) and slept with her (cf. Jacob, Solomon, etc), was he committing an act which God condemned or commended? My own answer is that God did neither.
I know of no botanical example of same sex pollination but the question we are engaging with is zoological: across many species of animal, including homo sapiens, homosexuality is an observable feature of a range of sexualities. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a natural feature of sexual desire within the animal kingdom. Our question is also not about what ideally God might wish for humanity (that we are all male or female, that adults marry for life, procreate, companiate and generally be fruitful, according to Gen 1 & 2) but how we live when we differ from that ideal scenario.
In particular, when the Bible recognises that an even stronger ideal, for the sake of the kingdom, is celibacy (so Paul in 1 Corinthians 7) (itself an interesting denial of going forth to multiply!) but the urges of the flesh are strong, so better to marry than to burn, why single out homosexuals for the heroic ideal of celibacy, when most heterosexuals settle for the concession of marriage?
The sharp edge of the question is that now a same sex couple have a legal framework in which to make a vow of faithfulness to each other for life. I don't think a lifetime of botanical experience adds up to the authority to answer the question in the paragraph above. What might help - and I am sure you have this experience also - is a lifetime experience of receiving the mercy of God!
Dear Peter,
Your position appears to have changed in recent times. If I were to summarise your position, say 6 months ago, I would have said that you do not see a valid scriptural argument for same-sex blessings, but that you are willing to concede that some do and therefore are happy to live within a structure that allows for both convictions and the practises that necessarily flow from them.
Is that a fair summary?
More recently, however, and multiple times in this thread, you advance apologetics for same-sex blessings. You may simply be articulating the case of 'the other side', but from here it looks like now you actually believe these arguments. If my summary of your position above is correct, has your position now changed?
More bluntly, would you be willing to bless as same-sex couple in your church if a regional blessing service was available? If all that you have written about the subject in this thread is true, it would be hard to see why you wouldn't.
In summary, for the sake of clarity of answers:
1. Is my rather crude summary of you position basically correct?
2. Have you changed your position recently?
3. Would you conduct a SSB?
4. If not, why not?
Hi Peter,
In my reply [July 22 @ 7.52 PM], I started by saying that human reasoning needs some constraints. The basic caveat I apply to mime, is God's Revelation.
I can not and will not speak for God. A man who has a concubine, has in my understanding, stepped outside of God's intended ideal. How God deals with that, I don't know and am not about to conjecture on. He did allow David's first child with the Hittite's wife to die, but then gave him another, [Solomon]. Was God's anger with David about the taking of the Hittite's wife or with the connivance in his death? or about both?
God's intended PLAN appears to have been for one man/one woman; and to build up the population, to fulfill His desired purpose. But the children were to be born into a stable family structure. God knew "broken men's and woman's hearts well enough to foresee the angst which would arise between the women and children in a polygamous relationship; Sarah and Hager.
My earlier reply was based on the premise that humans were lifted above the animal kingdom.
Dear Sam and Bowman
Bowman: thank you for articulating a very important case for all of us taking care that we know what is right/wrong in these debates (from contraception to SSB to SSM), especially if we invoke "Scripture" (and, for that matter, "Synod.")
Sam (1): please note what Bowman says (generally, and immediately above): he articulates in a deeper way that I am able to do, many of my concerns and questions.
Sam (2): to a degree I articulate here arguments (as I understand them) for SSB in a "devils' advocate" role because I find some conservative arguments put up here to be singularly lacking in appropriate engagement with present day realities, not least actual personal experience of gay and lesbian Christians (again, at least as I understand them/their experience).
In response to your specific questions: (my CAPS for first word or three):
1. Is my rather crude summary of you position basically correct? YES
2. Have you changed your position recently? NO
3. Would you conduct a SSB? NO
4. If not, why not? A CLUE IS IN recent comments above (e.g. the possibility that there are some sexual relationships which God neither condemns nor commends - that is, though few seem to notice (!!), I am interested in the possibility that there is grey between black and white, or neutral between positive and negative). But, more particularly, it is not possible (IMHO) to read Scripture, which is a hetero-normative document (descriptively, "hetero-normative" not intended pejoratively), and to somehow squeeze from that a case for God disclosing to us that a marriage-like relationship between two men or two women is blessed (i.e. something for which God gives approval, for which God wishes to pour out goodness and well-being upon it).
Thanks Glen
I am in agreement with you that the Scriptural revelation re marriage, by the time we get to Revelation, is for one man-one woman - no polygamy and no concubines.
But, within the OT itself, God seems remarkably sanguine about multiple wives and additional concubines, simply focusing on (so to speak) the organisation of households and families in ancient times (when, presumably, one simply needed to be part of a household in order to live).
Equally, in the OT itself, God is passionately concerned and judging of (say) adultery (so David/Bathsheba) and idolatry (so Solomon's many wives led him astray), to say nothing of being less than pleased by lack of faithfulness/faith (so Abraham/Sarah introducing Hagar into the mix re finding an heir).
Dear Peter
I wonder, given the cultural and spiritual climate in which we live, if the devil has enough advocates without having to rely upon your services? Wouldn’t the body of Christ be better served if you chose instead to provide clear teaching about human sexuality and right ordered relationships; insight concerning those sexual practices God is willing and able to bless, and those he is not?
How helpful it would have been during the debate around motion 29 had you stood up and declared forthrightly that you would not bless same sex relationships because you had listened to the arguments of the proponents and found them unconvincing. That unless we could find unity around a theological construct that permitted the blessing of same sex relationships, you would oppose their introduction into the Anglican church.
And yes, by the time we get to Revelation marriage is “for one man, one woman – no polygamy and no concubines.” You could equally have gone on to say, “and no same sex relationships” because God will not bless that which he has not ordained, nor that which he has deemed to be sexually immoral.
At the risk of relying once again upon “Scripture”, the following passage is taken from Jesus closing remarks in the book of Revelation.
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” (Revelation 22:14-15)
Thankfully, there is grace for the repentant sinner, there is even grace to enable us to resist temptation, because we have a great high priest who has been tempted in every way just as we are – yet was without sin. From him and through him we can find mercy and grace to help us in our time of need. This is the good news of the gospel.
Dear Peter,
You have hit upon just one instance in the time of the O.T., that speaks of God's tolerance of our human infelicity - that of the business of the Patriarch Abram being urded by his wife Sarai to sleep with her servant girl, Hagar, in order to beget an heir for him. The resulting child of that union, Ishmael, became the forefather of another dynasty (Muslim?) That would serve God. I wonder how Glen interprets that O.T.Scriptural revelation! Does he, for instance dismiss this story as irrelevant?
Dear Sam, thanks for your comment above. My intention, at this late stage in my earthly life, is to do my very best to mitigate the harm DONE by the Church and society to those people whose innate sexual identity is different from the binary 'norm'. Through no fault of their own, such people have no way (except by remaining celibate) to measure up to the standards set by the majority heterosexual society that considers binary sexual expression to be the only acceptable way to express one's sexuality.
I would remind commentors here, that Jesus himself, when talking about the institution of marriage, did mention the exceptions to this rule - which involved the presence of alternatives to the general instruction to : "Go forth and multiply". The 3 types of 'eunuch' Jesus mentioned were these:
(1) Those who were eunuchs 'for the sake of the Kingdom (Like Jesus himself)
(2) Those who were 'made eunuchs by other people (Nubians; castrati); and
(3) Those who were eunuchs from their mother's womb (intrinsically gay - or otherwise unable to procreate).
As Peter has already suggested; if the Christians (majority heterosexual) who militate against the sexual expression of homosexuals, counsel them to be celibate ((presumably for the 'sake of the Kingdom'), then why - in God's Name - are they not setting the example themselves by choosing celibacy?
Dear Brendan,
Good point about devilish advocacy!
What precisely is "sexually immoral" about a relationship which is ordered towards permanent faithfulness, lifelong commitment and sacrificial love?
Are those Christians who find that - notwithstanding the verse you quote, or, perhaps, precisely in keeping with the verse you quote - the best means of resisting sexual temptation is to find a lifelong partner (so married men and women also find) really going to be excluded by the God who is rich in mercy?
Obviously I am not a very clear teacher on the subject of mercy because it is difficult to find comments here which support my teaching :)
Dear Glen, I had hoped not to have to mention this again. Howver, your latest comment appears to judge God's own capacity to bless what God considers to be blessable, even thpugh it may fall short of our judgement.
Why, for instance, did God deign to bless the fruit of Abram's adulterous relationship with Hagar, by pronouncing and predicting Ishmael's own fatherhood of many nations? Do you, Brendan, know the 'mind of God'? when we are told that even the Holy Spirit cannot know the 'depths' of God.
Scripture, tells us this fact in many ways: "My ways are not your ways, nor my thoughts your thoughts". A godly humility might counsel us to take care that we never assume we know the mind of God. Another direct warning from Scripture ; "Do not call 'evil' thar which I have created".
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your clear answers. However, I find your suggestion that there might be a neutral view of same-sex activity to be absurd. It is very frustrating when people scratch around in the text hoping to find 'grey areas' like the oft-cited David-Jonathan example, which are then grossly leveraged to try to create just enough doubt, or lack of clarity, within the long-established position that the new position can be brought to the table.
An established principle of biblical interpretation is to let the clear texts interpret the difficult one. While not an exact parallel, your endeavour seems to be the exact opposite: to misuse basic biblical description of events to overturn clear and explicit teaching to the contrary.
Dear Brendan: thank you once again for your excellent post at 10:55am. I echo your thoughts in the first of your two paragraphs.
And, so, Peter, back to you: picking up on what Brendan has written, why is it that I find it easier to accept and understand the integrity of Ron's position than yours: someone whose theology and practise is much further away from me than yours? Why is your position so baffling to many/most (conservative) evangelicals?
Dear Peter, even though you may be willing to bear the gratuitous insult offered to you in the first paragraph of Glen's latest diatribe, I cannot let it pass without registering my profound regret that it even graced your blog.
I do feel that Glen , here, is trespassing on your innate sense of Christian hospitality, by vilifying your willingness to even suggest that the love and mercy of God might extend to a class of humanity that Glen considers unholy and of the devil.. It is obvious to me, and hopefully to others of your more 'thinking' contributors, that leaders of 'House churches' do not, necessarily hold any prerogative in either prophetic insight or the necessary apostolic wisdom to pronounce on the spiritual insight of the anointed bishops of the Church.
Dear Peter
Well thank you for (hopefully) refraining from devilish advocacy. Should it happen, he will be mightily disappointed.
I note however you push right ahead with more of the same by promoting the SSB plausibility theory in asking: “What precisely is "sexually immoral" about a [same sex] relationship which is ordered towards permanent faithfulness, lifelong commitment and sacrificial love?“
By way of reply I respectfully ask that since you refuse to bless same sex relationships would you explain to your readers why you believe they are they are sexually immoral, or at the very least ‘disordered’. Why they cannot be justified from Scripture, and why the plausibility theory you have propagated again and again on this site, is implausible?
That would prove to be very enlightening for all of us, and also help to move the conversation forward.
Hi Ron,
Why would I dismiss the story of Abraham,Sarah,Hagar and Ishmael as irrelevant? To me,it is very relevant because it's repercussions are with us today in the Middle East,Africa,Europe and Britain. Did God really ordain the establishment of a religion that claims it's Prophet is superior to Christ.I would suggest that the true Muslin, is the one we refer to as the extremist; because they are living by the tenets of the Koran.I refer you to Gen. 16/12 and consider whether it is true of today.
Simply,because I don't read the Scriptures with a preconditioned bias,wishing to establish a predetermined conclusion; I can allow the Holy Spirit to take me where He will. If you can establish unequivocally,to me,that the Scriptures permit same sex activity; I will more than happily join your cause.
Hi Ron
I appreciate your care for me but I need you, please, to not use words like "diatribe" to describe another comment!
Hi Peter
You have been clear that you will not perform same sex blessings. You have not been clear about the theological basis for that decision. To my knowledge you have never rehearsed it on this site – ever.
Your response to Sam, although welcome does not touch the theology.
Would you be so kind as to lay out the Biblical basis for your refusal to engage in same sex blessings? Perhaps you could treat us as you would a post graduate theology class. If you happen to engage beyond our comprehension, we can always ask for clarification. Besides, it would be wonderful to hear you articulate the other side of the story as a clear depiction of your stance from Scripture.
I appreciate it might take you more than five minutes to compile a response. I'm sure we can all sit quietly in class and wait patiently.
:-)
Dear Sam and Brendan
I am trying to find a way to be faithful to Scripture, to the traditional understanding of the church, to the new situation we find ourselves in (a society with civil marriage for same sex couples, a society with extraordinary acceptance of difference and rejection of church which (seemingly) cannot tolerate difference), to the expression of two or more views in our church via our GS decision, to the possibility that this is not a black/white, in/out dilemma.
I am fine if you prefer Ron's approach to mine - that is cool with me. I often find myself thinking no one sees the world/theology the way I see it :) [Though, surprisingly, and sometimes "offline", people keep encouraging me because, apparently I make some sense ...]
Brendan I think I answer your question in my last reply above to Sam's previous comment.
Sam: please be accurate in what you say about my views. I have not said that God is neutral about "same-sex activity". It is quite clear that God is not neutral about some same-sex activity otherwise we would not have passages such as Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. What I am raising is the question whether God would condemn to hell a Christian couple who enter into a civil marriage together (who otherwise are no more holy or unholy than you or I re (say) materialism, chocolate consumption, anger when parishioners ring on a day off, etc)? And that question involves more than citing a text or two: it goes to the heart of who we understand God to be.
I am suggesting that God is merciful. Are you suggesting, by your continuing disagreement with me, that God would not be merciful to such a couple?
"I am suggesting that God is merciful. Are you suggesting, by your continuing disagreement with me, that God would not be merciful to such a couple?" P.C 8:51pm
Ah, well now we have moved into a different question, albeit a related one. I was not suggesting that for a second, although reading back through your responses to Brendan and his post that prompted that response, I can see how we got here and why you asked that question.
Some conservatives have been heard to say that this is a 'salvation issue.' I think we need to ask them what they mean by that. Answers of course will vary. For me, this is a salvation issue because repentance is the sine non qua of salvation and if we deny the need for repentance then we are messing with the very fabric of salvation itself. But I would not say that a person in a homosexual relationship is necessarily unsaved.
Each of us lives with sin. Some we strive against and mostly win, some we often lose. Some we are unaware of. Salvation is predicated on the declaration (in word and deed) that "Jesus is Lord." To be Lord means to rule, and therefore he must rule our lives. But the extent to which he rules in number of areas, and within each of those areas will vary for each of us.
Many profess that Jesus is Lord, but it is not up to me to ultimately decide if that profession is true or merely words: only God can judge that. We can get indications of the veracity of their claims, and may make judgements about them by their behaviour, as long as we know that our judgments can only ever be provisional. And so I entrust the judgement of 'homosexual' who profess faith to the same God who will judge the lives of the 'greedy', the 'drunkards' and the 'slanderers'. (1 Cor 6:9-10)
But the role of the church is to declare the Lordship of Christ and to call sinners to repentance. She must do this faithfully in all areas of sin in order to produce the result of 1 Cor 6:11 'And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.'
Will God be merciful? That is ultimately up to him. But the church must church teach with all seriousness, and truth, and faithfulness the way to salvation: repentance from all sin and faith in Christ.
Hi Peter; I have now considered your response (22 July at 15.42). I think the difficulty I find is the invocation to mercy as a type of malleable gap filler. We will obviously agree that Jesus showed mercy to those, whom others shunned. Jesus told them to repent. I also suspect we agree that Jesus shows mercy to those stuck in sin who genuinely repent but grow weak, sin and repent again (Peter’s 70 times seven). The gap that I question can be filled with God’s mercy is where there is no repentance but redefinition. In Catholic terms I am referring to Amoris Laetitia and whether adultery is justifiable in some situations for some couples. Francis’s teaching is merciful, but unclear. At least with humanae vitae, there is currently no redefinition of the claimed sin. With SSB, if a priest thinks SSB is sin, I cannot see how mercy assists without the flock member’s repentance. Naturally if SSB is not sin, there is no issue. So, in summary, if evangelicals or conservative Catholics think SSB is a sin, they cannot use mercy, in my view, to cleanse it without repentance of those in the supposed sin. Like others who comment here, I would much prefer to have different views especially because conservative views are no longer respectable in the 5 seconds before millennials press a button and we all prefer to play Father Christmas than the Grinch.
Nick
Dear Sam and Nick
Sam: thanks for a careful comment which in its "care-fullness" allows for God to be merciful beyond what the church teaches and preaches (albeit as it seeks to faithfully express the Word of God). Shall not the Lord of all the earth do what is right? We are agreed on that.
Nick: I am not as clear as you about Jesus calling the not-to-be-shunned to repentance uniformly: he does not ask the Samaritan woman to change her domestic arrangements; he does not clearly finish his dinner parties telling the gathered tax-collectors and prostitutes to repent ... from which I infer that Jesus expects right living from all but has patience for the path from sin to righteousness to work more slowly and steadily than subsequent church teaching has sometimes allowed (cf. Francis' Amoris Laetitia emphasis on "journeying" with people in irregular situations).
I take your point re taking care that mercy does not become a malleable gap filler, though I think there is Scriptural basis for thinking that "love [mercy] covers a multitude of sins."
The question of "redefinition" is necessarily intriguing because the church does redefine its positions (sometimes so subtly that it gets described as "development of doctrine"!). Is it not the case that such redefinition comes from deeper insight into the meaning of Scripture and its traditional interpretation? In particular, on ethical matters, a hermeneutic of mercy may inform the church when it reconsiders matters (with deep roots into the gospels, since Jesus himself applies such hermeneutic to (particularly) Sabbath law). That is, while the church may crudely try to escape the force of Scriptural teaching by "redefinition" (and Amoris Laetitia may, in the medium to long-term, be seen as one of this crude missteps), it may also feel forced by new appreciation of Scriptural teaching (including its teaching on mercy) to develop a redefinition (and Amoris Laetitia may, in the long-term, be seen as a significant step on that journey re remarriage/eucharist). Where the Catholic church gets to re SSB, we shall see, and it may not be in our lifetimes ... but, as previously noted here, and I know they are somewhat suspect Germans [!!], voices towards redefinition are already present ...
In any case, my argument depends less on "redefinition" and more on "context": that God might be merciful, understanding the burden of sexuality, the specific circumstances of life in the world of the 21st century, in which households and companionship is structured differently to the days of Leviticus, Corinthians or even the Reformation, and, in particular, God being merciful, understands friendship ... a theology of which has made intriguing appearances from time to time in the past 2000 years.
Dear Peter, I am now so confused between the comments of Glen and Brendan - not too surpringly, perhaps, when one considers their similar point of view on most issues - that I attributed Brendan's 'devilish' comment about you to Glen. However, I don't suppose either will really mind. They are so obviously of the same 'School'.
Despite Nick's talk of God's 'Mercy' as a 'gap-filler'; he seems to forget that this is the very heart of the Gospel of OLJC. "God loved the world so much' is the basic reason why the God and Father of OLJC is so different friom any other gods. Nick seems to accept the 'rule' of Pope Francis without actually believing in his heart that Francis is on the right track re his insistence on the practise of MERCY. Such double-mindedness can be dangerous - almost as dangerous as a baptised gay Christian's enforced ambivalence (because of a Church's false teaching) that it is against God's will and purpose to act upon his/her innate sexual orientation.
Now that many Churches - by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in our day and age - have discovered that God's mercy reaches out to ALL humanity - irrespective of their innate sexual identity (cf Pope Francis' eirenic statement to a news reporter) the unregenerate conservative heterosexual lobby is seemingly adamant - that they are the only humans that God has created; whereas Jesus himself has indicated otherwise.
It is not too surprising that some of these recalcitrants are still 'seeing though a glass darkly' on matters that have aleady been revealed: "When the Spirit comes s/he will lead you into all the truth......."
In the terms of my 7:40 above, Peter recognises that, contrary to PVI's sort of (1), the Pill changed the consensus on what God regards as his created order, which in turn changed the constraints on the faithful application of the scriptures to life.
Peter's general view of sexuality seems to be closest to JP2's sort of (1) at the link supplied, but he finds a special application of (3) to homosexuals to be neither inconsistent with that nor an error that breaks communion in the Son.
Readers should note that JP2's relational sort of (1) has an inner affinity with the intensively relational (3). In most presentations of (2) such affinity is not present or is not so developed. Understandably, it is harder for many who begin from (2) to trust (3) even for MWM, let alone SSB.
Peter invokes God's mercy, not on carnal minds intentionally disobedient, but on disciples who err in an uncertain matter.
BW
Congratulations to any Black Fern catching up on the ADU she missed whilst in San Francisco. Although France played well, the ultimate outcome was as unsurprising as... well, read on. ;-)
BW
Hi Peter and Ron,
Firstly,Peter, I apologize if you found any insult in my reply of July 23 @ 9.41 AM. as per Ron's blog of July 23 @ 1.04 PM. I was simply trying to say that I did not wish to be drawn into making judgement on an issue which I feel belongs in the JUDGEMENT OF GOD and there alone.I am not privy to the interaction between Jacob,Abraham, Solomon and the Holy Spirit; apart from what is recorded in the Scriptures, so therefore it is beyond my understanding.
Ron, "why did God bless.......[Ishmael] ...."? Can you show me your Scriptural evidence for God blessing Ishmael? And the angel of the Lord said:"He will be a wild man;his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand shall be against him."Gen 16/12. That sounds more like a prophesy than a blessing. Now the Lord had said unto Abraham:".......
v.3 And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee;"
Gen 12/1-3. The Nation which arose from Ishmael curses both Israeli and the Christ, who was born a Jew. So did All knowing and Pre-existent Logos
not know that Mohammad would rise up a religious/political system which would use brutality and terror to convert the world contrary to His Gospel?
Dear Glen
I think Ron was concerned about something Brendan wrote but - either way- I am fine and glad you are commenting.
Dear Bowman
Not only do you understand me / my writing well, you follow rugby and laud the achievements of our great champions :).
For the benefit of readers I reprint your comment above, to which to refer in your most immediately recent comment.
Peter, a tour d'horizon.
The authors of the Bible who mentioned sex assumed that it was more or less intrinsically linked to procreation, and so to marriage and the family. This assumption was not seriously disputed in churches before the middle of the last century, when suddenly it was no longer true. Churches had customarily given guidance in sexual matters that was based on the inspired authors' assumptions, but in the aftermath of the Pill such counsel has seemed weightless to the great mass of Christians to whom contraception is available. Four broad ideas have been proposed to fill the vacuum--
(1) Although sex is no longer intrinsically linked to procreation, Christians should defer to the original design of the Creator, living as though sexual relations were intended for procreation (eg Paul VI's Humanae Vitae) or at least for procreative relationships (eg John Paul II's Theology of the Body).
https://stmarys-waco.org/documents/2016/9/theology_of_the_body.pdf
(2) The biological complementarity of men and women (eg John Piper) is the new principle for sexual morality among Christians.
(3) The spiritualisation of eroticism (eg Sarah Coakley, Cynthia Bourgeault, TEC TFSM, some at ADU) is the new principle for sexual morality among Christians.
(4) A specifically sexual morality is otiose, but general moral intuitions (truthfulness, honesty, benevolence, equity, virtue, etc), although sufficient, occasionally do require authoritative application to complex circumstances.
One who reads the scriptures with faith may find resonant passages for all four of these responses. But the canon does not require any of these responses to make sense, either as a whole or as a witness to Jesus Christ. Important components of each response have no obvious scriptural support. We cannot say that "the Bible teaches" the applicable details of any of these ethics, and we certainly cannot say that the Bible supports any one over the others. In short, some or all may have value for a life given to God, but all are creative inventions of the past half century.
Not all Christians are comfortable with the thought that the theory that they favour is a recent invention. But it is a simple matter of record that until contraception became widely available, churches taught that sex is for procreation and nothing was heard of these other theories.
Churches with Reformation traditions-- especially Reformed traditions--purportedly base their teachings on the scriptures, but in this situation this is not strictly possible. Hence there is a gap between the guidance that some desire and the authority with which it can be given.
From what source can one know the will of God? Again there are five proposed sources appropriate to a novel situation--
(a) Holy exemplars. Christians of all times have followed the inspiring examples of especially holy men and women.
(b) Applied tradition. Sometimes documents from the past (eg canons of councils) suggest a way of proceeding.
(c) Gathered consensus. Some churches that rely on a robust doctrine of the Presence of the Holy Spirit (eg Quakers, monastic orders) will act only with unity, following a discerned consensus that no constituency opposes.
(d) Scholarly proposals. Reflection on the scriptures or other writings can suggest possibilities that would otherwise be overlooked.
(e) Synod majorities. Hypothetically, there could be a church somewhere that believed that majorities of its synods were divinely protected from error concerning faith or morals when they adopt ethical rules.
So then, how is a Christian or his church to discern which of these sources may be followed? That is matter for another comment.
Dear Glen, concerning your comment at 14.26; see Genesis 16:10 - 'Then the Angel of the Lord said to her (Hagar) "I will multiply your descendants exceedingly so that they shall not be counted for multitude" (Gideon Bible) - a very different outcome from that of God's judgement against the child of David and Bathsheba. I would call that- in essence - a Blessing, wouldn't you?
After all, God could have punished Ishmael in the same way as the out-of-wedlock child of David. The due punishment of David, though, was based on the fact that he had Bathsheba's husband murdered to cover his own sin.
Peter, I accept that your argument depends less on "redefinition" and more on "context": that God might be merciful, understanding the burden of sexuality, the specific circumstances of life in the world of the 21st century, in which households and companionship is structured differently to the days of Leviticus, Corinthians or even the Reformation, and, in particular, God being merciful, understands friendship. But, in my view, a mercy argument from context has problems. Why should the 21st century be different from any other? Even if your comments apply to current middle class Christchurch, they don’t necessarily apply to current working class Nairobi. How could the opposite be possible? It seems unmerciful that God’s treatment of sin should depend on context, where that context is, in effect, different treatment. I also suspect that we are defining mercy differently. I see God’s mercy in confession and absolution. Pages 407 and 408 of your NZPB show support for my definition, though I accept that books do not define God. If Bowman has understood you correctly, you invoke mercy where disciples err in an uncertain matter. But if a matter is uncertain, no mercy is necessary because God is also just. Ultimately redefinition might be at least more principled if a matter is genuinely uncertain. As for Fr Ron, I have no issue with mercy, I simply doubt that it can go as far as he would like without confession, contrition and absolution. Francis is not insisting on the practice of mercy. The Holy Father would not and could not force a precious divine virtue on Catholics. Fr Ron then seems to criticise LGBIT people content with their chaste lot. Sadly, we never hear from those identifying as such on this blog at least. Finally Fr Ron calls those who disagree with him unregenerate and recalcitrant. I could say the same about progressives but consider it a weak argument.
Nick
Hi Ron,
Count it as a blessing; NO I don't. Stand up ion Jerusalem and say that.I ask you again to provide Scriptural backing for your statement.What the angel said was clearly a prophecy and not a blessing.
"It seems unmerciful that God’s treatment of sin should depend on context, where that context is, in effect, different treatment."
Must mercy be equitable?
"But if a matter is uncertain, no mercy is necessary because God is also just."
Then are those without faith not lost after all?
I agree, Nick, that mercy makes most sense in a juridical context. To me, it means that the lawgiver achieves the ends for which his law was given by an irregular means. To the reverend and dear fathers Peter and Ron, it seems refer to God's general benevolence toward all of his creatures until the end of time.
BW
Peter, a brief note on synods.
The 5:13 just above lists two modes of corporate authority in the Body. They differ in this: strictly majoritarian processes appear to be closed to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, whilst gathered consensus processes appear to be open to it. In minor matters, the roughness of the former may do little harm; on major matters, only discernment is faithful.
In discernment one or all are waiting for a clear recognition of the divine will. By its very nature, this waiting requires a setting aside of human desire, a willing suspension of private judgment for the sake of thinking with the Body that allows new understandings of the problem at hand to emerge. At a minimum, such collective discernment proceeds, not by measuring the amount of support behind a fixed proposal, but rather by gathering the thoughts of those seeking God's will and identifying a main sense of them with which all or nearly all can agree.
The majority-driven procedures of modern synods modeled on modern parliaments do not seem to be suitable for matters requiring discernment. In the postmodern world, there will be a lot to discern.
BW
Mercy and majoritarianism!
Dear Commenters of recent comments
In an ideal world consensus, patiently arrived at, would determine all ecclesial decisions, but we do not live in that world. Perhaps we should make more effort to do so, but church history also teaches us that consensus is not only about waiting a few more years but sometimes about waiting centuries. (How long would it have taken Rome to reform if the Reformation had not erupted? My estimate is around 250 years :).)
I accept that "mercy" needs more work - uncertainty/just/equity/beyond equity/context/everlasting benevolence - all raised above. But perhaps I could simplify what I think I am getting at, and yes, it does lean towards benevolence, while not letting go of "law." That is:
in a world of moral dilemmas, in which often the way forward in life is the lesser of two morally difficult, if not deficient courses of action, might we reasonably expect the mercy of God to understand our moral plight and be benevolently sympathetic, especially where we attempt to follow some of the law?
Thus, to give two examples relevant to this thread and commenters here, and (noting something Nick says) as best I understand things, as relevant to the 21st century context of middle class NZ as to the working class context of Nairobi:
- is God merciful to the divorced person who remarries (without annulment) in an attempt to live an ordered life as a sexual being and as a human being in need of life companionship and support? (Put another way: if God were Pope, might God be less stringent about the application of canon law re admittance to the eucharist?)
- is God merciful to the gay or lesbian person who civilly commits to faithful partnership, in a marriage-like relationship, in an attempt to live a transparent life and to void temptation otherwise to furtive encounters etc, even though this choice contradicts Leviticus etc? (Put another way: if God were the Chair of the GAFCON Primates Council, might God be disinclined to laud departing Anglican congregations from Communion provinces as "faithful" as though their faithfulness is more laudable than that of the hypothetical couple at the beginning of this paragraph?)
Peter, God's magistrates have all the power that matters, and they allow remarriage after n divorces, and SSM. God's priests have no power at all, but sometimes they have the truth. It is wise to keep that as untainted by conventional humbug as possible
Just as nobody cares how astronomers voted on the planethood of Pluto-- we learn about nature from observation and experiment-- so nobody getting married will ever ask to knowv the final vote on the day's rite, because we do not hear the voice of God in mere voting.
Discernment, which is much like prayer, resembles prayer in this: God is wiser in his answers than we are in our questions, and the union with Christ without which nothing matters is better served by an active search for his mind than by vote-counting to see which happy warriors won.
Until last year, the Orthodox had not voted on anything much since 781. Yet they sonehow got through the rise of Islam, the loss of central Asia, the devastation of the Mongol hordes, waves of hostile crusaders, the Ottoman centuries, and the nightmare of Communism. The serious problem with voting is that it turns truth questions into class questions (which is why one particular class is so attached to it and some others so sceptical of it), but against that history it can seem like insisting on playing croquet just because one can as the drones appear on the horizon.
BW
Dear Peter; this question posted by Bowden say its all:
"MUST MERCY BE EQUITABLE?" My answer, from all the evidence, must be 'not for God'
Why do I say this? Well, there is sufficient evidence in the Scriptures, which all of us need to take heed of - especially in the teaching and ministry of Jesus:
(1) Late labourers at the harvest (getting paid as much as the early workers)
(2) I am reminded of the naysayers when I read again the treatment of the Prodigal Son (I think is might be re-named the story of the Prodigal Father)
In each case, the 'faithful servant/son/workers' considered the lavish treatment of the 'unworthy servant' as an example of God's outrageous generosity/mercy.
This often reminds me of the reluctance of worthy Chrisians to allow that God's mercy is infinite - even to the unworthy. Where does common 'Justice' figure here?
Even Mrs Shakespeare's little boy William understood this: "The quality of mercy is not strained - it falleth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the earth beneath. It is thrice blessed" (by the Triune God?)
And then, of course, there is the Father Faber hymn:
"There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea" indicating a real quality of mercy that we Christians are somewhat niggardly in applying - or even acknowledging - God's mercy to others; even to the unworthy. By our strictness, I wonder, are we preventing souls from even approaching the Unseen God, whose mercy is everlasting? I am ever thankful that, in time, God's WORD actually became flesh and lived among us, full of Grace and Truth. Alleluia!
Postscripts--
(1) Several years ago, the Presbyterians in NZ invented and adopted much less majoritarian rules for their own grand synod. If they have actually been used, it would be interesting to hear something about the results.
(2) Voting is counting the egos on each side while God watches from afar; discernment is listening to God in and through the voices in the assembly itself. Now by Ephesians 5, if listening to God in the other is proper to the intensive relationships of JP2's (1) and the always lyrically described (3), then how can such discernment not be still more proper to the assembled Body of Christ? Is it not odd for a church to commend a listening for God in marriage that she will not practise in her own meetings? Better that she should show evetyone how to listen with confidence that God is and that he is not silent.
(3) Again, those who (like Brendan, I think) believe that God's will is exhaustively clear from the scriptures alone need not give an account of how else they receive divine guidance. But those who hold that the scriptures support no conclusion or alternate conclusions about important matters need an account of how God will guide believers and churches through them. That is why I have listed (a)-(e) above.
BW
Hi Bowman,
You ask (quite understandably)
Must mercy be equitable?
I suggest in divine reality “no” (because mercy is a divine prerogative), but in divine practice “yes” so that perceptions of divine justice are met. Mercy allows people to escape what they deserve, as opposed to grace which allows people the chance to enjoy what they do not deserve. Grace is bestowed on a believer’s acceptance of Christ as saviour. Mercy would fit that paradigm taking into account that we cannot sin more so that grace increases. Therefore, in my view, we cannot sin more so that mercy increases. May it never be; if I can extrapolate from St Paul in Romans.
You then quote me
"But if a matter is uncertain, no mercy is necessary because God is also just."
and ask
Then are those without faith not lost after all?
You have, in my view, exposed the weakness in the mercy argument, though it is a weakness a number of my Parish priests saw as a strength. If, however, there is no-one in hell including Hitler or Pol Pot, why did Jesus bother dying at all? Salvation could have been in Santa’s stocking as the special final judgment mercy pass.
Peter; I’ll answer you tomorrow.
Nick
Peter, Fr Ron says:
Even Mrs Shakespeare's little boy William understood this: "The quality of mercy is not strained - it falleth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the earth beneath. It is thrice blessed" (by the Triune God?)”.
But every copy of the Merchant of Venice that I have ever read says “twice” not “thrice blessed”. There is no connection with the Trinity at all and Fr Ron ought to check his sources before making tenuous connections between secular comedy and holy books.
Nick
Dear Nick, Thanks for lovely and helpful clarity re mercy and grace (I think they could both be at work in my two hypothetical situations above!!) and look forward to your further response. Thank you for Shakespearean accuracy. Fr Ron may be like the disciples and remembering what the master said with variable accuracy, as the gospels (arguably) attest to :)
Dear Bowman, We continue to differ on the value of synods. I am not much impressed with the Orthodox lack of synodical decisions. That would be the same church that never debated in synod whether it should kow-tow to successive tyrannical Tsars and then continued the habit under Soviet dictators ... and Putin? Yes, Anglican synods could in one foul theological swoop pass a motion to add a fourth person to the Trinity and rename God Quaternity and that would be both nonsense and support your argument.
But Anglican synods can also successively meet to better and more precisely discern what God is saying to the church, not through a claim to synodical virtue re listening to God but through synodical virtue re listening to what the church at large is hearing. I suggest our GS has done that through successive GSs and associated working groups. Moreover it has discerned the unsurprising fact that there is not a single mind of the church on SSB!
Further, you offer no acknowledgement (as far as I recall through successive postings on the inadequacy of synods) of the particular virtue of Anglican synods in which house of bishops, house of clergy, house of laity each have the power of veto, that is, of saying, no the rest of you are not listening to the Spirit! (OK, TEC's GC works slightly differently!) That is, synods are constructed in Anglican polity to offer a means for the whole church to give voice and not for anyone group to exercise power through claim to particular knowledge of God's will.
Dear Nick (and Peter), having once been an amateur actor in Shakespeare's plays (with the part of Julius Caesar (at Takapuna's local theatre being one of my more celebrated roles), you may imagine that I once revelled in the Master's poetry. However, I never played the part of Portia in the M.o.V., so never completely au fait with her part. Nonetheless, I 'misremembered' (shades of American Presidents of late) her actual words to the judge - perhaps out of an inspired idea to lend them to my cause. Please accept my apology for this infelicitous remembrance.
But then, even Nick can bend words to suit himself - for the purpose, not of theology but of humorous embellishment (Nick O'Teen) - in order to imporess, n'est ce pas? However, in my case, as I think of God as both One and Three, am I not allowed to put the case of God being One, Two and Three - to stress my point.
I am all for creating as much interest in the nature of our All-Holy God as anyone.
Peter, the participative value of synods is very high, but the spiritual authority of majorities is very low.
The worry is not mainly that TEC's GC will repeal the law of gravity for being unfair to the sky, although it may. It is more that amid rapid change wholehearted faith in God requires more timely and authoritative guidance than synod majorities can give. Bishops are, or should be, better than groups at situational leadership; discernments are, or can be, more accurate and credible than votes about basic matters.
As Bryden objects at the top of the thread, your GS majority got ahead of itself. And you have pointed out the main consequence: where that majority has gotten important things right, it is not being believed.
BW
Nick, there is another view.
In the religion of ancient Israel, including that of Jesus, God is mainly and always the Creator of all things, and even his judgment executes his creative intentions. Nevertheless we, especially in the West, often talk as though God, whilst he did once-upon-a-time create things, were mainly their Judge, not their Originator, Sustainer, and Governor until the end of time. But the scriptural witness to the Creator is far more weighty than the like witness to the Judge. Thus an interpretive rule to return our reading to the main tenor of the canon--
(I-1) When uncertain about God's purposes, it is likely most consistent with divine revelation to first try to understand them by reference to his character as the Creator.
For the psychomachy between legalism and fear is more in our minds than on the sacred page. Following I-1, on many matters beyond That Topic, I seldom find an occasion for mercy-talk. It is not clear, and maybe never can be clear, because it is required less by the scriptures than by a received notion that the last things are more about lawful justice being meted out as an end in itself than about divine creativity being consummated by a Creator whose thoughts are not as our thoughts and whose ways are not our ways. Our Lord will make all things right, but not as an avenging comic book superhero.
In a more scriptural view, much of our piety seems to first exaggerate God's vindictiveness to satisfy our thirst for justice, then walk it back to calm our fears about what that might look like. But after asking Job where he was when the cosmos was framed, or how much of that framing he could have done, the Whirlwind paused to delight in both Leviathan and Behemoth to emphasise how far his creative will transcends the sentiments of Job and his friends.
In the scriptures, we do hear warnings, of course. And they are given under an apocalyptic sky. But that is only to say that our regeneration and reparation can cost us everything even when we end well.
BW
Hi Bowman
Perhaps a difference between us re synods is that I am focused more on the pragmatic value of synods (while we wait for lasting consensus to emerge, nevertheless decisions need to be made, with a bit of synodical luck such decisions might prove over time to be in keeping with the eventual consensus etc etc) ...
whereas you are focused on the truth value of synods (which then highlights the fact that Anglican synods are all too often composed by the people whose circumstances of life (especially so for laity) permit them to attend synod (so, more likely to have superannuitants and self-employed lawyers, than female university theologians who have three children at home to look after ... a real chance of synod=consensus fidelium would be a different approach to membership of the synod and a different appreciation of how consensus on truth emerges ... less through voting, more through listening to the Spirit.)
If this characterization of our different emphases is fair/accurate, then we have more in common than I have been allowing :)
Of course, to go back to the decision-making at stake in this thread, re ACANZP, what we decided was pragmatic but we have incurred the charge that we did not "do the theology." Might we say that, on the Waltonian view of synods, that theological aporia is a good thing?
Dear Peter
Neglecting to bring the lemonade on the church picnic is one thing, failing to do the theology on SSB is something else.
Imposing SSB on a church that has a substantial number of clergy and laity for whom the redefinition of sexual morality was a bright line, was always going to be a schismatic action. Everyone in Church leadership including bishops and clergy knew this.
Yet Motion 29 was pushed through regardless.
A level of theological illiteracy is to be expected from synods, given their makeup. Perhaps those less well informed will be the recipients of God’s mercy, having sinned in comparitive ignorance. But what of the silent shepherds to whom much has been given, or indeed those who actively supported SSB?
From my reading of the Gospels, Jesus calls all sinners everywhere to repentance, Anglican synods not withstanding.
Dear Brendan, you speak here of a concept you describe as 'theological literacy' which implies (to those who have survived the discipline of a formal theological education) the need of some sort of institutional training for which a correspondence school course at 'Bible College' may not provide the necessary depth of interactive theological diversity - not to say, necessarily , to that of doctoral standard.
May I ask - in view of your particular concern here stated - what was your own basis for the judgement of the laity, bishops and archbishops of ACANZP (some of whom do hold doctorates in theology)? Were you the recipient of such a theologicasl education? Or did your leadership of a local 'House Church' form the sole basis of your assessment of the theological competency?
Certainly, Jesus did not choose his disciples on the basis of their theological acumen - but then, they were recipients of the wisdom and experience of being taught by the Son of God, whose own capacity for theological deliberatiuon was Holy Spirit sourced. He was 'The Word' who became flesh - and in his human state was probably better equipped than even the most astute theological scholars of this or any age.
But still, some of them seemed slow to learn that which they received at the fount of all Wisdom, God's-Self.
The Divine Word, by a self-imposed limitation to our common humnan state, brought a new and valuable possibility of 'knowing' the Mind of God' into the world - a maturing understand of what it is like to be human. In this humble action, the 'Word of God' in the Bible - which hitherto had been encapsulated for subsequent generations by the human interpretation of the Writers of Scripture - was revealed in the eirenic life, ministry and love of the God/man Jesus Christ who, alone among human beings, was privy to the 'mind of God'.
The Bible tells us the outline of the story - in the NEW Testament - of the amazing grace released into the world by the Holy Spirit - through Whose power 'The Word became flesh in the womb of a human being; Mary - no longer confined to words in a book - no matter how holy. This is one reason our Church - in its particular insistence on 'Scripture (as a means of 'revelation'), has utilised the God-given gifts of human Reason and human Tradition; enlightened by post'Resurrection gifts of the Holy Spirit released into the world at Pentecost and still active in the hearts and minds of receptive human consciousness today.
Jesus, the Word Incarnate, continues to teach and inspire us and feed us with the Bread of Life in the Eucharist - which was Jesus' own gift of himself to his loyal followers. This amazing life force from the heart of God did not remain locked up in the Bible - useful as the Bible is for its revelation of how Christ's incarnate presence altered the human view and experience of God. This is why Sola Scriptura is simply 'not enough' to either understand or experience 'in the flesh' the salvific reality of the "Christ in us - the hope of Glory" - witnessed to by St.Paul - whose own description of the Eucharist in the early Church is so vital to any developed understanding of Christ's continuing presense and empowerment for ministry.
It is on this spirituality, Brendan, that our Church bases its corporate reflection and action on the material intepretation of the insights of the Scriptures which, on their own, never saved one single human being from the consequences of sin and death
Dear Brendan, in our Anglican and most 'Catholic' traditions, there is due acknowledgement iof the fact that God is still creating the Cosmos, not only materially but also spiritually: "When the Sprit comes, S/He will LEAD YOU INTO all the Truth" - in other words, at the timne at which Jesus was speaking "ALL the Truth" - despite the wirting of the O.T., for instance - was not yet available. I believe that, as God's creation proceeds, the Holy Spirit (in the guardinaship of the Body of Christ) continues to LEAD US towards; "the Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". In other words, God's creation did not end in 7 days (pp the Genesis stories) but is an ongoing revelation of the will and power of God to remain active in God's own creation. (Otherwise, why would humanity continue to flourish and need to be open to that promise of Jesus: "When the Spirit comes"?
New species of plant and biological life systems are still being discovered - due no doubt in some cases because of the observable reality of ongoing evolution. This fact alone should warn us that human beings can never know the mind of God - when even the Holy Spirit (we are told in the Scriptures) is still "searching the depths of God". Pure reason informs us that we humans can never plumb the amazing depths of God's creative ingenuity (virgin birth, etc.) And if God created LGBTI people in the divine image and likeness; who are we to question God's purpose in doing that?
Hi Peter,
What G.S. decided, was certainly pragmatic within the structure of the argument based on the premises that, that; [a] human sexual orientation is "innate" and/or [b] that sexual orientation is fluid. However,both of these premises,have every indication of being diametrically opposed and contradictory "social constructs"; that have neither genetic nor theological validation. Therefore,G.S.'s pragmatism was based on a neither scientific or theological basis ; but on cultural pragmatism. The LGBT agenda demanded three outcomes; [a] social acceptance,[b] political permission and [c] the most important- recognition that God both "ordained and blesses homosexual activity". Anything short of all three, was never going to be acceptable to the promoters of this agenda.
This issue could have been dealt with by the development of best practice
Pastoral Care but that was not what the promoters of the agenda wanted. God is neither pragmatic nor democratic; His holiness and righteousness is centered on the fulfillment of His Will.His LOVE and Mercy came at tremendous cost; the death of His Only Begotten Son on the Cross.The GRACE with which He calls us; calls us to die in Him that we may live in Him.
Dear Peter and Bowman, I drafted a response to Peter last night but had the benefit of then reading a post from Bowman that, as usual, needed more than Facebook intensity thought. I’m concerned that the discussion is headed towards a God of the Gaps direction, but please don’t give me more work by responding yet.
Nick
Dear Ron
I have read both of your contributions (addressed to me) twice and I’m still at a loss to know quite what to say to you.
However, as you know I have previously expressed my personal respect for the integrity of the decisions you have made around your same sex attraction, and decision to subsequently marry, for all the reasons you have outlined.
As Sam has pointed out, you have always been consistent and everyone on this blog knows exactly where you stand. There is integrity in that also. Even when you disagree with someone (me), I find that you are respectful (maybe Peter has edited those other bits out) and you are often effervescent and effusive - if not always persuasive!
I suspect we are not going to agree on a good deal outside the basics of our faith. However, Christ is risen! (as you like to remind us). Let us walk in the light as he is in the light. There we can have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, God’s Son cleanses us from all sin.
"Imposing SSB on a church..."
Brendan regards this percept as obvious. But there are those who say that they do not see it. After all, in the church of interest, 90% of those voting supported SSB.
Conversely, several comments here assure us that the GS has not imposed SSB on anyone because any objector to SSBs can safely decline to participate in them. Not all members attend all rites, of course, but is there any other rite that members conscientiously avoid?
Is an SSB an act of the Body or not? If not, does it mean anything at all that it is done by a clergyman in a church? If so, how is one a full participant in the Body if one must absent oneself from its acts?
If something is an act of the Body then is principled non-participation in the act non-participation in the Body itself?
BW
"And if God created LGBTI people in the divine image and likeness; who are we to question God's purpose in doing that?" - Ron Smith
If God "created" transgender men who think they are "really" women and they should have their genitals amputated and oestrogen pumped into their bodies to make them look like women, and if God "created" transgender women who think they are "really" men and they want their breasts cut off and a phallus formed and their bodies pumped with testosterone - then surely God did a really botched job of "creating"? The alternative is that these are people with a kind of mental illness and fixation, and one which 80% of people who say they felt this way as youngsters (one in a thousand of the population at large) no longer feel this way when they are adults (so adult transgenderism affects one in 5000). Which is more likely?
If God "created" people with bisexual affections that attract them to both men and women, then clearly He blundered in commanding "monogamy" to people who are attracted to both sexes? The alternative is that this is somebody whose sexual feelings did not settle and stabilise - and that bisexualism is not God's will for anyone but a developmental failure. Which is more likely?
If God "created" some people to be homosexual, then clearly He did a bad job in ordaining some people to behaviour that is inherently non-reproductive as well as very unclean and physically harmful to the anus, and then completely forgetting to tell His prophets and Messiah to reveal His will in this matter (which seems to go against biology as well just about every culture and everything explicitly said on the matter in the Bible). The alternative is that homosexuality isn't the Creator's will at all but rather a psychosexual developmental failure - just as human beings have all kinds of arrested or confused development, some more serious than others.
I do not think God "created" people to be pedophiles, OCDs, depressives, neurotics, psychotics, people with 'extra limb syndrome' or any number of psychological conditions to which the flesh is heir. These are all part of the fallen human condition that everybody shares, whether happily or not, and not as a matter of conscious choice. Catholic theologians have always understood this point because they have united the Bible, the Church's teaching and the evidence of natural law (biology). It is liberal Protestants who promote a strange individual understanding of the Bible (along with repudiating the authority of the Church's tradition) which is really just Occamist voluntarism. And like that dreadful bishop of Gloucester now in the news, who knows what harm they have done to the souls of troubled young men?
William
Peter; I am flattered that Fr Ron thinks I am Nick O’Teen. I suspect that particular Nick knows Mr Walton. Now, to your examples. I would like to make it clear that my answers are what I find persuasive, not what I like or what I consider to be the most palatable answer. Your first example (the Catholic who divorces and remarries) is not too problematic. If in Protestant terms, this person was not “saved”, then subsequent grace, conversion and amendment of life, as far as that was possible, would seem to put the person in right standing after conversion. In fact the person would likely get an annulment in any case. If, however, the person was “saved” before the irregularity, then the second marriage does not exist and we have the situation that requires mercy. The problem I find (and I apologise for being repetitive) is that there is then a refusal to amend life if the person stays in the second relationship. What about children, someone will say. But I wonder then if a doctrine that this is acceptable moves towards a God of the Gaps analysis. Please note that my example above does not accept that being baptised alone as a child saves you. As for your second example, I still cannot get past the failure to amend life. I am not suggesting that I am sinless, simply that I do not give myself the right to add mercy to partial compliance and rename it virtue. Now, I might be wrong and happily accept that Jesus judges us on heart attitude. I could go as far as being persuaded that God will judge on that. If that is mercy (and it is sort of where Francis has got to), I would not write it off. Bowman, I didn’t have any objection to your alternative view. Your premise seems reasonable and it does not lead to the ridiculous.
Nick
Once again, an outstanding comment from William--we need more of your input around here.
William, I would love to email you directly. If you are interested, please google search for St Christopher's Blenheim, New Zealand and you will find my contact details there.
Hi Ron,
"New species of plant and biological life systems are still being discovered"
July 27th @ 1.37 PM.
I recommend that you stick with with being a Priest and actor, and leave biological science and botany to those trained in it or please offer examples and proof of the evolution you refer to.
Hello Geln,
I would agree to doing what you say Glen; provided you agree to stay out of offering your opinon on matter of professional theology and amateur acting. How about that!
Dear Sam and William
I am very sorry to find that two commenters here, otherwise very intelligent and theologically learned, are so "outstanding" in ignorance of biological variation across species, including the human species, variations that stem from the process of one generation passing on to another DNA, from the very first moments in the development of life, nothing to do with a moral fall of humanity. What is it that you do not understand about homosexuality being a natural phenomenon (see, e.g. https://www.livescience.com/44464-bonobo-homosexuality-natural.html )?
Theologically we need to find a way to remove ourselves from debate which focuses responsibility on "God" or "the Fall" for conditions of life (or, for that matter, opposes placing such responsibility). Our focus should be on how then we might live as God's creatures in all our wonderful variations, in ways which build the power of love in our lives (see today's epistle, Ephesians 3:14-21) and offer to God thanksgiving for the gift of life.
Dear Nick
I am going to claim a bit of time before I come back to your important comment! Hopefully Monday ...
Well, thank you for that profound theological commentary, Dr Carrell. Genetically we are even closer to the chimpanzee than the bonobo, so the next time I feel the desire to split my neighbour's skull and maybe eat her, I won't invoke "God" or "the Fall", I will just put it down to the 98.7% of my genes that I share with Bonzo. What is it that you don't understand about violence and cannibalism being a natural phenomenon? (Yes, you can find all this on livescience.com .)
Yours is the only comment that I have read that begins with the word "Theologically" and then proceeds to dismiss theology. Your sentence should have begun "Naturalistically" or "Secularistically". To be honest, I can find a better account of things from Richard Dawkin or Konrad Lorenz if I wanted a naturalistic view of things that considers us to be nothing other than primates. At least they don't "focus responsibility on 'God' or 'the Fall's for conditions of life".
Keep working at it, Dr Carrell, and in a few years you will be able to excise other unhelpful words like sin and judgment. After all, the bonobo gets by without these, as does my closer relative, the chimp.
William
Bless you, Peter, for pointing out the reality of ongoing biological activity in the animal (including human) and plant world. Recognising this fact is no dis-service to our lovinbg Creator God. On the contrary, it ought alert us to the fact that even the Holy Spirit is 'still searching the depths of God'
God to Job: "Where were you when I created......?"
(Diana and I are returning today from our refreshment in North Queensland, whgere there are crocodiles. Why aren't there any in New Zealand? - Silly question")
Dear Peter
I don’t believe the biology argument takes you anywhere useful. Most men are born promiscuous. Are you suggesting that this biologically human sexual predisposition is an expression of God’s good creation?
The question that faces all of us, regardless of our sexual predilections, is this: Does God have anything useful to say regarding which of these various sexual desires are ‘right ordered’ and the context they may be legitimately pursued?
If so, how could we possibly know?
With that question answered, we can then proceed to ask if God has demonstrated a willingness to make exceptions for people who through various circumstances, find themselves unable or unwilling to live within his right ordered prescriptions?
What about prostitutes for example? In Jesus time these women were social outcasts, particularly amongst the religious people of the day. They were selling their bodies to men in a highly patriarchal society. Furthermore, prostitution was perhaps their only means to ensuring their livelihood in circumstances that were very difficult for single unmarried women at that time.
Did Jesus extend a merciful exception to Prostitutes? Did the apostles in the early church? Would Jesus make an exception for the same sex attracted today?
I’m reminded of the quintessential Australian movie ‘The Castle’ where Phil Kerrigan’s lawyer stands before the judge arguing for the ‘vibe of the thing’. That's pretty much where the proponents of SSB have landed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ
Dear Peter,
Bonobos often greet each other by engaging in sexual activity--it's known as the 'bonobo handshake'. Some teenage blokes may have a similar inclination. Now that we "understand" that such behaviour is genetic, are you suggesting that we should accept such behaviour in our young men as 'natural'?
Further, these apes are not "homosexual" at all. They do engage in same-sex encounters, but they are not exclusively so.
Many animals kill each other, steal, take each others' partners: are human predilections for such behaviours to be explained by reference to DNA and evolution, and therefore simply part of what it means to be human 'in all our wonderful variations' (PC 7:10)?
Dear Sam, Brendan, William
I was very clear in my comment above when I wrote, ""Our focus should be on how then we might live as God's creatures in all our wonderful variations, in ways which build the power of love in our lives (see today's epistle, Ephesians 3:14-21) and offer to God thanksgiving for the gift of life." That is, I offered no pathway to doing whatever we feel like (cannibalism, splitting people's skulls, etc) but, "outstanding" commenters that you are, you have written what you have written!
What I was trying to raise (but readily concede that on this matter I may have been far from clear, so will try again) is the possibility that it does not help our present debate to chase the matter of whether God did or didn't create/"create" homosexuality; and it is biologically highly likely that homosexuality is not a result of the Fall but an ever present condition in nature, from the beginning of Creation (just as death has been). [I cannot see a way out of such a conclusion unless one completely denies evolution - which I have not noticed any of you doing.]
That is, a question to consider, theologically, is whether homosexuality as a natural condition for a small percentage of humanity, necessarily precludes homosexuals from pursuing a loving, lasting, faithful relationship with a fellow, adult, consenting human being who freely enters into such a mutual compact? [We are NOT talking about a moral argument which concomitantly justifies paedophilia, prostitution and the like - please don't waste my time or yours doing so.]
That is, perhaps a question could be posed in this way to you: is there any reason for the church to deny supporting a civilly married same sex couple apart from a deduction that the Six Texts preclude this?
That is, no argument from the naturalness of such a relationship (for the couple concerned), or from the character of self-giving/receiving of love, or from the praiseworthiness of the moral probity of a permanent vow of faithfulness makes any difference to moral evaluation of the relationship, none at all? It is simply wrong because the Six Texts cumulatively prohibit it, and thus outweigh any other commendatory factor pertaining to the relationship?
Further, the absolute certainty that there is only one view on the rightness/wrongness of such a relationship, necessarily leads to a view that departure from the church when it harbours a notion that some moral good might lie within such a civil marriage?
I think I know your answers gentlemen, but it is worth checking - the stakes are quite high - is it not?
Dear Peter,
You wrote:
“Is there any reason for the church to deny supporting a civilly married same sex couple apart from a deduction that the Six Texts preclude this?”
Since you refuse to formally bless these couples (for whom you tirelessly advocate) – Perhaps you could save us time by answering your own question?
Is it just the six texts that prevent you? I do recall you telling me once that you had ‘moved on from the language of Leviticus’, so I’m guessing the Biblical prohibition is not the primary reason for you. I’d be surprised if you were ‘homophobic’ although I’m casting around for an explanation now…
Would you be so kind as to enlighten us?
Well, yes, Brendan, but, while it is Jesus like to answer a question with a question, I would be keen on your answer to the questions I put!
I deliberately used the word "support" in the comment above, because, while I do not see myself "blessing" a civil marriage between two people of the same sex, I can see myself being supportive (e.g. By staying in our church; by praying for love to remain constant and faithful). Further I wish to be in a church which permits space for a variety of means of support, not all of which may be congenial to me personally.
Why would I not myself "bless" such a relationship? Because that would likely be understood as me declaring that God himself is blessing such a relationship. I don't think Scripture tells us enough to declare that with confidence. Even if the Six Texts were not in Scripture, I do not see that Scripture then offers "positive" foundations to base such an approval in God's name. But there is plenty in Scripture about loyalty, faithfulness, self-sacrificing love for another. That material also makes me less than confident that God is going to send gay Christians who are faithful to Jesus and faithful to their lifelong partner to hell. Which, in turn, prevents me from seeing the GS decision as reason to leave the church: better to stay together and to continue to explore these issues together.
Hi Peter,
Quite simply, you are premising your argument on a a different set of premises than Sam,Brendan and William [as well as me]. For either argument to be consistent,cohesive and complete,[in these circumstances] it must answer the question posed by David in Psalm 8:"What is man that Thou art mindful of him?"
I would argue that Genesis gives the account,not of the "physical origin" of man but of his "spiritual uplifting" to be God's right hand man in having dominion over His Creation.God bringing "order" into an otherwise "chaotic" world;including his procreation [one man one woman]. This Godly act included man receiving human reasoning to enable him to fulfill his new commission; but that reasoning bore a caveat:"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,thou shall not eat of it;for thou shalt surely die."
Therefore any objective morality must be based on God's terms not ours. Why was this constraint put on our reasoning? The serpent answered that question:"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,then your eyes shall be opened,and ye shall be as gods,knowing good and evil." Eve's action was to bring chaos back into God's planned order. This is the archetypal Adamic sin, which is born in every human spirit; and must be crucified to allow the Christ Archetype to rule our lives.Both the Old and New Testaments record man's struggle to deal with the Adamic Archetype which was present in our pre-Adamic genes.The "breath of life" was to lift man above the animal world, ruled by instinctual responses. Christ's healing of the blind man was to show that God can correct genetic failings:"was born blind so that God's Glory could be manifest to man." God is not constrained by human genetic structure; but in a world view determined by 'materialism'; we lose sight of "God's Power and Glory"; relying instead on His LOVE. I would feel that Sam,Brendan and William would join me in saying that David's man was man that Christ died for,so that we might die in Him and live in Him.His gift of life to us and His GRACE was COSTLY, and hence it is no wonder that Bonhoeffer speaks of us being called to die into that "COSTLY GRACE";that we may live in Him.
So in a Church which has become pre-occupied with social justice and radical inclusion, to the detriment of the full "Nature and Character" of God; subjective morality reigns supreme. Subjective morality is only a pseudonym for "eating of the fruit the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." And sad to say,Peter,your argument is premised on human understanding of the 'order' which God had planned for His Creation when 'breathing the breath of life into Adam.This subjective morality simply takes us back into the world of pre-Adamic mans genetic call when he was part of the animal kingdom. If you wish to remain there,so be it; but like Joshua I and my household shall serve the GOD ALMIGHTY; Who sent His ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO DIE FOR ME.
Dear Peter
Thank you for responding to my question as follows:
“Why would I not myself "bless" such a relationship? Because that would likely be understood as me declaring that God himself is blessing such a relationship. I don't think Scripture tells us enough to declare that with confidence. Even if the Six Texts were not in Scripture, I do not see that Scripture then offers "positive" foundations to base such an approval in God's name.”
As with so many things, one question leads to another….
Your answer appears to affirm that the church is the Lord’s and we are bound to conduct only such ceremonies and blessings that comport with his explicit approval. However, your personal convictions appear to run contrary to your prolonged and explicit advocacy for SSB! This provides your readers with something of a paradox. You have confirmed that you are advocating for a practice in the church that you cannot in faith or in good conscience affirm that God explicitly approves.
I hesitate to rush to judgement, but doesn’t the Bible tell us that what so ever is not of faith is sin? (Romans 14:23). How is this not the case in your situation?
Dear Glen
I agree that Genesis gives an account of our spiritual uplifting rather than an (accurate, precise) account of physical origins.
I also agree that order matters to God and many stories in the Bible, including Eve's are about the chaos introduced when our affections or our reasoning becomes disordered.
You will no doubt agree that marriage between a man and a woman, among other purposes such as procreation, is a means of ordering sexual desire and resisting the chaos of (e.g.) promiscuity.
You no doubt join with Brendan, Sam, and William in believing that there is one and only one regulation pertaining to same sex sexual desire, namely celibacy. Thus celibacy constitutes order for homosexuals and anything else, even a civil marriage or union is chaos, disruption to the order God seeks the world to live by.
I understand many Christian homosexuals to be saying - the voices Lambeth 1998 1.10 asks us to listen to - that while celibacy works for some, it does not work for all. (Intriguingly, heterosexuals say the same thing!). Thus Christian homosexuals are saying whether the church might open its mind to an extension of order, to include a blessed permanent partnership in its conception of good order for sexuality. They are asking it, of course, not to disrupt the world they live in but to make it more ordered, and transparent.
What exactly is it, Glen, about civil marriage or civil union between same sex couples which is chaotic?
Hi Peter,
It is chaotic because it falls outside God's designed purpose. A wonderful thing about DNA is how we have learnt to read our history.Procreation outside of recorded marriage lines distorts that history.
Dear Brendan
I am advocating for a church which allows for a plurality of voices on this matter. I am not advocating that I am right and no one else is. I am not advocating that you are wrong and your voice should be silenced. I am advocating for plurality in this matter partly because, in fact, there are a plurality of voices, and partly because among those voices are the voices of those whose experience is not mine but may provide the clue we need to better understand humanity in all its variations.
I am advocating for space for SSB in a context where the alternative appears to be a dictatorship by one voice in which no discussion of other theologies is permitted. Further, I am advocating for a church in which we do are willing to live with same sex couples in our congregations without feeling overly pressed to preach against their relationships. A tolerant church if you like, one in which we live with different voices and not all agreeing with each other, perhaps not even making sense.
But I respect the fact that you can no longer live in that church.
Dear Peter,
You have spent a good deal of effort answering a question I wasn’t asking. My question was simply this: If you know same sex relationships are sinful, why are you advocating for their acceptance and blessing in the church you love?
What are our convictions worth if we don’t live them out in the public sphere? How can we even claim to hold such convictions if we advocate for practices in the church that violates them?
How does it make sense to advocate for the beliefs and practices that we personally believe are sinful, just because others happen to believe they are sanctified? Doesn’t a shepherd in Christ’s church have a responsibility to contend for the faith once handed down to us? To uphold and teach sound doctrine, to refute error in the church, not promote it?
I’d have thought this was an inescapable question that one day you will have to answer, if not to me or readers on this blog, but to the Lord himself?
Dear Brendan
I am very comfortable with the thought of standing before Jesus who declared that his burden was light and that he would not bruise a broken reed, and saying to Jesus that on one matter, how we speak to and about gay and lesbian persons in the life of the church, I hesitated to assume I understood the application of Scripture to them as they live a life faithful to Jesus and I gave the benefit of the doubt to those who are more certain than I am that their civil marriages/unions might be blessed.
If that makes me a poor shepherd, a confusing teacher of the flock, a person liable to the condemnation of God, so be it.
I refuse to join the chorus of married men telling other men (and women) they have to be what the married men are not willing to be, celibate.
I guess Roman Catholic priests have at least one advantage over married Anglican priests!
Have I now clearly responded to your questions?
Dear Peter,
Yes, you have been very clear in your response to my questions, thank you.
It is important to reflect upon the comforting words of Jesus that you quote from Matthew 11:30, but to focus solely upon Christ’s compassion and fail to engage with his full character and ministry is a grievous and costly error. In that same chapter, Jesus denounces towns like Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida for their failure to repent, saying it would be more tolerable for Sodom on the day of judgement than it would be for them.
If Jesus did not step back from proclaiming the reality of God’s judgement on unrepentant sinners, then dare we do otherwise?
In this same chapter Jesus also validated the ministry of John the Baptist. You will recall John prophetically describing Jesus in this way:
“His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (Matthew 3:12)
I don’t believe any of us feels comfortable assuming the role of an Old Testament prophet, pointing out the sins of the Church, and warning of God’s inescapable judgement to come, but failing to do so would make us complicit in this deceit.
I’m genuinely sorry Peter that you are unable to see this.
Dear Peter,
When the the Director of Education for the diocese finds it almost impossible to provide a clear and straightforward answer to clear and straightforward questions it suggests that either a.) the educator is not very good at educating, or b.) the educator is obfuscating. It could be either (though I think that it is b.) but it concerns me that you genuinely think you have clearly answered at 10:54 Brendan's question at 9:15am.
Your unnecessarily abstruse answer at 10:54 seems to be this: "I don't really know what Scriptures teach on this, so I'm prepared to allow people who are more convicted than me hold their position, even though I tend not to agree with it."
The thing is, you haven't actually made a judgement about their position. Surely the fact that they hold it with conviction is not enough to allow it: it shouldn't even come into the equation. The question is: do you think it is valid? And to what extent?
Having read on the topic from both sides, and having watched Time for Love, and having carefully considered it personally I am not in the least bit convinced by their so-called exegesis, or their biblical theology, or their sociology, or their rationality. If I were to give it a percentage breakdown I would, roughly say, that I am 98% unconvinced by their arguments. That is, I view that they have somewhere between 0 and 2% validity; i.e. essentially none. Therefore it is relatively easy for me to hold my position with clarity and force.
You, however, obviously think their arguments have some validity? The question is how much? Is it for you 20%? Or 30%? Or 40%? I think this is important for you to try and articulate this. If you think their validity is low, then why play devils advocate? Why allow their position to remain? Why allow such a divisive thing to cause splits within the church you love so much?
If it is higher, how high? and do you see any danger that you might actually cross over and join the other side--the one you have been defending so capably?
Dear Brendan and Sam,
Brendan: I stand by what I wrote.
Sam: You do not seem to allow for a middle position between validity and invalidity. Nor do you seem to allow for a "lesser virtue of two difficult positions to take."
I am really trying not to obfuscate but, of course, a forthcoming tribunal on my doctrine is likely to find otherwise :).
So, let me try again (but, spoiler alert, I am not going to get into percentages), with particular reference to these words, at 10.54am above: "I hesitated to assume I understood the application of Scripture to them as they live a life faithful to Jesus and I gave the benefit of the doubt to those who are more certain than I am that their civil marriages/unions might be blessed."
1. I am very clear that Scripture teaches against orgiastic, lust-driven, promiscuous, oppressive (cf. prostitution), and destructive sexual behaviour. (So, effectively, Jesus' teaching on lust=adultery, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 5:1ff, 6:9-10, etc).
2.1 I hesitate to say that I know with complete certainty what the application of some teaching in Scripture is: do Jesus' words on remarriage after divorce = adultery mean what Roman Catholics say they mean, or what Eastern Orthodox say they mean, or Anglicans ... (and noting that different interpretations exist among Anglicans, and also differentiation has occurred over time, including within ACANZP).
2.2 (Having established, I hope, that hesitancy about some teaching in Scripture re human sexuality is an option) As I engage in arguments here and elsewhere and find no sympathy by people such as yourself for the possibility that it might be valid for a same sex attached person to commit for life to another same sex attracted person, I find myself sympathetic to gay and lesbian persons in the life of our church, especially when I see them being faithful to Jesus, often in quite hostile contexts.
Does 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as a list prohibit such relationship (especially in the light of Paul's realism about sexual desire in 1 Corinthians 7:9)?
Is SSB valid or invalid? Does it constitute a reasonable case of "lesser virtue of two difficult positions to take."
So, in as un-obfuscatory fashion as I can manage: I DO NOT KNOW.
3. But there are colleagues and friends in ACANZP who think differently: they are sure that such relationships can be blessed. They do not share my hesitancy. What am I to do about them? Am I to drum them out of the church? Dare I call their positions invalid? Perhaps, but I am trying to acknowledge that this support includes homosexuals whose experience of life is not mine: must I discount their experience and insight completely and utterly? Am I, in disagreement, to leave the church, allowing their certainty to prevail? Or, am I to leave the church because I think my conscience is rather precious to me, even though that means I would also be leaving behind those choosing to stay in this church who are convinced that SSB is invalid?
Again: let me try to be as un-obfuscatory as possible:
A. I AM NOT LEAVING ACANZP.
B. I AM GIVING THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THOSE WHO HAVE A CERTAINTY (RE VALIDITY OF SSB) I DO NOT SHARE.
C. I WISH NO ONE WHO THINKS SSB IS INVALID WOULD LEAVE THE CHURCH. I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT AND PROMOTE THE GS DECISION AS THE BEST WE CAN DO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
D. NO, I DON'T SEE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY I WOULD CHANGE MY CURRENT POSITION. (IT IS NOT AS THOUGH I AM A NEWCOMER TO ALL THE DEBATES!).
Clear? :)
Hi Peter,
I will not leave the Anglican Church, as it was established in 1857 and defined in that founding Constitution; but will I ever attend a service in an ACANZP Church,never. It is G.S. that has left the Constitution and It's Doctrine, not me. I just don't see any relevance of attending a Church which does not know what it stands for. A Church which stands for "EVERYTHING", stands for "NOTHING".A Church with two integrates is rather like a wedding service;Brides family on the left,bridegrooms family on the right.
So you have got the Church you voted for. Your battle has only just started. The LGBT are not satisfied with the half pie victory. They told you at your synod that the "don't look now but the king has no cloths on" decision on was only the beginning and not the end.Is it because your colleges , who are so certain of their theological stance, having not been able to provide a substantial argument validating their position, that G.S. had to take the back door route of "non-discipline".Are these colleges of yours, the same activists who brought the case against the Bishop of Auckland, in the Human Rights Tribunal and lost? Did you support their case?
Peter,please read the 18th Homily on Marriage in Art.35.;and tell me that the Church established under the defined Doctrine of the Constitution 1857,thought that it was okay for you to support homosexual practices; [which is what it comes down to]. Because your argument [refer to my earlier blog] is based on the subjective premise of morality being determined by the nature of the "relationship" rather than the "Act"; then the homosexual act becomes permissible within your definition of" a proper relationship". This is not what the Word of God states:"One man/one woman and whom God hath joint together,let no man put asunder". I think Meat Loaf sang two out of three ain't bad,not one out of two.
So what is the 'CHAOS" that all these permissive attitudes lead to: "JUST LOOK AT AMERICA", where the liberals have pushed for contraception, abortion and same sex relationships, now demand "open Borders" to bring in millions of immigrants to provide CHEAP LABOR to maximize their Corporation's profit.[please don't tell me that America should provide these opportunities at the expense of low wages for Americans]. The point I am making,Peter, is that our cosy little subjective morality has far reaching consequences and before one decides that in the name of God, the ACANZP should bless relationships which lead to Chaos, it should consider what the Holy Spirit has said to the Church.
".A Church with two integrates is rather like a wedding service; Brides family on the left, bridegrooms family on the right." - Glen -
Precisely, Glen. But then God blesses their Unity - 2 become 1 - because that is what they determine. The couple marries each other and then the church blesses the marriage. Two integrities become One!
(p.s. I thought Glen, you had already left ACANZP)
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your comment and for your clarity: it is very clear that you are unwilling to answer my main question, which was the extent to which you think the liberal arguments have validity.
It is impressive that you are able to consistently avoid the simple thrust of what is being asked.
Yes: you are uncertain about some things.
Yes: others have an alternative view to your own
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK THE LIBERAL ARGUMENTS HAVE VALIDITY?
For this is the heart of the matter. If their arguments are bad, we shouldn't tolerate them in the church. If they are great then we should adopt them. If they are somewhere in the middle, then that should shape the level sympathy we have for them.
TO WHAT EXTENT?
Hi Glen,
Life changes.
In 1990/92 we recognised that we were a church that needed to do better by its Maori and Polynesian members, so we did something the 1857 constitution did not do and did not envisage: sharing power across our Tikanga.
Now we are asking whether we can do better by our gay and lesbian members (who weren't being thought of in 1857).
What would Cranmer think? I don't know but I do know Cranmer valued marriage. He married twice and from memory, both times, with an element of secrecy because it was either illegal or not quite legal for him to do so!
While it is possible that we are unleashing chaos, the larger question is whether we are doing the right thing by our members.
Frankly, Glen, the gay and lesbian Anglicans I come across just want to know they are actually welcome, that they are not going to be preached against when they come to church, and that the church is not obsessed by them and their committed partnerships.
I think it improper not to give a caring response to them for fear of chaos in America!
"If you point at the moon, your dog will bark at your hand."
-- Chinese proverb
"Scholars familiar with Christians and Christianity note that marriage was a problem for the first disciples, but that it is peripheral to the religion itself, and was once ritually acknowledged according to conflicting theologies for cultural reasons, not as though Jesus taught an exhaustive theory of eros. So although passionately debated after the turn of the third millennium CE, by the end of the C21, the rite called SSB (q.v.) had fallen into desuetude in Western societies with all other church marriage rites. Spiritual directors in the Christian tradition today still counsel disciples on sexual and marital matters, but only as an aspect of the personal quest for transformative holiness that all recognise as the centre of the religion founded by Jesus."
-- Wikipedia, accessed 29 July 2518.
BW
Dear Sam
In my attempt at clarity I failed at comprehension and so did not attend to (what I now see) is your critical question - my apologies.
You ask (I will cease the use of caps!):
"To what extent do you think the liberal arguments have validity?
For this is the heart of the matter. If their arguments are bad, we shouldn't tolerate them in the church. If they are great then we should adopt them. If they are somewhere in the middle, then that should shape the level sympathy we have for them."
I assume we are talking about the liberal arguments for the decision of GS 2018 to make space for SSB to occur where bishops give permission etc.
(1) It is completely valid for any church within any society to make provision through formal, public prayer for some kind of supportive response when members of the church enter into civil marriage or civil union. The least a church can do is make provision to pray that such a legal partnership would be sustained and strengthened. The strength of civil society lies in its enduring commitment to obligations within a framework of law.
(2.1) It is, nevertheless, also valid for churches to make distinction between marriages (in the eyes of civil law) (as, for instance, the Roman Catholic church does re the question of reception of the Mass where a married person has previously been married and the previous spouse remains alive; as, for instance, we might all do, if we discovered we had a polygamist couple (set of couples?) in our congregation.
(2.2) Such distinction also includes the possibility that in the life of our church we might find (at least) three groups: (a) those willing to pray supportively for a same-sex civilly married couple; (b) those willing to go further and to declare a blessing (= God's approval) of the marriage; (c) those who will do neither (a) or (b).
[Both (1) and (2.1) and (2.2) undergird the GS decision].
(3) Your question I understand to be especially focused on (2.2(b)): what is the validity of arguments for offering a blessing where "blessing" includes declaration of God's approval for such a relationship?
(4) I understand such arguments, at their heart - they have in common this factor - a recognition of the value of lasting, sacrificial agape love between two people, a reflection on the presence of God within true love (where love is, there is God) and a respect for the life choice of two people who otherwise cannot enter into heterosexual marriage. Such arguments also (in my reading) acknowledge advances in understanding of human sexuality, often acknowledge the continuing work of the Spirit leading us into new understanding [so, especially on this site, Ron Smith's comments], and generally sit light to the continuing role of Torah in the life of the church. How valid are these arguments? Here I restate from above that I am not going to get into percentages. I would prefer to offer an evaluation in terms of reasonableness: are such arguments a reasonable reading of Scripture? Are they a reasonable response to the reality of self-identifying same-sex couples in our congregations? I think they are.
(5) But such arguments are not the whole story in terms of what Scripture says. Each argument can be controverted. No argument in (4) is settled across the Anglican community of faith (let alone across the worldwide church). As stated above, I am far from certain that we can read Scripture confidently in the way these liberal arguments do. Their validity is not proven.
I hope I have now answered your question but I am open to you pressing it further.
Hi Peter,
I consider it disingenuous to bring the three Tikanga into this discussion. That move was completely within the powers given to G.S. by the Constitution 1857. In fact, it goes to show what a wonderful document it is. However, there is no room for changing legally permitted human sexuality outside of that stated in the 18th Homily [marriage] of the 35th Article.
Can you point me to the powers in the Constitution which permit G.S. to allow Bishops to disregard the fiduciary duty of maintaining proper discipline in that part of the Church committed to their care. How can a Bishop who permits SSB claim that he or she is "maintaining the doctrines of faith as this Church has received them."?
Dear Glen
Good luck with gaining a hearing for the 18th homily of the 35th article, especially among wives, for whom subjection and enduring beatings in a good spirit is fulsomely exhorted!
I suggest the answer to your question re bishops and the discipline of the church is a question bishops are answering frequently as issues of the day present themselves, namely that fiduciary duty requires them not only to think about the letter of the law (of constitution and of canons) but also about the spirit of the law (what is it that enables the church to be church in an ever changing world, what kind of care enables the church to be a community of love for all the diverse people it finds in its midst?).
The doctrines of the faith as this church has received them include doctrines that this church has wisely bent to accommodate changing circumstances (most notably on divorce and remarriage) as well as doctrines that continue to exercise our wise judgement (for instance on what it means to be church in society - who is today's "magistrate"? What is the role of the Sovereign in a modern democratic nation? How does the church respond to the decisions of parliament?).
That is, your comment presupposes a fixed if not frozen understanding of the doctrine of this church. Actually, we have some capacity to exercise flexibility (e.g. to ordain women as priests and bishops; to teach marriage in which women are not subject to husbands in the manner of the Homily you commend to us) and so the question is whether the GS - in our particular not-1549/52, not-1662, not-1857, not-1928 society - has acted appropriately by recognising and giving space to a divergence of views on a topic never (as far as I know) discussed in any of the years cited above.
I say the GS has acted appropriately and for the life of me I cannot see a Selwyn of 1857 demurring at the wisdom of his successors in 2018.
Hi Peter,
Whether you like it or not,the 18th Homily is still part of how the Doctrine of the ACANZP has been legally defined. If you don't like, you can always start a Church and make the doctrine as you like.
Hi Glen
Our constitution under its Fundamental Provisions talks about "... the Doctrine and Sacraments of Christ ... hath received and explained the same in the Book of Common Prayer ... and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion ..."
The Homilies are part of the explanation of our faith not part of legally defining it.
That gives us necessary room to not feel legally bound by the 18th Homily's commendation of the subjection of women.
I am happy with ACANZP and see no need to start a new church.
Dear Peter
What is the harm in making a ‘beautiful accommodation’ for those who are actively engaging in same sex relationships in the Anglican church?
1) God has deemed homosexual practice to be sinful, and as you have acknowledged, quite apart from the six texts, the overall narrative of Scripture denies the legitimacy of sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage.
2) God commands all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30). To live an unrepentant life is to live in rebellion against God. For the practicing homosexual Christian, this adds the sin of rebellion to their un-repented sexual sin.
3) Galatians 3:13-15 teaches us that Christ paid the price for our sin to free us from the curse that the law of Moses brings upon all transgressors, by becoming cursed for us. Our sin caused direct harm to the Son of God through his crucifixion, suffering and death at Calvary.
4) (Hebrews 6:4-6) Suggests that ‘Christians’ who persist in unrepentant sin are crucifying the Son of God all over again, subjecting him to public disgrace.
5) The law of Moses warns Israel that these sexual sins makes them unclean, and it also defiles the land such that God will vomit them out if they practice them. They will go into exile. (Leviticus 18:24-30)
6) Not only are these Christians defiled by their sexual sin, but the church that accommodates them is also defiled. Paul when speaking of sexual sin tells us that the yeast spreads through the whole batch of dough. (1 Corinthians 5:6)
7) Paul states clearly that we are not to associate with those who commit sexual sins, who call themselves brothers and sisters in the faith. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) This is so serious a matter; he states we must not even eat with them.
8) God commands his people to be holy even as he is holy. (1 Peter 1:6) Accommodating sexual sin in the church is an affront to God’s holiness, and is damaging to the church’s testimony to the world.
9) To engage in autonomous sexual expression has become a form of idolatry celebrated in popular culture. By introducing it into the church, and calling it ‘blessed’ in rebellion against God’s explicit instructions; we are practicing idolatry. We have created a god in our own image, and we have elevated it in the presence of the people.
10) There is a clear and obvious spiritual dimension behind the LGBT movement globally that has now found its way into the church. It is the same spirit that denies the Lordship of Christ over all his creation, and his authority here on earth. It is the spirit of anti-Christ.
Dear Brendan
Do you make a similar analysis where Christians settle comfortably into a material lifestyle at odds with Jesus' call to give up everything to follow him? Do you offer a similar 10 point level of concern where married Christians walk away from the strict letter of their vows (albeit feeling oceans of unhappiness)? Does schism warrant 10 points of underlining of how displeasing this is to God?
Otherwise, I feel you are just picking on a tiny minority of Christians, whose willingness to remain in a church where they are subject to such picking on is nothing short of miraculous.
Dear Peter,
I wonder if your response to my 10 points, which I’m happy to debate by the way, might be fairly described as: ‘shooting the messenger’?
That is kind of my point, Brendan!
You put you ten debating points out there and look for the debate but seemingly without thought for the people or as some might say "PEOPLE" as in "not principles") you are talking about.
Because there is so much sin in the world and much of it unrepented, including by me, I think it worth asking the messenger of such a message, are you are fair messenger? Do you take as much time and effort over all sin?
Besides which, there is not much point in engaging (say) me about what you call "autonomous sexual expression": we really need a gay or lesbian person to discuss their sexual lives and to debate with you whether they are engaged in autonomous sexual expression let alone idolatry.
For me to agree with you on those points would be to enter into judgment which I am somewhat Scripturally bound to take great care over but you are - obviously - less constricted by Scripture than me :).
Nowhere in your ten points do you acknowledge that the church has not allowed in blessing of sin.
What it has done is allow that those who think a certain sin should not be blessed should continue to think that way and those who do not think that action is a sin and thus wish to bless that action (i.e. to bless what is not sin) are also permitted to do so.
Failure to see this simple point is endemic through this discussion and wasting quite a bit of time!
And, if you wish to reply to say that the "not a sin, we will bless" group are wrong, that is fine, but what you cannot do is secure a majority of our church to agree with you, let alone agree to (say) discipline such thinkers, let alone banish them from our midst.
That is we are a church with two different views and we have said through GS that we will be a church with two different views, transparently and honestly expressed through appropriate enabling legislation.
If people do not want to be a church of two views and choose to leave, so be it. I am sad about that because I think it is unnecessary but I do not have it in my powers (at least not on this blogsite!!) to persuade people to think like I do, that it is possible to live in a church with two views on this particular matter.
So, yes, fairly or unfairly, I may have "shot the messenger" but your ten points are a form of blunderbuss aimed at a minority of our church and I wonder how fair that is!
Dear Peter
I’m focusing on the legitimacy of the ‘beautiful accommodation’ because you are its author.
And while somewhat off topic, there are as you point out, other sins that could be substituted into my 10 points, but it seems for reasons best known to God alone, that sexual sins are more grievous in their effect. See Paul’s teaching on this subject here: 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.
I note your reluctance to enter judgement by commenting on the 10 points I raised. Yet Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 that we are to exercise judgement within the church. The primary purpose of church discipline is to maintain the health of the entire body. Failure to exercise judgement that results in discipline is an expression of disobedience on behalf of church leadership, and a failure to truly love the individuals involved. The purpose of God’s judgement in discipline is entirely redemptive. By forsaking discipline, we close the door on the possible restoration of those whose lives are caught up in sin, and allow sin to permeate the rest of the church like yeast in dough.
This is what Paul teaches.
The Bible also makes clear that we need arrive at a loving and compassionate response to those whose lives are caught up in sin. This is another subject entirely. However, if the majority of the church believes homosexual practice is not sin, and you believe that the role of Bishops, Arch Deacons, and Priests is to run with the collective group think on this matter, then the die is set, and the church’s future certain.
Dear Peter,
The reason I read and contribute to this blog is because I believed that you (as a confessed evangelical) and I argue from similar principles and foundations. Thus discussions and debates are all part of 'iron sharpening iron.' I seldom read, and never contribute to, the blogs of (for example) Ron, or Bosco, or Helen, or Kelvin because we have nothing in common theologically and it would be a waste of our time.
In your recent comments, especially your latest ones to me where you will not give your personal evaluation the validity of the arguments for SSB/SSM (I was not asking about the validity of M29/7) and most especially in your responses (11:45 and 12:53) to Brendan's excellent post (10:24), you have demonstrated that, sadly, you and I approach theology, doctrine, and practise from very different positions indeed. Your repeated failure to let Scripture guide and rule says to me (at least) that you are not an evangelical in the way that I understand the term. This is a great sadness to me. I believe that you mean well, but I think you are playing a dangerous game and are trying to be too clever by half. I sincerely hope that you heed the pointed personal warnings that some have given you on this site and come back to your evangelical roots and heritage. Paul writes in of the tragic possibility that someone might preach to others but themselves be disqualified from the prize. Even stronger is the warning to those who would lead the little ones astray.
I have come to the conclusion that this is not a case of iron sharpening iron, but is a waste of both our time. And, so, with this, I must bow out from any further engagement on this site.
Thank you for having me on your site, for taking the time to read and reply to my comments, and for making a sincere effort to moderate fairly.
Hi Brendan
It is not "homosexual practice" generally that we are talking about but civil marriage or civil union.
What discipline do you envisage? Asking the couple to divorce and live separately? Remain together but not have sexual relations? Expulsion from the church.
You quote St Paul as though all this is about church leaders finding a semblance spine.
But it is about other things as well.
For instance it is about the high likelihood in today's age that far from receiving the discipline the few gay and lesbian Anglicans in our churches would simply leave.
Well, I suppose that would help the church to be "healthier"!
What I am voting for is for taking a great deal more care about the language we use, our readiness to accept that Paul would act in this or that way, and, above all, asking just how Jesus who went to dinner with prostitutes and tax collectors (i.e. people on margins of that particular religious society).
He didn't seem to be in a hurry to ask them to repent.
Even Zacchaeus repented of his own accord.
No discipline required.
I don't think senior church leaders are running some kind of "group think" on this matter. Rather, I find that church leaders (senior or otherwise) are united in not accepting that the kind of recipe you advance here is the pastorally appropriate way to respond to gay and lesbian members of our church.
The Bible says spare the rod and spoil the child but people these days are surprisingly united in thinking that while the principal of the saying holds (children can indeed be spoilt) there are reasons the biblical writers were never sensitive to which hold us back from preaching that the rod should be used (for fear of child abuse etc). No group think required. Why, it might even be the Spirit at work within us, finding new compassion for children which doesn't precisely follow the letter of the law.
Dear Sam
Thanks for reading and commenting.
You are welcome back anytime.
My answer re your question on validity is clearly not satisfying but I am not sure I can do better than that because I am happy to live with invalidity in the life of the church. (To give you two examples: I don't want to leave the church because SMAA in our Diocese steadfastly adds words to the eucharist which are not agreeable to our Doctrine; I am happy to attend Roman Mass even though some words in the Mass are not agreeable to me - and on the rare occasions I have been offered the host, I have received it. That may seal your view of me as an evangelical!)
You have warned me as an evangelical that I may suffer for being too clever by half. Actually, what is important to me is not that I find the requisite cleverness to stay in the church but that I love the people I find in the church - conservative evangelicals, gays, Anglo-Catholics, "even" liberals! What drives me along this pathway are the words of Scripture which I take very seriously, about unity, about the body of Christ, about the singularity of Jesus and this about the church being one church. I do not take less seriously words about discipline (and I am not going to discuss publicly examples which would illustrate my serious commitment to discipline in the life of the church (including a commitment to take seriously the rubrics of the NZPB, which I assume you also do, because that also is part of being a disciple and minister under authority).
But, yes, I am sitting very light to the discipline Brendan and you enjoin on me in respect of gay and lesbian members insofar as such members join together in civil marriage (and thus take seriously a responsibility to make love a commitment and not just a feeling). Why won't I be "more" evangelical as you (and others not commenting here) seek?
Put as simply as I can - when so much more could be written to dot "i"s and cross "t"s - I think it better for gay and lesbian Anglicans to work out their lives, oriented so differently compared to my own, without me telling them what to do, happily married and all as I am (thanks be to God). I think it might be a mercy to grant some members of our church the freedom to work Scripture out for themselves without constantly steering them back to what they ought to believe.
Glen Young said:
". However, there is no room for changing legally permitted human sexuality outside of that stated in the 18th Homily [marriage] of the 35th Article."
And yet, Glen, the world moves on - to the place where 'legally permitted human sexuality' has overtaken the outdated premise of the Church's stand on homosexuality (for instance). Are you proposing that the 18th Homily and the 35th Article should oppose the legal definition in Aotearoa of a person's right to legal marriage in our country? If our Church is to remain relevant in the community it is dedicated and empowered to serve, it needs to keep abreast of social and scientific developments that apply to matters of gender and sexuality - with a view to enabling such biblical characteristics as justice and mercy to prevail.
Otherwise, the Church might lose its credibility as a community-building, God-fearing, upholder of justice, organisation that even the Prophet Michal sought to establish and maintain in the O.T. Scriptures. Ask yourself, Glen: What would Jesus do?
Brandan says:
"7) Paul states clearly that we are not to associate with those who commit sexual sins, who call themselves brothers and sisters in the faith. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13) This is so serious a matter; he states we must not even eat with them."
Obviously, Jesus would not have agreed with Paul on this issue, in fact, as our Host, Peter, on this website has already pointed out, Jesus himself went out of his way to 'eat and drink with prostitutes and (other) sinners.
Why is it, I wonder, that some very conservative Evangelicals insist on citing only aspects of the scriptures that suit their arguments, without considering the impact of other passages that actually quote Jesus as speaking and acting in ways they would NOT approve of?
Such ambivalence is not even consonant with 'Sola Scriptura'.
Hi Peter
You say:
I think it might be a mercy to grant some members of our church the freedom to work Scripture out for themselves without constantly steering them back to what they ought to believe.
Now I accept that my use of God of the gaps was broad, but are you replacing God (from the ignorance fallacy) with mercy from your own fallacy? In my view, you have better arguments than mercy; a sort of well there’s nothing else back stop, but I like it.
Nick
To be frank, Nick, I am not sure I understand your criticism (which otherwise seems fair etc) re God // mercy.
In the cited sentence I am using "mercy" to refer to how we the church might respond, with particular respect to imposing teaching and discipline, to members of our church who are working out their lives in respect of an orientation that some 95% of the rest of us, and maybe about 99.9% of church leaders do not understand. And the mercy I am talking about does not remove from those members the responsibility to read Scripture, and consequentially work out their styles of living in "fear and trembling before the living God."
Post a Comment