tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2002991427937960038..comments2024-03-29T06:58:28.383+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: What is persuasive in Auckland?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3617411447279675592013-02-13T11:36:42.708+13:002013-02-13T11:36:42.708+13:00On a slightly different note, both Jesus and his a...On a slightly different note, both Jesus and his apostles did permit Christians to divorce in some situations. <br /><br />We can't base an argument on the premise that divorce is not permitted for Christians in any circumstances. MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-19379998599229152512013-02-06T16:19:26.314+13:002013-02-06T16:19:26.314+13:00Thanks Peter.
I would like to say to Bosco that a...Thanks Peter.<br /><br />I would like to say to Bosco that at no point have I ever deliberately or maliciously mis-represented what he has said.<br /><br />But clearly there is miscommunication, and I want to take responsibility for any part I have played. <br /><br />I will make a particular point of being very careful to ask for clarification before commenting on your posts, and if I do get it wrong, please do not assume it is deliberate. I am happy to receive correction if I do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48458016660197770792013-02-06T16:14:21.936+13:002013-02-06T16:14:21.936+13:00Hi Shawn,
If you want to ask a question of another...Hi Shawn,<br />If you want to ask a question of another commenter what their view of something is, you are most welcome to put the question in a comment. It is then up to that commenter whether they respond or not.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-28610277962968480802013-02-06T16:11:13.258+13:002013-02-06T16:11:13.258+13:00Hi Shawn
To be consistent with what I have said ab...Hi Shawn<br />To be consistent with what I have said above I need to moderate your comment.<br /><br />I am happy to publish this as it is a statement of your view (and not a debate of what he did or didn't say):<br /><br />""I will not publish comments which further debate the question of what Bosco did/didn't say."<br /><br />Fair enough. But I want to be on record that I object to his claim that "Let’s leave to one side the tendency to read manifestly fallacious and illogical reasoning into the comments of others." "<br /><br />I am also happy to publish this as it is a contribution from you to ongoing debate about the issue at hand:<br /><br />"And I think we ARE in a position to argue against SSM, regardless of whatever supposed deficiencies there have be re the theology of marriage in the past.<br /><br />One of the primary reasons we have not developed a strong theology of marriage in the NZ Anglican Church is because of the liberal domination of Church institutions over the last decades. Marriage was just too old fashioned and reactionary to deal with when we had much sexier subjects like the Treaty and left wing notions of social justice. "Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63718444380722997592013-02-06T10:37:25.423+13:002013-02-06T10:37:25.423+13:00Thank you Bosco for your clarification!
I will no...Thank you Bosco for your clarification!<br /><br />I will not publish comments which further debate the question of what Bosco did/didn't say.<br /><br />I will publish comments which discuss how we can be more honest as a church about what we have decided, what we may decide, where we are headed and what shoals or glorious destinations lie before us.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36501772011692507902013-02-06T10:25:28.723+13:002013-02-06T10:25:28.723+13:00Greetings
I re-read my comments in this thread an...Greetings<br /><br />I re-read my comments in this thread and struggle to see where I was arguing for what I agree would be a “manifestly fallacious and illogical” position that “The Churche's failure re divorce is an excuse for same-sex marriage”.<br /><br />Let’s leave to one side the tendency to read manifestly fallacious and illogical reasoning into the comments of others.<br /><br />To be “clear about what conclusion I am arguing for”? Well actually I didn’t think my comments were arguing <i><b>for</b></i> anything at all. I didn’t think each comment here needed to be arguing <i><b>for some conclusion</b></i>. I thought I was just joining the conversation. But, every time I do join the conversation here – something like this tends to happen. I think I keep misjudging the culture of those who dominate here.<br /><br />So, yes, if there has to be a conclusion that I am <i><b>arguing for</b></i>, Peter’s more careful read of my comments would be a fair short summary.<br /><br />I was affirming Peter’s insight that banging away at the half dozen verses we disagree about is not going to get us further. We are stuck there. His suggestion, in this post, was to approach it more laterally (his example: Romans 14). I was affirming that laterality – but clearly we quickly headed straight back to the comfort of the “manifestly fallacious and illogical” position. <br /><br />The conclusion I am arguing <i><b>for</b></i> is to be more honest with ourselves. Honest about our lack of deep theology (or even shallow discussion) in other areas (episcopacy, ordination, liturgy, the Trinity, marriage, Christ’s divinity, abortion, revelation, euthanasia,…) Honest about what drives us with such energy about gays (cf. heterosexual issues). Honest about our lack of honesty with ourselves about issues that should focus our energy (how big are we? What is the quality of training? Are we merely a shrinking aging leisure activity with, in Christchurch, the added tragedy that some of our under-insured club-houses have been destroyed?) Honest with ourselves that we never really thought deeply about changing our divorce rules, that when that was done few would have envisaged clergy married three times, taking the wedding of someone on their seventh marriage, divorce & episcopacy (a la the Bible), every second (or so) church wedding being of a divorcee…<br /><br />Maybe, just maybe, if we had paid more attention to important things as we did them, just maybe, as with Peter’s Romans 14 approach, we might have been approaching the current discussion with more honesty and integrity and have been on a better path to explore this particular track from. I certainly do not agree at all that in a theology of marriage, discussing our approach to divorce is a red herring. <br /><br />Are they sufficient conclusions for me to be arguing <i><b>for</b></i>?<br /><br />Rather than “The Churche's failure re divorce is an excuse for same-sex marriage”?<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52493639422590766742013-02-06T01:14:53.070+13:002013-02-06T01:14:53.070+13:00"Or if he is saying something else, he should..."Or if he is saying something else, he should spell out what he is saying."<br /><br />That would be helpful. My conclusion was a reasonable assumption, as Peter confirms. But if I am wrong, then a little clarification would help shed more light.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-33318379088970351892013-02-05T23:06:29.721+13:002013-02-05T23:06:29.721+13:00Hi Ron,
Another deleted comment. Please comment on...Hi Ron,<br />Another deleted comment. Please comment on the issue at hand and not on the manner of another commenters argument (unless dealing with a direct matter such as a commenter misquoting you or misunderstanding you).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82083883500163303382013-02-05T23:04:00.236+13:002013-02-05T23:04:00.236+13:00Hi Bosco, Shawn, Martin
Lest we descend to a ping-...Hi Bosco, Shawn, Martin<br />Lest we descend to a ping-pong match re He said/No I didn't.<br />It would be helpful to be clear about what conclusion you are arguing for, Bosco.<br />Even I thought it was that if we have permitted remarriage of divorce we should permit same sex marriage.<br />I think I am wrong (in the light of your response immediately above) and now read you as simply querying why some people have so much energy for one issue re marriage and not for the other. Am I now correct?<br />PPeter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26303728499257419342013-02-05T22:14:07.080+13:002013-02-05T22:14:07.080+13:00Ah, Shawn, it didn't take long to get back int...Ah, Shawn, it didn't take long to get back into the let's-just-make-up-stuff-and-say-Bosco-said-it response.<br /><br />Where was my "point" that "The Churche's failure re divorce is an excuse for same-sex marriage"?<br /><br />I can acknowledge I'm not as sharp, or possibly even as interested, as some in all the fine details of this kind of discussion - but suggesting that kind of reasoning would have to be pretty darn stupid!<br /><br />So when I read that response, basically all I see is "Bosco is REALLY thick!"<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Straw-man Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78390668189042891642013-02-05T20:15:42.712+13:002013-02-05T20:15:42.712+13:00You're right, Shawn, and I struggle to underst...You're right, Shawn, and I struggle to understand the point Bosco is seeking to make.<br /><br />Is he saying: 'Anglicans no longer impose a discipline (as they used to) regarding divorce, so we can't or shouldn't do oppose homosexual "marriage"?'<br /><br />If this is his point, it is manifestly fallacious and illogical.<br /><br />Or if he is saying something else, he should spell out what he is saying.<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23320419745923851392013-02-05T16:18:46.579+13:002013-02-05T16:18:46.579+13:00Marriage is for life. I have always said that. But...Marriage is for life. I have always said that. But Bosco's point is mistaken.<br /><br />Failure in one area does not justify further failure in another. Two wrongs do not make a right.<br /><br />The Churche's failure re divorce is not an excuse for same-sex marriage.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35954067680788642842013-02-05T13:51:33.501+13:002013-02-05T13:51:33.501+13:00I discussion on your last post, Peter; we need to ...I discussion on your last post, Peter; we need to consider the fact that Jesus DID counsel against divorce of heterosexual persons. He is never recorded as ever having said that a eunuch could not marry a eunuch. If all arguments are based on Scriptural provenance, the words of Jesus are quite clear about divorce - a matter that the Church seems well able to accommodate. There are no words of Jesus about intrinsic gays not being allowed to marry.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-6822835892244570212013-02-05T10:02:03.814+13:002013-02-05T10:02:03.814+13:00Hi Bosco,
To be fair to the speakers proposing wor...Hi Bosco,<br />To be fair to the speakers proposing work on the theology of marriage, the specific recognition by them is that if as a church we moved from 'merely' seeking support for blessing of same sex partnerships to formally embracing such blessing under the title/category "marriage" then this should be the subject of theological endeavour. And fair enough too: a novelty is then being proposed which begs the question of theological support.<br /><br />I suggest worrying about divorce is a red-herring in this particular context: if as a church we forswore never to marry divorced persons again, would that not remove an apparent reason for marrying persons of the same gender. Surely, a stronger theological case should honour such couples than "because we marry divorced persons we can marry you too"?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65562110160384176932013-02-05T07:45:33.352+13:002013-02-05T07:45:33.352+13:00Peter, I am not as sanguine as you about Anglican ...Peter, I am not as sanguine as you about Anglican clergy. Does the seventh marriage of a man (all previous partners still alive) really fit in your description? Do you really know of no priests whose “counselling of couples in pre-marital preparation” consists of little more than choosing the options for the wedding? <br /><br />Am I the only one who is shocked when at the hui there is “a plea from several speakers for serious work to begin on the theology of marriage.” Serious work on the theology of marriage. Begin! <br /><br />So we did not even begin to do serious work on the theology of marriage when heterosexuals wanted sequential monogamous pairing, but when homosexuals want to commit to lifelong fidelity – whoah!!! Let’s just wait a minute (I mean decade or two!) Before we do that we need to begin some serious work on the theology of marriage.<br /><br />Thankfully, I am not alone. At the hui at least one person concluded that, even before beginning some serious work on the theology of marriage, he could see that if, as so many keep noisily proclaiming, this is not about homosexuality but about faithfulness to scripture, we would be much more likely to exclude divorced people than homosexual people.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39145889036028743262013-02-04T20:54:45.451+13:002013-02-04T20:54:45.451+13:00Hi Bosco,
I am not aware of any clergy (conservati...Hi Bosco,<br />I am not aware of any clergy (conservative or liberal) who have given up thinking that marriage is "for life". None who have, for instance, counselled couples in pre-marital preparation that they do not need to take their vows with the utmost seriousness.<br /><br />You presumably are talking not about to a change in the doctrine of marriage but the needed pastoral care in church and in society when marriages break apart with awful destructive force on families and, ultimately, on society.<br /><br />Are you advocating that the church should not participate in second or third marriages? If so, you have dominical support, and a good point to make to those of us who have participated in weddings of divorced persons.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-40953171047999886772013-02-04T19:04:39.599+13:002013-02-04T19:04:39.599+13:00Thanks, Bosco, for your clear understanding of the...Thanks, Bosco, for your clear understanding of the emphasis Jesus place on monogamous faithfulness in sexual relationships. <br /><br />As far as I can see in the Scriptures, Jesus only made one remark which might perceivably have been to do with homosexual persons; that in Matthew 19, verse 13, where he spoke of eunuchs who have been so 'from their mother's womb' - that's as near as he seem to have got to mentioning intrinsic gays.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43944341484401238882013-02-04T17:48:13.978+13:002013-02-04T17:48:13.978+13:00Greetings
I must have missed the years of agonisi...Greetings<br /><br />I must have missed the years of agonising, the threats of separation, the court cases, the refusal to share communion, the hui year after year, the powerful commissions when heterosexuals decided to abandon the “for life” part of non-liberal-myth, non-liberal-marxist-politically-correct-driven part of Jesus’ important emphasis on sexual purity.<br /><br />It is interesting to me that some of those heterosexuals who have abandoned that “for life” teaching are suddenly very insistent on the “one man and one women (sic twice?)” part of the equation for homosexuals who are seeking the “for life” part they have themselves abandoned. Even at the hui.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Bosco<br />liturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82372285715844462762013-02-04T12:13:41.420+13:002013-02-04T12:13:41.420+13:00Contrary to Liberal myth Jesus did place an import...Contrary to Liberal myth Jesus did place an important emphasis on sexual purity. Thus the Church, in seeking to remain faithful to Jesus, must also do so. Jesus said marriage was one man and one women for life, thus to be faithful to Jesus, the Church can only define marriage as one man and one women for life.<br /><br />Jesus was also interested in other issues. But that fact does not allow us to ignore him on sex and marriage.<br /><br />Jesus was interested in His disciples doing the will of His Father. Thus the only truly loving action is that which is in conformity with the will of God. Same-gender marriage and same-sex relationships are thus out of bounds for the Church and the individual Christian disciple.<br /><br />The Church must stick to God's grace alone, and not import the self-righteous legalism of Liberal-Marxist political correctness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76686097563112131652013-02-04T10:21:26.275+13:002013-02-04T10:21:26.275+13:00" Perhaps the investment made in the Hui and ..." Perhaps the investment made in the Hui and such is not so much about sex being sexy but about sex being an issue of such profoundness that we need to reflect as a whole church?"<br /> - Dr. Peter Carrell -<br /><br />I agree with you in this instance, Peter; in that sexuality - God-given - is perhaps the most basic human function (certainly in the area of procreation - but also, in the important area of loving and faithful connection). It is this latter function that we seem to be have the most difficulty with - but which Jesus himself, did not seem to dwell on - nearly so much as the other - less private - functions of interaction with other human beings.<br /><br />If the Church had not focussed so much on what it sees as the dangers of the mis-use of our common human sexuality, there might have been a lot more time to interact more agreeably on issue of far more importance - that Jesus did actually major on in his teaching and exhortation. He did, however, take the trouble to criticise heterosexual unfaithfulness!<br /><br />Loving action was the true focus of the ministry of Jesus. He never had much time for the self-righteous.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.com.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30871155313007064202013-02-04T07:45:48.338+13:002013-02-04T07:45:48.338+13:00In an important sense, Bosco, we are putting time ...In an important sense, Bosco, we are putting time and energy intensively into our mission: the time and energy being put daily and weekly into our mission through our ministry units (meaning not only individual parishes, schools, etc) but also our diocesan youth, social work, etc ministries.<br /><br />Hermeneutical Hui and such represent a very small amount of time and energy by comparison. Perhaps the investment made in the Hui and such is not so much about sex being sexy but about sex being an issue of such profoundness that we need to reflect as a whole church?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80192059314098661472013-02-04T07:24:38.471+13:002013-02-04T07:24:38.471+13:00Fair enough, Peter, for you to respond to my comme...Fair enough, Peter, for you to respond to my comment in a certain direction, but I want to return to my point that there is so much energy, time, and money devoted to this issue. <br /><br />It is of interest to me that the special Commission reports to the Hui that they are only receiving an average of one submission a week and so they are keen to try and drum up more interest. Most Anglicans wouldn’t have a clue that the hui was even on. Even on this site it is only the same old half a dozen that participate in the dialogue. <br /><br />Parsing differently your point about we are stuck if we try going head-on at the bits of the Bible we can connect to sexuality – my wondering is, had we put this kind of energy, money, and time into some other more central parts of our mission, might we have found that we are not dying a la Melbourne, and that any issues we had around sexuality were not as intense because we have our foundations more firm and our focus more clear. <br /><br />I guess we will now never know. Sex is always far more sexy.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27770643211080793162013-02-03T23:40:10.603+13:002013-02-03T23:40:10.603+13:00A person in a same-sex partnership is not a discip...<i>A person in a same-sex partnership is not a disciple</i><br /><br />My goodness!<br /><br />Well, we could use that sort of language about things Jesus actually talked about, of course.<br /><br />'A person who owns two coats and hasn't given the extra one away to someone who needs it is not a disciple'.<br /><br />'A person who gets divorced and then remarries is not a disciple'.<br /><br />'A person who stores up treasure for themselves on earth is not a disciple' (note he does not say 'excessive treasure' but just 'treasure').<br /><br />'A person who does not give away all they have is not a disciple'.<br /><br />'A person who gets angry is not a disciple'.<br /><br />'A person who kills an enemy instead of loving them is not a disciple'.<br /><br />'A person who invites family over for dinner instead of people who can't invite them back is not a disciple'.<br /><br />A disciple is a follower of Jesus. All of the above statements would be justifiable from the actual teachings of the One being followed. But I think most of us would agree that the statements are rather harsh. The fact is that all of us have areas of our discipleship where we are being less than faithful, and other areas where we're not doing too badly. To randomly pick one area of disobedience (if we're even agreed that it is disobedience, which many Christians are not) and use it to invalidate every other area of a person's discipleship seems way over the top to me.Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55454487715868310112013-02-03T22:48:43.323+13:002013-02-03T22:48:43.323+13:00Hi Peter,
Just a brief note on the Anglican situat...Hi Peter,<br />Just a brief note on the Anglican situation in Melbourne which Fr James Grant refers to in his article. While the diocese does have a tendency to focus on the wider political and social issues of the day, many Anglican parishes have their eyes fixed on Jesus, proclaim him faithfully and complement it with gracious lives and good works. I share his frustration with the public face of the diocese, but your readers shouldn't feel that the situation in Melbourne is lost or similar to other liberal dioceses around the world. We recently attented the CMS Victoria Summer Under the Son conference, which was a group of some 700 Melbourne Anglicans expressing their commitment to local and global mission in Christ's name. We're not a majority, but we're not a remnant either.Andrew Reidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62733782509899621392013-02-03T18:51:14.055+13:002013-02-03T18:51:14.055+13:00The post above should have read "We had"...The post above should have read "We had". Typos are an extension of Murphy's Law.<br /><br />Peter,<br /><br />was there a problem with my last post?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com