tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post315375006259704514..comments2024-03-28T19:03:49.275+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Is anything straightforward about alternative episcopal oversight?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38369276345638922032013-09-17T11:53:49.889+12:002013-09-17T11:53:49.889+12:00Hi Ron,
If you wish to avoid a further (and longer...Hi Ron,<br />If you wish to avoid a further (and longer) ban, you will need to 'up your game' re commenting.<br /><br />Your speculation re St Paul is a case in point: groundless, baseless accusatory allegations made against a defenceless person. That is simple ad hominem. <br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-71099735953288608822013-09-17T11:41:04.320+12:002013-09-17T11:41:04.320+12:00Hi Shawn
I am not going to justify every decision ...Hi Shawn<br />I am not going to justify every decision I make about moderation here. <br /><br />I would note that Ron's item above (silly in various ways though it is) makes a point which is worth publishing: homosexuals should not be singled out as worse sinners than the rest of us.<br /><br />Even though individual commenters are not guilty of that error here, the overall effect of discussions such as we have here can be to imply that we are more worried about homosexuals as sinners than anyone else.<br /><br />This thread is actually about alternative episcopal oversight ... but has, once again, become a place for reworking familiar arguments!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74288238838951366422013-09-17T11:14:42.892+12:002013-09-17T11:14:42.892+12:00Yes Peter, by all means fisk Carl with Liberal myt...Yes Peter, by all means fisk Carl with Liberal myths while posting yet another piece of ad hominem from Ron Smith. <br /><br />Your moderation is shameful and clearly biased. Sitting on the fence for so long has clearly messed with your head.<br /><br />I'm glad I checked in today. It confirmed for me my decision to stay away from the farce of the Peter and Ron show.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36047485051591576952013-09-17T05:52:18.853+12:002013-09-17T05:52:18.853+12:00I fully agree with Tim that pacifism is a very imp...I fully agree with Tim that pacifism is a very important aspect of the faith for many Christians. I admire and respect pacifists; though I’m afraid I can’t quite come up to their level. I’m more of a semi-pacifist. I’m more than willing to try non-violence first.<br /><br />Of course, one need not be a pacifist to oppose President Obama’s crazy war moves towards Syria. Even most of the tired, old liberals in the Democratic Party are against this one; it’s not simply us lefties and a few fringe libertarians.<br /><br />Kurt Hill<br />Brooklyn, NY<br />Kurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-2035258943991255702013-09-17T04:07:54.516+12:002013-09-17T04:07:54.516+12:00Tim, you are a very peaceable person and I am sure...Tim, you are a very peaceable person and I am sure you seek to live out the demands of the Beatitudes. It is true I adopt a direct way of writing on the internet but I don't think I'm confrontational in person. If in writing I always softened every comment with 'it seems to me' etc, that would fit in with current western mores of apparent moral hesitancy but would also invite the reply, 'well it doesn't seem that way to me!' If I succumb to ad hominem comments, I should be called out on that; so I prefer to keep discussions impersonal and objective, if we can. Strict pacifism, i.e. a prohibition of self-defense and the defense of others from attack, makes no sense to me, and indeed, appears downright immoral in some circumstances. I can find no sanction for it in either the OT or the NT. That's why I can't allow it to be smuggled into the discussion - it just hasn't been thought through. Carl has thought through Edward's proposal and shown that it really does beg the question, i.e. it assumes the rightness of what is actually disputed.<br />If 'logic is subjective' maybe that is because we are not looking at enough of the picture.<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-12714997100752965712013-09-16T20:45:14.916+12:002013-09-16T20:45:14.916+12:00Well, there's not much more I can say to persu...Well, there's not much more I can say to persuade you, Martin. I will say one more thing, though, and then I'm done. I suspect that people who ten to say categorically 'This argument is nonsense' or 'You are wrong' will not be interested in the compromise proposals that Peter and Edward have been floating. On the other hand, those who tend to say 'I do not find this argument persuasive' will probably be interested in Peter and Edward's approach.<br /><br />I have often wondered what it must be like to achieve absolute certainty about something. I don't seem to be able to do it; I'm always second guessing myself. Perhaps that's why I tend to be more interested in conversations with people who disagree with me.<br /><br />All of which is a long way of saying to Martin that when you say, 'this argument doesn't work', my response is 'it works fine for me, and many others too, but I know that logic tends to be more subjective than we think!'Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54033525002294091042013-09-16T18:02:07.946+12:002013-09-16T18:02:07.946+12:00Tim,we have been through this pacifist discussion ...Tim,we have been through this pacifist discussion before, and the analogy doesn't work, for several reasons. <br />1. Yes, there was strong hostility to serving in the imperial Roman army among a number of church leaders in the earliest centuries, when persecution of Christians and Caesar worship were part of army life. But there was NEVER a church council condemning military service per se. Individuals' opinions were never church policy.<br />2. The second and third centuries (until the Edict of Milan) also had a strong advocacy of the superiority of celibacy over marriage and the glory of martyrdom, along with a rather extreme doctrine about post-baptismal sin. Are you going to advocate these outlooks as well? I suspect not.<br />3. Anglicanism is reformed western Catholicism. It certainly values the Fathers (as did all Magisterial Reformers), in particular Augustine and Chrysostom, but not Tertullian.<br />4. The Anabaptists on the other hand (not a vey peaceful lot, it must be said) were Radical Reformers who had little time for the Church Fathers and imagined they could rebuild theology directly from their own reading of the NT. This has always been a delusion.<br />Of course all Christians must be peacemakers. And of course the State, as the minister of God (Romans 13) can wield the sword to maintain peace and justice. If I thought otherwise, I would never call the police. Abusus non tollit usum.<br /><br />Martinus GrotiusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77483586178141577162013-09-16T15:27:57.448+12:002013-09-16T15:27:57.448+12:00Hi Bryden
the Gagnon article at http://www.fulcrum...Hi Bryden<br />the Gagnon article at http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=325 is important and informative. I am inclined to agree with Gagnon, and Carl, incidentally re what Paul is on about in Romans 1' but less inclined to agree with them that there is no further debate. Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8208855844612306912013-09-16T15:11:56.528+12:002013-09-16T15:11:56.528+12:00Indeed, Bryden, I have not read it yet. Soon.Indeed, Bryden, I have not read it yet. Soon.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-13332108748535512712013-09-16T14:44:05.885+12:002013-09-16T14:44:05.885+12:00Please the Gagnon article referenced above.Please the Gagnon article referenced above.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52585320308876621142013-09-16T13:18:53.372+12:002013-09-16T13:18:53.372+12:00Dear Ron
The ban stands until tomorrow. I will pos...Dear Ron<br />The ban stands until tomorrow. I will post the comment you have sent today, tomorrow.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60975160724069674322013-09-16T13:05:08.962+12:002013-09-16T13:05:08.962+12:00I don't know whether you have taken me off you...I don't know whether you have taken me off your 7-day embargo yet, Peter. However, looking in on this conversation, it would appear that carl and martin are refusing to acknowledge that there can be any understanding of the theological legitimacy of homosexuality other than theirs, which, one must observe, has never varied from their outright condemnation and qualification for damnation.<br /><br />My understanding of the Gospel, and from the Dominical sayings, is that Christ came into the world to 'save sinners' - and that's what we all are: straight, gay, tans-sexual, or any place on the continuum. For them to isolate homosexual people as greater sinners than anyone else, is to limit God's power to, in the first place, create gay people; and in the second place to accept gay people who acknowledge God's rule in their lives - believing that they can be none other than who they are by nature!<br /><br />We all know, for instance, that Paul had his very own 'thorn in the flesh' which he was loth to discuss. It is some by some accredited theologians that - in the light of his seeming condemnation of homosexuality, this may very well have been something he himself experienced. This would measure up to those instances of conservative fundamentalist pastors who have been, later in their ministry, convicted of the very 'sin' they have condemned in their congregations.<br /><br />What the Church needs - above all in this matter - is transparency. This is the only workable antidote to institutional hypocrisy.<br /><br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-12089310169494406332013-09-16T09:21:25.695+12:002013-09-16T09:21:25.695+12:00Hi Carl
I do not object to you declaring that I am...Hi Carl<br />I do not object to you declaring that I am wrong.<br /><br />Nor do I generally object to the clarity of your thinking and to the strength of your convictions. Your comments here are most welcome because of that.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63760880292486635302013-09-16T08:51:07.517+12:002013-09-16T08:51:07.517+12:00Peter
You are essentially asserting that it is un...Peter<br /><br />You are essentially asserting that it is unfair of me to deny the legitimacy of this debate. I disagree. The idea that there is some doubt about what Paul was saying is quite frankly exegetical nonsense. The alternative position destroys the very point Paul was trying to make. It is instead a late 20th century eisegetical imposition intended to reconcile Paul with a prior commitment to the legitimization of homosexuality. It is this kind of mutilation of Scripture that has produced the problems in the church.<br /><br />Your blog. Your rules. But you are wrong.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23969271265715927332013-09-16T07:45:16.927+12:002013-09-16T07:45:16.927+12:00An interesting comment on another site (posted by ...An interesting comment on another site (posted by Bro David on Liturgy, September 15 at 5.59 pm), http://liturgy.co.nz/why-homosexuality/16714#comments:<br /><br />"“We need a whole new conversation about the Bible and Homosexuality, and one in which (let me be really blunt) people are actually listening to each other, not distraughtly trying to defend God’s truth against its enemies.<br /><br />The question at hand is really this: “what is the best way for people of homosexual orientation to live out their discipleship?”<br /><br />The people on the hard left who don’t want to live out discipleship, and the people on the hard right who don’t want people of homosexual orientation to inherit the reign of God can go have a different conversation.<br /><br />Here in the middle, where we want to follow Jesus, and we want homosexuals to follow Jesus, we come down to two simple possible answers: (a) through a responsible and godly expression of sexuality or (b) through celibacy.<br /><br />Which of these answers most closely resembles the ways of a God who liberates slaves, returns exiles and raises the crucified? We need to meditate on the ways and means that were used by the prophets who preached Torah, Jesus and the apostles such as Paul.<br /><br />And dare I say it – that conversation is probably not going to really begin until homosexual people are being warmly welcomed by a church who instead of saying:<br />“OK, you can be here, but we don’t approve and sit in that corner and never contribute except through money, and if we find out that any leaders are gay we’ll fire them”<br /><br />says,<br />“are you trying to figure out how to follow Jesus? We are too! Are you confused? So are we! Let’s try to figure it out together.”<br /><br />Pastor Karl Hand<br />CRAVE MCC Sydney/Christchurch<br />Lecturer in New Testament and Greek at Australian Catholic University, University of Newcastle and United Theological College"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-32289344198625829172013-09-16T07:21:34.521+12:002013-09-16T07:21:34.521+12:00Hi Carl
'Unfair' is whether you are allowi...Hi Carl<br />'Unfair' is whether you are allowing for the testimony of self-identifying gay and lesbian persons about what constitutes 'nature' for them. What Paul says in Romans 1, as we engage with it in our day, raises the question of what 'nature' means. What you understand about 'nature' in Romans 1 may be true, but I think there is a debate to engage with over how we understand 'nature' given that we appear to have a widely attested understanding of homosexuality as an orientation people are born with than (appears) to have been the case with Paul.<br /><br />That debate is (it seems to me) powerful in the church discussions today and not easily dislodged.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43111654469443316732013-09-16T07:08:59.145+12:002013-09-16T07:08:59.145+12:00Hi Martin
I suggest you would have quite a difficu...Hi Martin<br />I suggest you would have quite a difficult time persuading Anglicans that pacifism was 'unAnglican' as opposed to 'a possibility pursued by Anglicans and accommodated by Anglicans around the world.' A pacifist bishop charged with sedition is not thereby 'unAnglican.'<br /><br />I stand by my fisking.<br /><br />Let me try to express my point re Paul a little differently. Agreed, Paul generally offered through is writings a critique of Graeco-Roman culture. In Romans 1 it is not clear that Paul is offering a general critique of the embrace of homosexuality (as then understood, experienced within Hellenism) rather than a particular critique of the excesses of Graeco-Roman culture (while shaped by language which (working from memory) has a lot to do with Jewish treatment of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36630975053556584872013-09-16T03:23:25.446+12:002013-09-16T03:23:25.446+12:00Peter,
1. I repeat that I don't think it is r...Peter, <br />1. I repeat that I don't think it is right for an editor to fisk a post. Commenting on it afterward is a different matter. It was obvious to me that Carl was giving a theological review of Romans 1, not a pastoral reflection on the self-understanding of homosexual persons. <br />2. I don't really follow your second point. Many of Paul's comments elsewhere do indeed critique Greco-Roman culture, esp. the vanity of 'philosophy' in contrast to the Cross, and the vanity of polytheism and idolatry.<br />3. I didn't miss the point about pacifism. I said it's mistaken and un-Anglican, and the existence of tiny pacifist fellowships in Anglicanism doesn't change this. Anglicanism has never taught that pacifism is true but has tolerated it because a tiny number of COs has never been a serious threat to national security - not least when they could be assigned to supportive non-combatant roles, just like chaplains. Do you think a pacifist bishop urging desertion from the army would be let off? Bad conduct in war doesn't validate pacifism.<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-56923364877370001692013-09-16T01:20:29.754+12:002013-09-16T01:20:29.754+12:00Peter
I know some people offer arguments about Ro...Peter<br /><br />I know some people offer arguments about Romans 1, but I do not recognize any 'debate' about what I said. I recognize that some people begin with a presupposition about the nature of homosexuality and then impose that presupposition on the text. And well I understand that desire. Paul puts paid to the idea that homosexuality is natural in about three sentences. Of course people who have a vested interest in a contrary finding will move Heaven and Earth to change the meaning. But that doesn't make the effort legitimate. You can make an argument that Macbeth is a Feminist critique of post-Capitalist patriarchal oppression. Being able to make an argument doesn't make that argument any less risible.<br /><br />I understand what you did and I understand why you did it. I did not think your in-line comments damaged the post in any way. The fisking was easily answered, and I actually thought a fair-minded reader would have supplied the answers himself. My only complaint is that you called me unfair. I wasn't unfair. I refuse to respect this tactic of inserting personal information into an argument so later it can be said 'Be careful what you say lest you hurt feelings.' I won't let my arguments be hamstrung like that. <br /><br />There is something else you should consider. At some point, it becomes a pastoral responsibility to tell people the truth. No matter how much they would prefer not to hear it. No matter how much pain it might cause them. Because eventually an account will have to be given and 'I decided Romans 1 was about pagan cult prostitution' won't be an option anymore. What I said was true. If what I said isn't true, then words have no meaning, and meanings cannot be understood. And we might as well recruit new members by throwing orgies in the church basement because we have no authority to condemn or approve anything. <br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20859533192705795922013-09-15T23:16:55.767+12:002013-09-15T23:16:55.767+12:00Martin, so-called 'classical Anglicanism' ...Martin, so-called 'classical Anglicanism' has been in evolution since 1549. It changed in 1552, and again in 1559, 1662, and has been changing ever since. One of the constants, however (and one that in my earlier days I did not fully appreciate) has been its respect for the Church Fathers as a guide to the interpretation of Scripture. The great church historian Roland Bainton called the first three Christian centuries 'the pacifist centuries'; I think he may have exaggerated a little, but pacifism was certainly the majority position of the Church Fathers.<br /><br />One of the mottos of the Reformation was 'the Church in continual reformation' (I forget the Latin, but I'm sure you know!). It would be a betrayal of the Reformation to assume that the Reformers got everything right. I, and many other loyal Anglicans, believe that in some aspects they were blinded by the subjugation of the Church to the crown and the state that was just assumed in Christendom. Anabaptists had the courage to see that this was foreign to New Testament Christianity. I make no apology for being guided by their insights here, and I am not alone; there are Anglican pacifist fellowships all over the world, and we work and pray for the day when all Anglicans will see that participation in war and violence is completely contrary to the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles.Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54905921895829183892013-09-15T21:35:40.289+12:002013-09-15T21:35:40.289+12:00Hi Martin
1. My fisking Carl's comment. Precis...Hi Martin<br />1. My fisking Carl's comment. Precisely: I felt that simply publishing that particular comment 'as is' had potential to shut down conversation here. In this case via such a non-empathetic understanding of this particular human situation, which we might helpfully remember is not only a situation for individuals but for their families and friends, for a whole heap of people, from among whom there might be those wishing to comment here.<br /><br />2. Greek friezes etc. Yes, fair to observe that. Why wasn't Paul more focused on slating that culture, with specific references?<br /><br />3. You are missing the point re pacifism. The Anglican church accommodates both military chaplains and pacifist fellowships. Whatever the doctrinal basis underpinning or not underpinning each position, we get along without schism. You would be hard-pressed to work from the Articles to every military action and chaplains' complicities in supporting those actions. We might esp. note some bad actions by the British Army against Maori in NZ, supported by CofE chaplains.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15738173124854412462013-09-15T18:58:18.111+12:002013-09-15T18:58:18.111+12:00Peter, anyone familiar with Greco-Roman literature...Peter, anyone familiar with Greco-Roman literature and history knows that homosexuality was a constant in Greek culture for centuries, and was tied up with the Greek worship of the naked male body, evinced in their sculpture, friezes and pottery. The theme runs through the earliest Greek literature I'm familiar with, The Iliad (Achilleus and Patroklos, 8th c. BC), through Plato's Symposion (4th c. BC), down to the latest, 'Daphnis and Chloe' (2nd c. AD?), and included the idealized love of the erastes for the eromenos and the state-sponsored homosexual relations for youth in Sparta.<br />The Hellenistic institution of the gymnasion was another reflex of this worship of the male body, and it was one factor causing anger and rebellion in the Maccabean times.<br />Paul the 'wandering Jew' saw this world at first hand, and there is little doubt what he thought.<br /><br />Martin von WinckelmannAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58362944801305294662013-09-15T18:36:26.268+12:002013-09-15T18:36:26.268+12:00Tim Chesterton keeps invoking the false analogy wi...Tim Chesterton keeps invoking the false analogy with pacificism, as if to say, 'Hey, some of us are pacificsts, while most are not, and we get on OK in Anglicanism, so why can't we agree to differ on this as well?' This argument fails because 1. strict pacifism ('it is forbidden for a Christian to bear arms') has NEVER been Anglican doctrine and is actually contradicted by Art. 37 ('restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers'); 2. Any Anglican leader who preached pacifism and urged military desertion in time of war would be rightly charged with sedition.<br />So the argument fails for an Anglican, Tim. Maybe it works for a classical Mennonite - but not an Anglican.<br /><br />Martinus BelisariusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43381116597377863562013-09-15T18:32:09.454+12:002013-09-15T18:32:09.454+12:00Hi Carl
I would presume that you know that there i...Hi Carl<br />I would presume that you know that there is debate over Romans 1: does it apply to homosexuality or to excessive, greedy pursuit of sexual pleasure to the point of giving up one's 'nature'? At the least, acknowledging that debate might make us pause to think whether Paul is singling out homosexuality 'as we understand it today'.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9486631399703830412013-09-15T18:20:34.655+12:002013-09-15T18:20:34.655+12:00Peter, why did you have to 'fisk' Carl'...Peter, why did you have to 'fisk' Carl's comments thus? As the editor/owner of this blog, you can certainly make editorial comment, but this shouldn't be in the body of a posting but *after it. It isn't fair to partially publish then try to undermine.<br />Carl's comments were ones he has made before, and he was speaking *theologically and in a biblical-objective sense about the character of homosexuality, not pastorally and subjectively - which is of course an entirely legitimate concern, but one that you have introjected here in an obiter dicta kind of way.<br />It's your blog, Peter, but if you rebut or redact people in mid-sentence, we won't have a conversation.<br /><br />Martin Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com