tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post7102222907968984247..comments2024-03-29T06:58:28.383+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: The importance and signficance of the General Synod vote in May [revised]Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10144002846482756792018-02-12T13:13:19.073+13:002018-02-12T13:13:19.073+13:00Jonathan, the whole book is well worth working thr...Jonathan, the whole book is well worth working through.<br /><br />http://ibs.cru.org/files/6213/7229/9674/MVNT_combined.pdf<br /><br />http://storage.cloversites.com/clover9/documents/Hays_Moral_Vision_Homosexuality.pdf<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65125180223371947722018-02-11T21:59:12.910+13:002018-02-11T21:59:12.910+13:00Hi Bowman, your tinyurl link's don't work ...Hi Bowman, your tinyurl link's don't work on my google search - any other details that would get me there? Jonathan.Jonathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55250050082367133902018-02-09T08:12:06.102+13:002018-02-09T08:12:06.102+13:00Thanks Bowman and Bryden for your links - I look f...Thanks Bowman and Bryden for your links - I look forward to parousal. BTW, my sentence should have read,"I can't think of an analogy between anything and SSM that is precise.." Jonathan.Jonathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80240759906858727712018-02-08T12:36:51.985+13:002018-02-08T12:36:51.985+13:00To assist that necessary reading exercise BW speak...To assist that necessary reading exercise BW speaks of, folks (thanks Bowman and Jonathan):<br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Backwards-Figural-Christology-Fourfold/dp/1481302337/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518045513&sr=1-1&keywords=richard+hays+reading+backwards<br /><br />https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_9_12/143-3318488-3009307?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=richard+hays%2C+echoes+of+scripture+in+the+gospels&sprefix=richard+hays%2Cstripbooks%2C349&crid=1SG6GK03FPHT8<br /><br />The difference: “Backwards” was originally a set of Lectures in 2013/14, while “Echoes” (2016) is a much fuller presentation.<br /><br />“Moral Vision” delightfully cuts through many an experiential prejudice ... It’s ‘grid’ of “Community, Cross and New Creation” is powerful. And of course, it requires that very thing BW speaks of - Genesis!!! I.e. a theology of creation and so a Christian anthropology. But I am sounding like a cracked old vinyl record, no doubt ...<br /><br />Enjoy!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91127116234388128012018-02-08T10:20:36.947+13:002018-02-08T10:20:36.947+13:00"...the question I'm thinking through (ap..."...the question I'm thinking through (apart from considering specific arguments for SSM) is "how do we get from the texts to our views / practise" on a number of issues."<br /><br />Jonathan, you may want to study the general approach of Richard Hays's Moral Vision of the New Testament. Like yourself, Hays asks about method-- HOW can we can apply the Bible to life in a WAY that is fully responsive both to the text and to our lived lives?<br /><br />https://tinyurl.com/ya3otdeq<br /><br />https://tinyurl.com/y72udhlt<br /><br />My main reservation about the book (with which the author kindly agrees) is that, because the NT is Jesus's jazz improvised on the melody of the OT, a C21 Christian who means to be open to scripture must really immerse himself in the OT in a way that few do, and few can even help one to do. It was not just for old times' sake that catechumens in the ancient church were first taught, not Romans or St John or even Isaiah, but Genesis. Part of our impasse on That Topic is that too few discussing it are that well equipped. <br /><br />Here are Hays's main proposals on method--<br /><br />https://tinyurl.com/y83qtug7<br /><br />And here is his chapter on homosexuality--<br /><br />https://tinyurl.com/y6w75lhv<br /><br />Thank you for your comments at ADU.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4394873543758644742018-02-08T09:31:17.776+13:002018-02-08T09:31:17.776+13:00Dear Jonathan
It is precisely that nuance in refle...Dear Jonathan<br />It is precisely that nuance in reflection which you bring to (here, e.g.) Chris's paper which underlines a question I have in response to the paper: does the paper, with its sympathies to sensitive pastoral matters and its admittance of shortfall on the part of evangelicals provide sufficient grounds to contemplate evangelicals departing? I do not think it does ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8557849119117369402018-02-08T08:24:46.290+13:002018-02-08T08:24:46.290+13:00Last night I read "Double Standards? A Latim...Last night I read "Double Standards? A Latimer paper prepared by Rev Chris Spark, on divorce and remarriage in light of discussion on same sex relationships in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia."<br /> It was a well-argued essay which expressed his view that the canons of our church would better reflect scripture if we stuck to remarrying those whose life situations are explicitly covered in these passages. It will be interesting to see reaction from other viewpoints; perhaps Chris anticipates this in his comment that he doesn't see these texts as altogether clear. Till recently I would have agreed with him that the texts on SS sexual activity, by contrast, are clear, but the question I'm thinking through (apart from considering specific arguments for SSM) is "how do we get from the texts to our views / practise" on a number of issues. With Chris, I agree that the insertion of a few clarifying words into the text would help - on a number of issues. And with him, I think the parallell between SSM and remarriage is imprecise (I can't think of an analogy between anything and SSM that isn't precise - and neither is scripture's parallel between marriage and the relationship between Jesus and the church precise.) A better parallel is that a prima facie reading of a set of texts might not be more faithful than a less prima facie reading. Jonathan.Jonathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52100020122926497912018-02-07T15:09:23.902+13:002018-02-07T15:09:23.902+13:00"I repudiate the categories “conservative” et..."I repudiate the categories “conservative” etc. and agree with you that we are tipping into a post-Constantinian context. One of my regular points is that the threshold from our post-Constantinian context into the community around Christ’s Kingdom is precisely that that threshold is being set too low. I would have long ago added my energy to the concept of (the Report’s) “Christian Communities” if they were about raising the threshold in terms of prayer, spiritual disciplines, ways of living in a society conscious of the growing disparity between the haves and have-nots."<br /><br />Yes, that does sound more like the voice we know from Liturgy. And a heartening sound that is! So in light of what you say, Bosco, let me cheerfully retract this straightaway--<br /><br />"What intrigues-- well, worries-- me is that they see no potential for their own sort of ministry to flourish in a community of its own. Eventually, they will see that they too need convert-led growth, integral practise, and supportive community."<br /><br />--and wish you godspeed in putting your energies into the community that you yourself see is urgently needed. Robust growth is convert-led; converts thrive on a clear and demanding practise; such practise needs a sponsoring theological community; such a community bears a witness that the Church and world need to hear. If That Topic had not inspired the organisation of *communities of practise* (I find that phrase clearer and less precious) then a serious attempt to reverse membership decline in ACANZP would have inspired them anyway. You know what needs to be done.<br /> <br />Now this--<br /><br />"But it is distressing to me that our Church is considering initiating what it is calling “Christian Communities” (“Orders of Consecrated Life” no less!) around attitudes to homosexuality."<br /><br />I agree that the appearance is odd. But rejecting SSB as the one and only pastoral response to civil SSM is not rejecting homosexuals. And for that matter, advocating SSB (eg in the terms of the AWF report) can be using them to effect far-reaching theological change that has nothing much to do with them. Anyway, the quarrel is as much about elites and pressure-groups as it is about a polarising policy. So what are we to make of the proposed *communities of practise*? <br /><br />Reading the report, I envisaged those as the old constituencies of Anglican churchmanship that long ago on the scepter'd isle defined themselves as for and against candles and incense but now on the blessed isles will be better organised as organic communities within the church. Do you think that I was mistaken?<br /><br />They presumably would make different sorts of room for homosexuals etc, at least at first. But despite that difference, it seems as odd to say that their core differences are about gay sex as it would have been to say that the core differences of those for and against *ritualism* were about beeswax or myrhh. And anyway, sensibilities beyond the heteronormal dyad are varied enough that homosexuals etc will be found on both sides of any fence one puts up. And any who seriously take up evangelism will be putting the cherished beliefs of their respective communities to the test. Who knows what delusions may be recognised at last and abandoned?<br /><br />Thank you for kind words, Bosco, and for your fine work at Liturgy.<br /><br />BW<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64357868585795815082018-02-07T13:37:56.288+13:002018-02-07T13:37:56.288+13:00 Hi Peter,
For the sake of record, let me be clea... Hi Peter,<br /><br />For the sake of record, let me be clear that my objection to both the Ma Whea and The Working Party was that the question they asked to consider fell outside the Constitution. I had no desire what so ever to become embroiled in argument over the rights and wrongs of homosexuality; because from the start it would be a no win situation.<br /><br />Perhaps, Bosco, your Synod just wants a cathedral at any cost.Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59093624377220261982018-02-07T12:59:58.458+13:002018-02-07T12:59:58.458+13:00To be clear, Bowman, I find your comments on this ...To be clear, Bowman, I find your comments on this site some of the most stimulating and positively extending of all my reading. But in the case of your summary of my position (I cannot speak for the others you mention), I fear that, on the one hand I may have expressed myself infelicitously, and, on the other, that you are inaccurately constructing a whole from such a tiny part (cf. issues with mereology).<br /><br />I repudiate the categories “conservative” etc. and agree with you that we are tipping into a post-Constantinian context. One of my regular points is that the threshold from our post-Constantinian context into the community around Christ’s Kingdom is precisely that that threshold is being set too low. I would have long ago added my energy to the concept of (the Report’s) “Christian Communities” if they were about raising the threshold in terms of prayer, spiritual disciplines, ways of living in a society conscious of the growing disparity between the haves and have-nots… But it is distressing to me that our Church is considering initiating what it is calling “Christian Communities” (“Orders of Consecrated Life” no less!) around attitudes to homosexuality.<br /><br />Those who call themselves “conservative”, in this instance, in practice often set the lowest thresholds – conforming themselves in imitation of secular music and other practices, often in such poor imitation that the secular world can end up with little interest in being part of the convert-led growth you dream of. And it is only in their attitudes to homosexuality that the Formularies and so forth are brought out.<br /><br />So, far from a “mindless application of your *equality meme*”, my question is far more along the line of why are you “conservatives” inconsistent with regards to this one particular issue when along others you are (if anything) “progressive” (“revisionist”)? <br /><br />As to how our country is along this Christendom-post-Christendom spectrum, it was noticeable that at our last diocesan synod meeting all except one dissenting voice voted to accept $35million from Government and Council to help restore our cathedral building. That says something both about state and church.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />BoscoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70985340743644512662018-02-07T11:33:09.731+13:002018-02-07T11:33:09.731+13:00Peter, you said "Social media has no walls!&q...Peter, you said "Social media has no walls!"<br /><br />However, the big bulwark that GAFCON/FOCA has erected is the called the "Jerusalem Declaration" - beyond which they do not see any vista of approach to God in Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Also; 'Inclusive Church' has no walls - only bridges bearing God's Love!<br /><br />"The great love of God is revealed in The Son!"<br /><br />I wonder, Peter, if you have come across the publication 'New Daylight' issued by BRF? It is the basis of Diana's and my daily reflection. Today's reading from Luke 8:11-15 adds this comment from Editor, Sally Welch:<br /><br />"What a surprise these words of Jesus (parable of 'The Seed') must have been to those first listeners. Here was a man who talked of the love of God, not of his judgement; of the nature of forgiveness, not the need for revenge; of the importance of peace, not the necessity of entering the battle. How delighted they must have felt as stories were told in a language they understood, using terms of reference from their own experience. To be valued, understood, given time and thoughtful attention - all this must have been refreshing and inspiring. Yet, we know how short a time elapsed before that same crowd reverted to old habits - calling for one to lead a rebellion, shouting and chanting for death, stirred up by each other into a frenzy of bloodlust.<br /><br />"How difficult it is to change the attitude of a lifetime, to allow hardened hearts to soften. to receive the seeds of hope into one's soul and there nurture and encourage them...." <br /><br />I see this counsel as being appropriate for all of us in ACANZP today. In the recollection of our own sin and waywardness - to never forget God's mercy towards us and, in the process, remember our need to be merciful to others - not judging but loving them in the way of Jesus. - Grace and Peace!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86857670960451124082018-02-07T09:06:47.022+13:002018-02-07T09:06:47.022+13:00Cont'd
(2) How should churches respond to imp...Cont'd<br /><br />(2) How should churches respond to imperfect pairbonding, and is that response a ritual one? Comparing a church's responses to divorce and SSM mainly shows the difference between one made in a culture with a Christian veneer and another made when books by New Atheists were best sellers. In the new conditions, incremental muddling is much less tolerable, whatever the matter at hand. Mindless application of the *equality meme*-- "We are blessing your deeply felt relationship, not because we should, but because you remind us of people we have already married seven times."-- is malpractise, of course. But the implied equivalence that Jonathan, Bosco, and Father Ron are making is interesting nonetheless: by definition, in a post-Christian society the great majority of relationships in which persons come to faith may well be formally imperfect ones. Some (eg Ross Douthat) would say that the bottom third of American society is already there. For that reason, thinking of these kinds of cases as members of a class could be fruitful, hamartiologically and pastorally. After reading their comments, along with Peter's comment on state agency, I have begun to think through churchly responses to the class as a whole. Again, my thanks to them and to all for several cogent observations.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57930963191771832582018-02-07T09:05:57.391+13:002018-02-07T09:05:57.391+13:00Thank you, Peter et al, for a very interesting thr...Thank you, Peter et al, for a very interesting thread. New ground was covered every day; all the usual suspects made searching comments; Bosco, Jonathan, and Steve stirred and seasoned the pot. <br /><br />For me, the thread has uncovered two very interesting questions. <br /><br />(1) Does ACANZP serve a truly post-Constantinian society or not? And does one's answer to that question predict one's response to SSB? To the ecclesiology of the proposal? I am not sure how Peter, Glen, Jonathan, or Steve would answer. But Bryden and I agree that the culture has decisively broken with its Christian past (post-modernity), and both of us draw strong inferences from that present reality to our respective views on how churches like ACANZP should respond to civil SSM, and how they should re-organise in their new minority situation. I have, additionally, taken on board Peter's concern about the plummeting membership of Anglican churches in the rich societies that are the most aggressively secular. <br /><br />In contrast, Bosco and Father Ron emphasise the continuity of their present society with that of the middle of the last century (late modernity). They see change around them, I'm sure, but it is change of a harmless kind that they think that they have seen before. They propose a familiar adaptation to contemporary mores (ie one like the acceptance of divorce) but do not worry that it was one thing to adapt practise a bit to an evolving Christian society but would be a very different thing to remodel it on an aggressively secularising theory and practise. <br /><br />The proposed communities and alternate bishops are an interesting point of comparison. I myself suspect that any future historian of ACANZP will see the ecclesial ruptures proposed in the report as direct analogues of like ruptures in New Zealand society. If the society is not at all divided, then why would the Body of Christ suddenly find itself resisting mitosis? Minds in our culture are not moving synchronously from old-fashioned modernity to its post- and late- successors. Consciously or not, religious bodies will either bridge, split along or make accommodation for the difference. The issues that jolt people and churches into jumping one way or the other are epiphenomenal.<br /><br />Because I see that ACANZP needs convert-led growth, that integrity in lived practise is critical to that, and that communal accomodations can support that integrity better than schemes of individual liberty, I am inclined to favour the proposal, which I view as evenhanded. But to it, Bosco and Father Ron are raising all the objections that I myself would have raised if this discussion were happening in 1968. What I see as re-organisation with a strong historical momentum they see as excessive accommodation of people too backwards for SSB that should really be, not communal, but individual. What intrigues-- well, worries-- me is that they see no potential for their own sort of ministry to flourish in a community of its own. Eventually, they will see that they too need convert-led growth, integral practise, and supportive community.<br /><br />But ironically, those we call *conservatives* have long been waiting for a chance to reorganise for the coming future and now seem only to debate which plan they want, whilst those we call *progressives* seem to me to be living in the past, determined to see a vague pastoral change for 3% of the population as a bold strategy for the Christian future. But then that reflects my post- bias about their late- viewpoint. If one reads the present thread as a whole, it is mainly a debate over what time it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-4100525164253492802018-02-06T23:00:48.150+13:002018-02-06T23:00:48.150+13:00Dear Ron
Thanks for your comment.
To clarify and I...Dear Ron<br />Thanks for your comment.<br />To clarify and I hope answer your underlying questions.<br />I am very comfortable with Bowman (and others who do not belong to our church) who speak here about our situation and thus, sometimes, about specifics of our church's life.<br />Although it is "our" situation it is good to be made to think about it, to consider the theology which we may not be doing when we should, and to ponder the theological ramifications of where we might end up.<br />Bowman's U.K. Milieu, by the way, is the centrist evangelical site Fulcrum.<br />Social media has no walls!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3597652820118021552018-02-06T18:02:06.792+13:002018-02-06T18:02:06.792+13:00Thanks for recent comments, One and All!
Rather th...Thanks for recent comments, One and All!<br />Rather than engage with various points (well made, but not all agreeing with each other :),) - short of time - I simply acknowledge them all and acknowledge that there are many difficulties herein, and more than I have ever thought of ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-13703525507636932102018-02-06T17:16:25.658+13:002018-02-06T17:16:25.658+13:00"My hope, well founded or not, is that the pr..."My hope, well founded or not, is that the proposal will hold us together as best as possible in the present situation."<br /><br />Your hope is well founded if the proposal makes it easier for winners and losers alike to believe in the God-given stability of ACANZP's consensus and practise. But majoritarian processes rarely produce that outcome, and we can already see the damage done in rushing to debate SSB before the church was of one mind about SSM. The damage is the anomie described by Emile Durkheim.<br /><br />My teacher, John Hostetler, once investigated the suicide by hanging of an Amish bishop, a man of such inspiring faith that three dioceses that disagreed on many other things had submitted to his rule. In their system, the people confer, and their ministers advise, but bishops decide. Through all the controversies that he decided, he could not lose, and never did lose, a battle. But he still succumbed to Durkheimian anomie, losing his faith that the will being done in his work was God's will and that his life therefore had meaning enough to balance its loneliness and pain. What Hostetler emphasised to me was that, although partisans in religious controversies think that they can avoid anomie if their side wins, this is a delusion. Although our *affective forecasting* (Daniel Gilbert) does not predict it, our winning from mere political advantage is nearly as demoralising in a religious matter as losing. The joy of vindication fades; the anomie of letting mere politics determine the deep meaning of one's life remains.<br /><br />Anglicans who lose their faith that eg ACANZP does God's will are unlikely to commit suicide (although data show that Episcopalians here do so more often than nearby Catholics, Jews, or Evangelicals). Many cultivate a certain worldliness, cynicism, or fideism against precisely the risk that faith may disappear and life's meaning along with it. And if they are bound to live by the results of a political process, they know that they cannot afford to be too attached to any single proposal and must be philosophical about the occasional vote. But all of these weeds-- worldliness, cynicism, fideism, detachment, rationalising-- strangle the seeds of the Word. Insofar as high stakes negotiations and majoritarian voting seem to changing the content of lived faith, it is harder for individuals to live it with felt integrity.<br /><br />The evangelical proposition to Anglicans-- which irritates or infuriates some here-- is that those who instead use scripture and prayer to keep head and heart together can uproot these weeds so that the Holy Spirit can regenerate life in Christ. To that, we might add a catholic proposition that there is no salvation without a life in the Body that ignores ephemeral majorities and their opinions and seeks only its slowly crystalising unity. If a proposal like ACANZP's can be seen by most Anglicans down under as enabling these things to be done in good faith, then it may work. Otherwise it will close churches.<br /><br />BW<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24829336932684767922018-02-06T15:11:25.765+13:002018-02-06T15:11:25.765+13:00Hi Peter,
"Those leaving may do and not atte...<br />Hi Peter,<br /><br />"Those leaving may do and not attempt to take a penny or plant with them " Bosco @ Feb 6th 1.38 PM.<br /><br />This is the case, with our family, who gave land for Church buildings on the condition it was used according to the Constitution, {we have a copy of the Deed of Gift}. We are prepared to walk away simply because we accept that in dealing with the leadership of the ACANZP,we are not dealing with people of integrity.Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64405068688034684812018-02-06T14:47:58.804+13:002018-02-06T14:47:58.804+13:00Province by province, Bryden, something like the R...Province by province, Bryden, something like the R2K from Escondido* probably is forcing itself on Anglicans everywhere. And not only because of civil SSM. Will the next Lambeth Conference will take up the Establishment hangover?<br /><br />The Orthodox rite for second weddings fits my (e) above. <br /><br />Some of my friends can pay no higher compliment to something than to say that it-- a product, a technology, a style-- is *disruptive*. The deep problem behind the errors you mention-- biological and idiosyncratic-- is that the technological triumphalism in which the rising generation's *digital natives* live has eroded belief in the first article of the creeds. Where everything is a system to be worked for advantage, the back-to-nature thinking of Romans 1 and reliance on tradition and consensus seem like willful stupidity. And feminist rage against the past gives to that hauteur the frisson of a moral imperative, which we enjoy more the fewer hard morals we actually have. The way back from Patriphobia to the faith will be a long and winding one.<br /><br />* As Bryden knows, R2K is the shorthand for Radical Two Kingdoms theory, a Reformed appropriation of the more often Lutheran view that civil rulers are mandated by Christ to do things to constrain civil and social evil that are beyond what is normally permitted to a Christian or tolerated in a church. R2K appears to have first circulated at Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, California as an analysis of American judges citing the *equal protection of the laws* to order states to certify SSM. <br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75386524052592362582018-02-06T13:38:43.436+13:002018-02-06T13:38:43.436+13:00I wonder, Peter, if your optimism will be vindicat...I wonder, Peter, if your optimism will be vindicated – the WG proposal be passed and a few leave without fuss; and all that happens is there is some muttering from time to time and the occasional annoyed comment on a blogsite. <br /><br />Other scenarios, it seems to me, are quite possible – connected to what you see as my (but not your) interest in the energy available for this.<br /><br />Peter, you are mistaken that the WG proposal “makes things sort of alright on the ‘chaste’ front” – quite the opposite. The Report is explicit that there is no change in the Church’s understanding and requirement of ‘chastity’ of those holding a bishop’s licence. The Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision was that in our Church ‘chastity’ for a licensed person means “any candidate not in a marriage between a man and a woman must be celibate” (page 2). <br /><br />FCANZ’s submission to the WG already specifically mentioned a high-profile Anglican priest who is in a marriage not between a man and a woman. Those unaccepting of the WG proposal might begin a series of cases against such persons and against their licensing bishops. Let me underscore how wide this could go: principals in Anglican schools, as just one example, are licensed by the bishop. Any principal in an Anglican school, hence, “not in a marriage between a man and a woman must be celibate”.<br /><br />As to scenarios around those leaving. Post-quakes Christchurch is an excellent example of confusion around property and money (let’s leave to one side your own post about confusion simply around <a href="http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.co.nz/2018/02/the-importance-and-sginificance-of.html" rel="nofollow">three different understandings</a>, by people closest to the proposal, of how the proposal proceeds). It is to be noted that the Church lost in the courts – the Church’s understanding of ownership and money was ruled to be incorrect (and they were rules we had written ourselves!) We are talking about a court decision involving millions of dollars.<br /><br />Those leaving may do so and not attempt to take a penny or plant with them – but let’s not imagine that is the only possible future storyline. Comments on this site indicate that some see those who would implement the WG proposal would actually be the ones who are leaving.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />BoscoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-14133752461529761682018-02-06T12:57:38.534+13:002018-02-06T12:57:38.534+13:00Well Bowman and Peter; an area of agreement is eme...Well Bowman and Peter; an area of agreement is emerging - perhaps. Let the State be the state and the Church the church, in this post Christendom era especially. A course I've already pursued myself ... Of course, for Anglicans with an Establishment hang-over that could be tricky. But not for TEC, who made the breach centuries ago ;) Many a country in Europe likewise has stopped doing the State's business; ACANZ&P should adopt that wisdom.<br /><br />Thereafter, I'll have to demur - for two reasons. The first is basic biology: form + function. And despite loads of supposed erudition, most have forgotten this simple fact. Theologically, it implies a characteristic dualism, despite an Incarnational Faith. But many enjoy gnostic views nowadays anyway. <br />Secondly, given the dominant ethos of contemporary culture to be any and all 'opinions' are deemed 'equal', it's little wonder there's been a general "failure to persuade". Each thinks and "does what's good in their own eyes" (Judges 21:25). And until the Church wakens from this Deuteronomic "forgetfulness" and "comes to its senses" (Lk 15) - eh bien; adieu! Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35814970861399314362018-02-06T11:28:14.909+13:002018-02-06T11:28:14.909+13:00Dear Peter, having just read Dave Clancy's ima...Dear Peter, having just read Dave Clancy's imaginative article on his FCANZ colleagues' hopes for immunisation against S/S Blessings in ACANZP; I think his suggestion here (noted below) could well be accomplished by making the Diocese of Nelson (and its bishop) the protection agency he requires. This would leave the rest of us to pursue the Inclusive Gospel as we interpret it.<br /><br />This would maintain FCANZ' intimate connection with its GAFCON sponsors: <br /><br />"An Extra-Provincial Diocese would be the best way for the Provincial church to give expression to this reality." - Dave Clancy, FCANZ <br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46543851579343381292018-02-06T10:03:15.082+13:002018-02-06T10:03:15.082+13:00Peter, you have touched the heart of our missing t...Peter, you have touched the heart of our missing theological consideration of civil SSM-- (a) is *state agency* still tenable, and if not, (b) how should the Body of Christ respond to pairbonding? <br /><br />On (a), I defend a robust *no*. As a cultural minority, Christians are threatened with cultural appropriation and scapegoating. It is imperative that the Body at all times speak for Christ alone. To do that, it must normally set aside vestiges of the old establishment. The controversy over the fate of your broken cathedral has been an interesting window on the dilemmas of churches that need to sing a new song, but are always expected to sing their captors the old songs of far away Zion.<br /><br />On (b), I propose that the convert-led growth of churches be supported with pastoral interventions that are, not pro forma feel-good quasi-sacraments, but applications of the Word to the stuff that shapes lives. <br /><br />As you have seen from time to time, these two positions put me in friendly opposition to both of the usual two sides of That Topic. <br /><br />BW<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-85432144091564748192018-02-06T08:51:04.948+13:002018-02-06T08:51:04.948+13:00Dear Bowman
Thank you for your insight which, for ...Dear Bowman<br />Thank you for your insight which, for me at any rate, explains well why this debate is "difficult" and not because of moral superiority or inferiority on the part of participants.<br /><br />One observation to connect with your critique of age old confusion of state agency and ritual intention on the part of the church in marriage: on first reading of the proposal I had not recognised that the recommendation re a service of blessing is gender neutral. That is, what is recommended would lead not only to SSB being permitted in a diocese but also to blessing of any (committed etc) relationship. Early criticism I am picking up is that this could lead to vicars blessing the youth group leader and her boyfriend's (sexual) relationship in order to makes things sort of alright on the "chaste" front, short of full marriage. (Usefully, and non controversially, this also opens the pathway to a service for blessing a marriage contracted overseas but for which a local blessing is sought so that aged grandparents can feel part of the proceedings - currently clergy doing such blessings take one of our marriage services and change a word here or there.)<br /><br />Without attempting to offer a solution to the criticism arising about this gender neutrality re the proposed blessing service, it struck me as I read what you wrote that there is some potentiality in this recommendation for the church to move away from state agency ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61345224271267321792018-02-06T08:43:08.353+13:002018-02-06T08:43:08.353+13:00Dear Steve
I do not doubt that if the WG proposal ...Dear Steve<br />I do not doubt that if the WG proposal goes ahead then we will lose some members of our church. I also do not doubt that if we do not pass the proposal we will lose some members of our church. (No one has a count of the people we have lost or who will not darken our doors because of our, to date, refusal to change!)<br /><br />My hope, well founded or not, is that the proposal will hold us together as best as possible in the present situation.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29131663989636947592018-02-06T08:27:26.572+13:002018-02-06T08:27:26.572+13:00Cont'd
Again, as fallible on That Topic as an...Cont'd<br /><br />Again, as fallible on That Topic as anyone else, I have decided-- <br /><br />(a) Civil SSM-- yes. It is a policy that has mixed consequences as all policies do. But it provides a framework for limiting and occasionally even healing sexual sin. It is not a recommendation for SSA. It removes several grievous social injustice that enemies of God would otherwise blame on the gospel. Theologically, a demand that the morals of the state be precisely those of the Body of Christ absurdly assumes that Christ's millennial rule has begun and that the secular states we know are its instruments. In the wider society, Christians should support pairbonding over promiscuity and polygamy, whilst recognising that disciples are called to a practise and meaning that is higher than secular ideals.<br /><br />(b) *Solemnisation* of MWM-- no. The old rite of the medieval Church has long been otiose. It duplicates a state function and implicitly undermines the civil ceremonies, including civil SSM. Marriage is a state of life, not a sacrament, and rites for it should be pastoral rather than procedural in character. <br /><br />(c) Solemnisation for the divorced-- no. Given that the rite is otiose, it is hard to see the point in authorising it for the divorced. <br /><br />(d) New rite for MWM-- yes. Pastoral rites are tailored to fit a spiritual need of individual disciples being transformed in Christ. A fresh pastoral rite wholly dedicated to the higher-than-secular practise and theological meaning of MWM in Christ should be tested. Here, I take it for granted that a theological meaning will be well rooted in such scriptures as 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 5, Revelations 21. <br /><br />(e) Intervention for those remarried after divorce-- yes. Speaking hypothetically, pastoral experience of disciples in this situation could warrant some intervention that is not derived from solemnisation, is not a simulacrum of MWM, is wholly dedicated to some higher-than-secular practise and scriptural meaning, and is tailored to fit a spiritual need of individual disciples being transformed in Christ according to scripture. It may or may not take a ritual form.<br /><br />(f) Church SSB-- no. Again, pastoral rites are tailored to fit a spiritual need of individual disciples being transformed in Christ according to scripture. The parity with solemnisation sought in SSB is a worldly, derivative, and even decadent concept, not a tailored provision for a well-defined spiritual need (see above). Meanwhile, robust support for civil SSM, and of course for celibacy, entirely fulfills a church's duty to its members with SSA. <br /><br />(g) Intervention for SSM-- maybe. Similar to (e).<br /> <br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com