tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post8311340113468653115..comments2024-03-29T13:30:56.758+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Jesus and Paul command a gender free marriage ritePeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70121270816698956452012-06-25T10:11:07.035+12:002012-06-25T10:11:07.035+12:00Ron,
"The reading of theses does not, necess...Ron,<br /><br />"The reading of theses does not, necessarily, lead to under-standing. When a mind is closed against revelation, there is little than can be done to achieve enlightenment."<br /><br />My mind is not closed to revelation. It is closed to liberal political ideology pretending to be revelation.<br /><br />Tobias claimed:<br /><br />"Peter, at this point, it is plain to me that you do not understand my position"<br /><br />"Your position, which I do not regard as conservative but rather fundamentalist"<br /><br />So if you do not agree with Tobias' radical liberal and heterodox re-definition of Christian your ignorant and a fundamentalist.<br /><br />Nice.<br /><br />According to Tobias' definition, every theologian and scholar prior to the 20th century was a fundamentalist. And we are supposed to believe his claim that his position is "conservative"???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73897665746421525572012-06-24T13:03:30.200+12:002012-06-24T13:03:30.200+12:00Peter, my understanding is that no-one can be held...Peter, my understanding is that no-one can be held responsible for the conscience of another person. We all have to give an account of ourselves' before the throne of God. I think we may be judged on our willingness to overlook the sins of others, rather than drawing attention to them, in the hope that we might have done 'better'.<br /><br />The Church itself cannot absolve us of our sins. Only Christ can do that. And as we live in Him and He is us, marvellous things might be wrought through our obedience to Christ - not only the Church. <br /><br /><br />Of course, the Church is the Body of Christ, and as long as we take part in Christ's redeeming ministry of loving acceptance of others, we may just find our own redemption.<br />"They'll you're my disciples - BY Your Love". (not by your judgement)Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30463810785892528892012-06-24T06:26:56.659+12:002012-06-24T06:26:56.659+12:00Hi Tobias (and understanding that you won't re...Hi Tobias (and understanding that you won't reply to this).<br /><br />Yes, indeed, a few comments back I was concerned about you oversimplifying things. My simple/oversimplifying issue related to your comment just above, not to the whole thread of your comments.<br /><br />No, I think I 'get' what you are on about very well. If I am a fundamentalist for denying what you are saying then so be it. <br /><br />On the day of judgement I should be little surprised to find myself condemned with the English Reformers as having built an eisegetical house of straw because we did not envisage the principles in the Articles meaning that forms of marriage not spoken against in Scripture could be permitted, now even blessed.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87195184558175610992012-06-24T01:40:31.688+12:002012-06-24T01:40:31.688+12:00Peter, at this point, it is plain to me that you d...Peter, at this point, it is plain to me that you do not understand my position, as you are unable to state it in terms I recognize as what I intend. Then again I don't think you even are clear bbout what you say yourself! On June 22 you said, "I think you are oversimplifying the matter when you say what you do." and yesterday said, "I did not say that you were oversimplifying things!" <br /><br />However, I can do little about your own tendency to contradict yourself. But I can respond to your misrepresentation of what I've said, which begins with the title of this post! I thought I'd made it clear that I accept the clarity of Scripture on the rightness of sexual relations within marriage -- you say here I think the opposite! <br /><br />What I am suggesting is that it is because of this that the institution of marriage should be extended to include same-sex couples.<br /><br />Your position, which I do not regard as conservative but rather fundamentalist, is that the fact that Scripture only cites mixed-sex marriage that this is the only form of marriage possible. This is a position that runs counter to the principles laid out in the Articles of Religion. You are free to hold it, of course, but others are free to reject it.<br /><br />In the long run, I do not think you are doing hermeneutics, ore exegesis, but eisegesis -- you are reading into Scripture limitations that are not in the text, but imported and generalized.<br /><br />Your words about accountability before God, and the day of judgment, are well stated. I am glad that you show willingness to apply them to yourself, and to see if you are standing with Jesus, or with those who found fault with him, on their reading of Scripture, and faith to their traditions. The mercy of God is unending, but is most generous towards those who seek to show charity and mercy to others, rather than engaging in judgment as to what is right or wrong in them or their lives.<br /><br />I think I will leave it at that. God bless you.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-40726885809441216242012-06-23T22:28:26.228+12:002012-06-23T22:28:26.228+12:00Hi Ron,
I believe we will be accountable before Go...Hi Ron,<br />I believe we will be accountable before God for what we say and do, and especially when we are teachers of the faith.<br /><br />Do you not believe in that?<br /><br />The point of my comment is not that I gleefully look forward to the punishment of anyone but that when we use hermeneutics to overturn long established positions held by the church then we need to be doubly sure we are correct.<br /><br />If Tobias Haller is correct then I stand to be in great trouble before the Almighty who cannot in the least be pleased with my attempts to remain faithful to the tradition I have inherited from my forefather and foremothers in the faith. It will be of some comfort that you will not be gleeful about my fate.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-885476285382070902012-06-23T21:53:34.995+12:002012-06-23T21:53:34.995+12:00" I and maybe other conservatives can only ad..." I and maybe other conservatives can only admire your hermeneutical chutzpah and hope that on the day of judgement it does not get you into too much trouble with the Almighty!"<br /><br /> Dr. Peter Carrell -<br /><br />Here we go again - the typical threats of dire consequences when anyone uses the brain that God gave them - to question assumptions made centuries ago about God's will for, and enablement of, the human race.<br /><br />One thing I find most difficult about conservative protestant theology, is its almost gleeful expectation of punishment in the hereafter - for those who do not agree with its punitive culture of Devil-dodging. The Pharisees were so often brought to account by Jesus for this negative and deadly hermeneutic.<br /><br />Saint Francis saw life as a joyful pilgrimage. He was not just a 'pilgrim with a grim image'. We know we're all Sinners. some admit the fact, while others are desperate to deny the possibility.<br />Jesus died for Sinners - not self-proclaimed 'saints'.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18975664068420468152012-06-23T19:33:27.424+12:002012-06-23T19:33:27.424+12:00Mr Haller's historical revisionism (not reappr...Mr Haller's historical revisionism (not reappraisal) of the Christian doctrine of marriage ('a man shall cleave to his wife and the two shall be one flesh') and his hermeneutical gymnastics (out-Hegelianizing Williams, I think!) seemed strangely reminiscent to me until I recalled this famous definition of 'blackwhite': the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. ” The word for this is revisionism.<br />I further agree with Shawn that it is very hard, nay impossible, to debate with those (e.g. Mormons) who claim special revelation for their beliefs. <br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20697643095635783562012-06-23T19:05:37.584+12:002012-06-23T19:05:37.584+12:00'I have read a great deal of liberal theology....'I have read a great deal of liberal theology. I did not find any kind of "enlightenment" in what I have read or heard, and I do not think my theology is deficient in any way' - Shawn -<br /><br />The reading of theses does not, necessarily, lead to under-standing. When a mind is closed against revelation, there is little than can be done to achieve enlightenment. Enlightenmernt is not always overtly 'spiritual' there are other (e.g. scientific) modes of enlightenment. This is what shcolarship is all about.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88663640660693791642012-06-23T13:04:19.347+12:002012-06-23T13:04:19.347+12:00"To get back to the question of Scripture. If..."To get back to the question of Scripture. If you accept, as I do, that God spoke through the human authors of the text, don’t you think, if this issue is so very important, and God had the intent, He might not have inspired the human authors with clear and unambiguous language?"<br /><br />He did. It's just not conveniant to liberals and homosexuals.<br /><br />I do not see anything "conservative" in your approach to Scripture. It is standard brand liberalism. Claiming a lack of clarity when Scripture clearly, at no point, endorses homosexual relations in any form is liberalism.<br /><br />Claiming that this supposed lack of clarity thus allows the Church to endorese same sex "amrriage" IS putting words in God's mouth.<br /><br />So far I have heard only two arguments for homosexual marriage from both you and Ron.<br /><br />Yours is: "Scripture is unclear about marriage, thus we can bless homosexuals relationships".<br /><br />Ron's is: "God has given me special revelation on the subject."<br /><br />Neither of these two arguments is even remotely convincing. Neither is a substantive theological argument. They both strike me as deeply unorthodox, deeply liberal (politically), and both are shallow and self-serving.<br /><br />If, beyond all the emotive bullying about others being "unthinking" or "mean spirited and homophobic", this is all the pro-gay argument amounts to, I am confident that it will not sway most Christians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58923648802434754502012-06-23T12:51:40.428+12:002012-06-23T12:51:40.428+12:00Ron,
"Shawn, I've been banned by our Hos...Ron,<br /><br />"Shawn, I've been banned by our Host from advising you where you might go to get further enlightenment on theological issues"<br /><br />I have read a great deal of liberal theology. I did not find any kind of "enlightenment" in what I have read or heard, and I do not think my theology is deficient in any way.<br /><br />"I wonder what other "thinking Anglicans' might have to say about this peculiar observation."<br /><br />ALL of us are thinking Anglicans. It is offensive to claim that those of us who do not agree with liberalism are in some way unthinking people. Accusations like this do nothing for your argument, and just turn many people here off.<br /><br />"However, you have made this very peculiar statement, that I have no alternative but to silently challenge - as being completely indefensible, and hardly worthy of a logical response"<br /><br />Well thats good, because as usual you have not given me a "logical" response, but an emotive one.<br /><br />In fact my statement is defensible and certainly not perculiar. It is in fact a standard doctrine of Protestantism. Both Luther and Calvin, and almost every Reformed/Lutheran/Evangelical theologian since has affirmed that special revelation is confined to Scripture, and that the canon of Scripture is closed.<br /><br />This view is thus mainstream in the Protestant tradition.<br /><br />If you have a theological objection to that doctrine I would be curious to hear it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55213632520778353392012-06-23T12:38:02.047+12:002012-06-23T12:38:02.047+12:00Hi Tobias,
I did not say that you were oversimpli...Hi Tobias,<br /><br />I did not say that you were oversimplifying things!<br /><br />A conservative reading of Scripture does think that there is clarity in the text about God's prohibiting sexual relationships outside of marriage. I accept that you do not share that clarity.<br /><br />That clarity may not amount to the same clarity as cited examples from Sifra or Roman law codes, but I and many other conservatives would not think at all that we are the one's putting words into God's mouth if we take the clarity of the Bible on the prohibition of sexual relationships outside of marriage, together with the clarity in Scripture in favour of marriage being between a man and a woman, especially in the foundational chapters of Genesis 1 and 2, as meaning that neither then nor now is God in favour of same sex marriage.<br /><br />It is a liberal position to (a) doubt the clarity of Scripture on these matters, (b) determine that despite appearances to the contrary, Scripture can be taken as neutral re same sex marriage, and (c) filter out from Scripture all references to marriage as involving a man and a woman so that the residue is marriage as a matter of mind and heart, in order to arrive at (d) same sex marriages are morally OK and may be blessed by God.<br /><br />I accept that you see all this as fairly conservative in the handling of Scripture. I and maybe other conservatives can only admire your hermeneutical chutzpah and hope that on the day of judgement it does not get you into too much trouble with the Almighty!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27086773763205006732012-06-23T12:26:40.059+12:002012-06-23T12:26:40.059+12:00Hi Ron,
As a thinking Anglican I am not sure what ...Hi Ron,<br />As a thinking Anglican I am not sure what you are objecting to in Shawn's statement. The distinction between general revelation and special revelation, the latter only found within the pages of God's written Word, is pretty standard within reformed/evangelical theology.<br /><br />Is there something specific in the nature of 'special revelation' which the church has received since the closing of the canon of Scripture which you have in mind?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-33295416284960797862012-06-23T04:15:05.021+12:002012-06-23T04:15:05.021+12:00Peter,
You think I am oversimplifying things, but...Peter,<br /><br />You think I am oversimplifying things, but I am just trying to be precise and clear. I am also not trying to make claims from Scripture that go beyond what is written. If you think I oversimplify, I think you tend to over-generalize.<br /><br />For instance, I don’t think it true to the text to say Scripture condemns “all” homosexual relationships. Contrary to Shawn’s assertion, for instance, reading Romans 1:26 as a reference to lesbians — the only biblical text capable of such a reading — is uncertain. Clement of Alexandria and Augustine both read it as referring to irregular intercourse between men and women, literally (since “physis” can refer to the genitals in such a context) “they exchanged the genital use for that which is opposite the genital.” This also makes sense of the men’s acts with each other as “similar” to how they treated the women. You may not accept this reading, but the point is that the text itself is inconclusive, and capable of more than one reading, and the commentators do not agree.<br /><br />And this is one of the problems with the attempt to find a simple answer to the question of SSM from Scripture on its own. That Scripture approves of heterosexual marriage – in several forms, including polygamy – is not in itself evidence of a disapprobation of SSM. That Scripture disapproves of some specific male same-sex acts is no proof that God disapproves of “all homosexuality.” Ultimately, from a Scriptural standpoint, it is the marriage that makes even heterosexual acts morally acceptable, not the fact that they are heterosexual.<br /><br />To get back to the question of Scripture. If you accept, as I do, that God spoke through the human authors of the text, don’t you think, if this issue is so very important, and God had the intent, He might not have inspired the human authors with clear and unambiguous language? The c 3rd century Sifra condemns the idea of “a man marries a man, a woman marries a woman” in just those terms. The early 4th century Roman Law code of Theodosius similarly rejects the notion of “a man marrying a man.” If God had wished to be so clear, He could have used such language. But He did not.<br /><br />I am not claiming this in itself amounts to an endorsement of SSM. But those who insist that the Scripture, as it stands, amounts to an absolute prohibition are in effect putting words in God’s mouth. To that extent, I am the “conservative” and they the “liberals.”Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-89231441246551555412012-06-22T21:59:13.599+12:002012-06-22T21:59:13.599+12:00Shawn, I've been banned by our Host from advis...Shawn, I've been banned by our Host from advising you where you might go to get further enlightenment on theological issues, so I will not do that. However, you have made this very peculiar statement, that I have no alternative but to silently challenge - as being completely indefensible, and hardly worthy of a logical response:<br /><br />"Yes God's Spirit is alive and active, but special revelation is no longer an ongoing process. Special revelation is confined solely to the text of Scripture."<br /> - Shawn - <br /><br />I wonder what other "thinking Anglicans' might have to say about this peculiar observation.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55843254018646370882012-06-22T18:24:00.629+12:002012-06-22T18:24:00.629+12:00"Marriage itself has received many different ..."Marriage itself has received many different understandings down through history -- not just Christian history. That has included, pace Fr. Jonathan's demurral, same-sex couples."<br /><br />Mr Haller's magisterial statement is, once again, plainly false - unless by 'down through history' he means starting in San Francisco, c. 1980 among post-and non-Christians. No catholic teacher has EVER proposed such an idea. Anyone who would like to think of himself as catholic in any meaningful historic sense must renounce idiosyncratic opinions and lifestyles return to the judgment of the church catholic. <br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35828458565503330572012-06-22T16:23:44.864+12:002012-06-22T16:23:44.864+12:00From Tobias:
"What I am observing, however, ...From Tobias:<br /><br />"What I am observing, however, is that your own position, fairly summed up as "male and female are essential to marriage" -- which I freely admit is a more or less (with all those nuances you mention) Biblical view of how Scripture describes marriages, will not in itself answer the question, "Are we limited in what marriage can be by the Bible." "<br /><br />Yes, I believe that we are. The Bible is the rule of faith. That which is forbidden by Scripture is forbidden to us.<br /><br />I disagree that Scripture is neutral on same sex marriage. This is because I have never been convinced that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, it is not referring to the supposedly "modern" discovery of loving relationships. Loving same sex relations were known in the ancient world, and the Bible's statements seem clearly to take that into account, especially considering Paul's reference to lesbian relationships. The Bible's statements on the issue cannot be reduced to pederasty or temple prostitution.<br /><br />Ron said:<br /><br />""limited' to what parameters, one might ask? Perhaps by scientific observation, for instance? Wherein it has been discovered that the earth is not flat. Nor is the earth the only planet in the universe besides the moon, the sun, and the stars."<br /><br />In fact the Bible makes neither of these claims. It is one of the myths of modernism that prior to modern science people thought (due to Scripture) that the world was flat. But it is simply not true.<br /><br />"The task of revelation was not confined to the publication of the biblical record. God's Holy Spirit is still alive and active - through believers."<br /><br />Yes God's Spirit is alive and active, but special revelation is no longer an ongoing process. Special revelation is confined solely to the text of Scripture.<br /><br />Moreover, much of what is claimed by some to be "new revelation" does not look like the work of God, but the ideology of modern liberalism, which as far as I know, outside of liberal circles, is not accepted as a source of special revelation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38788847441325661172012-06-22T12:57:19.984+12:002012-06-22T12:57:19.984+12:00"On the one hand, our freedom to go beyond th..."On the one hand, our freedom to go beyond the Bible is limited" - P.C. <br /><br />"limited' to what parameters, one might ask? Perhaps by scientific observation, for instance? Wherein it has been discovered that the earth is not flat. Nor is the earth the only planet in the universe besides the moon, the sun, and the stars.<br /><br />I would suspect that there is much beyond the limitations of Biblical revelation - as touching the facts of life and of creation - than has been found acceptable to biblical literalists - but which has been accepted by modern scholarship and scientific exploration.<br /><br />The task of revelation was not confined to the publication of the biblical record. God's Holy Spirit is still alive and active - through believers.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-926762563928335882012-06-22T11:14:01.422+12:002012-06-22T11:14:01.422+12:00When you frame it that way, Tobias, it all looks r...When you frame it that way, Tobias, it all looks remarkably simple and clear: the Bible is neutral on same sex marriage "as we understand it."<br /><br />Nevertheless I suggest that the Bible's neutrality is not as friendly towards same sex marriage as your framing implies. Its negativity towards any same sex sexual relationship is not neutral towards the sexual aspect of same sex marriage. Its positivity re marriage between a man and a woman, iterated and reiterated as it is, from Genesis onwards, raises the question whether it is saying nothing about same sex marriage because it knows it not, or because it knows only marriage between a man and a woman (i.e. it is inconceivable to the 'mind' behind the Bible that there would be any other kind). Call that speculation on my part by all means. But it is speculation on your part that the God whose mind is behind the inspiration of Scripture is not being dogmatic about gender differentiation's essentiality in marriage.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-2840531525475791722012-06-22T10:34:11.697+12:002012-06-22T10:34:11.697+12:00Peter, in my last note I think I fairly paraphrase...Peter, in my last note I think I fairly paraphrased the Articles of Religion on the subject, so I don't think I'm oversimplifying. In any case, we are not talking here about theological dogmas, but marriage and aspects of its morality. It is exactly the sort of thing on which the church can, and has, ruled down through the years. (Nor is there complete unanimity on the subject between the various branches -- even the "catholic" onces -- of the Church.)<br /><br />However, I will say I am not following your argument in the matter of the Bible vs. same-sex marriage. I would say simply that the Bible neither explicitly endorses nor explicitly condemns same-sex marriage. It is something about which its authors (and I think this an important distinction you fail to make, as opposed to the text itself) were not concerned, to which they were not exposed -- or did not recognize when and if they were exposed to it. (As I demonstrated in my book, it is not a topic about which the Jewish world was much concerned, and the Christians only in part and chiefly in connection with idolatry.) <br /><br />I think it is "proven" that there is no mention of same-sex marriage in the Bible, for good or ill. Your assertions about what the Bible authors might have known, apart from what they set down, is speculation. Based on the evidence available they show no sign of the sorts of things you imagine.<br /><br />I am content to remain with the text of Scripture and what it attests, and it shows no comment on anything approaching "same-sex marriage" as we understand it. I don't think that is an oversimplification, but is simply true. If it is not true, you could point to the biblical text that disproved it.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70451527706788148392012-06-22T09:55:52.333+12:002012-06-22T09:55:52.333+12:00Hi Tobias,
It is a good question, are we limited b...Hi Tobias,<br />It is a good question, are we limited by the Bible re marriage.<br /><br />But the answer is a little more complex than I feel you are implying.<br /><br />On the one hand, our freedom to go beyond the Bible is limited: in Anglican terms it has been about whether to have bishops or not, and what robes they might or might not wear, along with their priests, and whether those officers and laity, or not, might meet in synods, and in those synods agree to prayerbooks and stuff. It has not been about whether our teachings about the essentials of faith and practice can go beyond the Bible (e.g. whether we might have two or three baptisms, or whether we could add a fourth person to the Trinity). It is arguable that the essence of marriage being laid down in Scripture, there is no further discussion to be had.<br /><br />On the other hand, a few questions are begged about the status of the Bible in relation to same sex marriage: if (as you have said previously) same sex marriage has been a feature of various cultures, it is of interest that the Bible has not endorsed same sex marriage; if (as many acknowledge) various homoerotic relationships in the ancient world were not equatable to today's (rightly condemned) paedophilia but were viewed by some as noble, then it is of interest that the Bible did not endorse such sentiments; nor for that matter did it invoke of such relationships the possibility that they had a certain David-and-Jonathan nobility to them: in short, it is far from proven that the Bible knew nothing of the possibility of same sex marriage and therefore it is a completely new matter to deal with in respect of the Bible.<br /><br />Clearly in a brief comment I am not touching on all relevant aspects of this particular part of the discussion. But I reiterate the point I am trying to make: I think you are oversimplifying the matter when you say what you do.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52094236081023959622012-06-22T08:09:00.922+12:002012-06-22T08:09:00.922+12:00Hi Tobias
I would be surprised if anyone commentin...Hi Tobias<br />I would be surprised if anyone commenting here (even perhaps reading here) would be wishing to shut down discussion about marriage or about same sex relationships and whether they might be considered as marriages. But the discussion as a Christian discussion tends to presume some givens.<br /><br />When we discuss the atonement, for instance, the given is that we are made one with God ("at-one-ment"!), the discussion is about the means by which this has taken place in Christ, not least because several lines are advanced in Scripture.<br /><br />I am not aware, when considering marriage, that there are several, let alone many understandings of the core of marriage given in Scripture: a man and a woman. The many understandings of marriage we discuss relate to matters such as property, divorce and remarriage, the equality/inequality/complementary character of the relationship between husband and wife, even (if we confine ourselves to the OT, the number of wives), etc. But never to the question of whether a man and a woman are essential to the understanding of marriage.<br /><br />On reflection, I do not see anything you have advanced here, or in your book which suggest we have any more reason to overturn that essence of marriage than we have reason to overturn the essence of atonement, that in Christ we are made one with God.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55668409128560779362012-06-22T07:51:40.590+12:002012-06-22T07:51:40.590+12:00Briefly, Bryan, reappraisal does not necessarily e...Briefly, Bryan, reappraisal does not necessarily entail change. Sometimes shat reappraisal does is "freshen" a doctrine to make it more understandable or comprehensible to modern minds, or to the shifts in metaphysics that will happen almost inevitably.<br /><br />I think the Atonement is a good example: there have been many different efforts to understand afresh "how" salvation works, without at all denying "that" salvation works --- through Christ. Another such matter is the nature of the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist: there are a number of different ways of understanding -- or perhaps it would be better to say, describing -- that mystery.<br /><br />Marriage itself has received many different understandings down through history -- not just Christian history. That has included, pace Fr. Jonathan's demurral, same-sex couples. The issue for us is to examine the rationales -- moral and theological -- undergirding both the new proposals and the old assertions, to test them to see how well they stand up. The willingness to engage with challenge is to me the surest sign of faith, and a "this is off limits for discussion" makes mb suspicious that something other than faith is at work. This goes for both "liberal" and "conservative" positions. Not to follow Archbishop Rowan too far in his rather robust Hegelianism, but I do think that discussion is the best way to address disagreements, and come to better understandings -- even of things that remain unchanged, but better grasped, afterwards.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-5272868342476961842012-06-22T04:56:47.479+12:002012-06-22T04:56:47.479+12:00Tobias wrote: " ... mere opposition in itself...Tobias wrote: " ... mere opposition in itself does not prove the rightness of the opposer or the wrongness in the thing opposed. That must rely on argument, exploration, and, yes, reappraisal."<br /><br />Tobias, my question is how far are you willing to engage in "reappraisal"? Does it extend beyond the Church's traditional teaching on human sexuality? Might it include, for instance, taking another look at orthodox Christology and changing it such that TEC's official doctrine no longer fits the Chalcedonian definition? If things like Christology are off limits, what exactly are the limits of "reappraisal," and are those limits themselves subject to being rethought/revised?Fr. Bryan Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040773309359417883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50410807003294031332012-06-19T17:59:37.633+12:002012-06-19T17:59:37.633+12:00Thank you, Jonathan - I think I'll take your s...Thank you, Jonathan - I think I'll take your suggestion to the Discovery Channel with a proposal for 'Chop Logic', a surreality show combining my love of philosophy and cooking. (Reminds me of skit many years ago, 'Cooking with Lenin': 'To make an omelet, first shoot your egg.') However, the t-shirt would have to read 'Groucho was a Marxist', not Aquinas. Thomas was too beholden to Aristotle ever to go down that road. And yes, I know what 'annulment' means: it's American for 'Catholic divorce'.<br />All kinds of distortions have existed and continue in human cultures: chattel-slavery, infanticide, polygamy etc etc. Many of these are still with us, under different names. Just because something has been instanced in a sub-set of humanity doesn't prove its rightness in the eyes of God. If we love our Niebuhr as ourselves, we know that Christ stands over culture as well as within it. <br />Well, must get back to my plato du jour.<br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83226752327561976112012-06-19T14:55:30.108+12:002012-06-19T14:55:30.108+12:00I missed a lot on here today!
I really think that...I missed a lot on here today!<br /><br />I really think that "Chop Logic" should be a show on the Discovery Channel. It would be the kind of show where the host wears an "Aquinas was a Marxist" t-shirt.<br /><br />All kidding aside though, it is worth mentioning that the claim that there have been cultures or cultural situations that have endorsed some form of gay marriage is not entirely accurate, in the same way that the claim that the ancient pagan world endorsed same-sex relationships isn't entirely accurate. There have been cultures that have been more open to or tolerant of same sex relationships than others, like the "two spirits" tradition in some Native American tribes, but I know of no culture in which these relationships were ever viewed as equivalent to marriage and certainly none in which marriage itself was seen as essentially genderless. And I would guess that I've read a number of the books to which Tobias is alluding.Fr. Jonathanhttp://www.conciliaranglican.comnoreply@blogger.com