tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post8527764824983082883..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Why I think I could live with Same Sex BlessingsPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74859184981846578062014-05-09T11:08:52.920+12:002014-05-09T11:08:52.920+12:00“The Church is not so esoteric that it can afford ...“The Church is not so esoteric that it can afford to dwell in ancient understandings of human nature - without absorbing insights given to the world by modern research into matters of human biology and sociology. When the cosmic reality is so very different from that perceived in the dark ages, even the Church must live into the reality of both times present and the future, adjusting archaic thinking to today’s realities.” Fr Ron Smith<br /><br />Wow! Ron; that’s a real corker of a comment, IMHO. How so?<br /><br />First off “sociology”. Anyone who has undertaken courses in “The History and Theory of Sociology” will know well that this discipline is not a value-free science. Whence therefore those values?<br /><br />Then, “human biology”. I once heard a molecular biologist from Aussie, who happened himself to be gay, declare - correctly - that even if they do eventually locate certain genes which appear to be involved in sexual orientation, this most certainly does not mean every instance of these genes determines their bearers to become gay. Our overall human constitution is more complex, as for example Roy Bhaskar elaborates extensively in his philosophy of science.<br /><br />Next, “ancient understandings of human nature”. Modern understandings of human nature are based on one key thing - that we humans are autonomous, self-positing personal subjects. This is a philosophical/cultural assumption, no more no less. Its history is discernible, should we care to probe it. Au contraire, the Christian Faith would declare human being to be a creature, made in the Image of God, and so of immense dignity, and also accountable to our Creator. Remove therefore these twin classic features of worth and accountability and the entire business of redemption collapses.<br /><br />So Ron; what do you want to be? How might you want to view yourself? A natural phenomenon derived from pieces of protozoa floating in an indifferent cosmos? Or a redeemable child of the Heavenly Father? The truly sad thing about our contemporary secular, pluralist society is that it has strictly no way of answering these questions; its premises simply do not have the wherewithal - unless they smuggle in elements derived from our historical and cultural past, which is the Judeo-Christian Tradition.<br /><br />The trick therefore is to be able to discern the true nature of what you term “today’s realities”. They are profoundly ambiguous and so ambivalent - should we care to probe their aetiology and genealogy. Just so, I stand by my recent comments about appraising, from a Christian missiological perspective, precisely what you term “reality”.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1347298888975060552014-05-08T21:35:38.528+12:002014-05-08T21:35:38.528+12:00Trevor, without wanting to discourage you from sha...Trevor, without wanting to discourage you from sharing your open support of Peter's eirenic position regarding the possibility of ACANZP allowing for the Blessing of Same-Sex Partnerships; I sincerely believe that you may just be wasting valuable blogging time by trying to convert those, who, on this blog who are in heated opposition.<br /><br />I believe that our host has been willing to hear the theological and existential arguments from both sides of the equation, and has been open to the pragmatic and pastoral arguments, and has shown himself open to what "The Holy Spirit may be saying to The Church" in today's atmosphere of threatening schism.<br /><br />Despite their anthropological context, the issues of gender and sexuality have been subjected to much more theological and psychological examination than was remotely possible two thousand years ago. <br /><br />The Church is not so esoteric that it can afford to dwell in ancient understandings of human nature - without absorbing insights given to the world by modern research into matters of human biology and sociology. When the cosmic reality is so very different from that perceived in the dark ages, even the Church must live into the reality of both times present and the future, adjusting archaic thinking to today's realities.<br /><br />That is, if the Church is to be of any use in the world of today. <br /> Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80194419850895538602014-05-08T10:40:04.865+12:002014-05-08T10:40:04.865+12:00Morning Trev,
I have ruminated some more upon bot...Morning Trev,<br /><br />I have ruminated some more upon both your latest and my own latest response to that, with the following results.<br /><br />It strikes me as something we should take serious note of that our present ‘dilemmas’ have arisen in a very particular setting, a single institution (global Anglicanism) where, under one roof as it were, we have seen various eruptions which would appear for all the world to be polar opposites, namely, TEC’s headlong pursuit to accommodate the latest turn in the sexual revolution by endorsing same-sex marriage on the one hand, and on the other, key African provinces’ accommodation for their part (for whatever reasons, like Islam) with draconian legislation against gay people. Nor do we for our part in ACANZ&P get off! For we too are quite probably about to accommodate ourselves as well, but this time to our own penchant for the #8 wire, pragmatic solution, which, frankly, seems to disregard any authentic addressing of the profound theological issues at play. <i>Pace</i> the Report from the Theology Commission to Ma Whea? But I’ve said quite enough elsewhere about that ...<br /><br />How this has come about is not an idle question. For associated with this question is another: what does it take to cultivate minds and hearts and spirits capable of discerning the sorts of missiological matters I was mentioning last time? In other words, I’d up the ante, and suggest it’s not only a case of divergent folk here in these Islands who do not seem to be able to walk together. We have an entire institution that does not appear to have the wherewithal, in mind and heart, body and spirit, to adequately counter the sundry <i>zeitgeister</i> with which we are contending, as Christians and as a body politic.<br /><br />So; back to your 25 years. My serious question is this. If - IF - we consider institutional unity something still worth fighting for, what is it going to take to do these two things: (1) pause/stop right here and now; and (2) learn to cultivate those practices and disciplines which would enable us to begin to embrace that key pair of verses, Rom 12:1-2 (with all their contextual relevance: cf. my piece on that other thread, which introduces the epistemology section). Or am I historically merely whistling into a Southerly gale?!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88085741615849762222014-05-07T12:57:22.765+12:002014-05-07T12:57:22.765+12:00Thanks for the further clarification, Trev.
As fo...Thanks for the further clarification, Trev.<br /><br />As for society’s new sexual experiment, I think your 25 years is far too short a time frame. I have been forced to reckon with the present young children of same-sex partners becoming grandparents as a more insightful time frame, potentially; i.e. some 50-70 years from now.<br /><br />As for the Church: I have yet to actually see a real, wholesome, cogent <i>theological</i> argument given for either the blessing of same-sex relationships or same-sex ‘marriage’. And by that, I mean something that goes <i>way beyond</i> the mere throwing of “texts of terror” around (say, Rom 1 and/or 1 Cor 6). What won the day in the 4th C was not just a few key texts - though to be sure some did have their due place to play - but as Athanasius put it, a real <i>dianoia</i>; we’d call it today a “root paradigm shift”. And Lewis Ayres, in his <i>Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology</i> (Oxford, 2004), has even more to say, elaborating upon the development of a specific “culture” and <i>habitus</i>. Consequently, where I’ve focused my attentions these past 20 years is in trying to see how it has become just so ‘inevitable’ that folk ‘think’ and ‘behave’ in the contemporary way they do ... That implies we need a story-line, a social script that covers at least 300 years. This does NOT mean we can only revert to thinking and behaving as if the last 300 years don’t count. It does mean we need to sift VERY diligently these past 300 years, like any good missiologists, discerning the good, the bad and the indifferent. And when we do this two things stand out (for simplicity’s sake on a blog):<br /><br />1. Oliver O’Donvan’s very first chapter of <i>A Conversation Waiting to Begin: The Churches and the Gay Controversy</i> (SCM, 2009), is a vital clue: “The failure of the Liberal Paradigm”. Here he tracks the shift of theology to ethics in the 19th and 20th Cs, a distinctly post-Kantian project. What’s more, this is one the key things that makes NZ’s penchant for the pragmatic so insidious and fatal: we simply have NO truly coherent theological ontology left.<br /><br />2. Anthropology becomes the key; and undergirding that, a whole Trinitarian appreciation of ontology with its duly fulsome Christological mediation of redemption/recreation. My two sections on the other thread, a Christian anthropology and the Fall, were mere introductions; they had to omit the solution; I’d written enough already! <br /><br />So; Trev, what this all means is that I fully suspect the next 25 years (your time frame) in ACANZ&P will see a dwindling of numbers and the dying of an institution, as we incoherently engage [stagger, like drunks] with mere symptoms of a far, far deeper malaise. Another scenario might be not just schism, but, under the mercy of God, a flowering of thoughtful, loving, powerful disciple-making clusters of people ... On verra; we shall see!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66785245074978043112014-05-07T10:50:31.566+12:002014-05-07T10:50:31.566+12:00Thanks, Bryden, for you May 6, 8:34pm comment. Yes...Thanks, Bryden, for you May 6, 8:34pm comment. Yes, I had thought about Radner’s words and your own previous contributions to this discussion here on Peter’s blog. <br /><br />If I have understood rightly, you believe that the arguments from the “blessing of same-sex relationships” side cannot possibly be right and distort the gospel and the doctrine of God so grievously that the Church must declare against them. Further, you believe that to allow discretion to priests regarding such blessings for a period implies that the Church concedes that the blessings after all may be consonant with God’s character, and to even allow the possibility is intolerable.<br /><br />Those who are impatient on the “blessing” side think, on the other hand, that their own interpretation of the related scriptures in the context of the gracious character of God cannot be wrong, and they would like a declaration in favour of that position forthwith.<br /><br />My own position is that unnecessary schism is also a grave sin. I believe that both sides can take comfort in the grace of God and prayerfully say, “To avoid schism and to honour your Name by our unity, we believe it best to accept for the next 25 years a situation that each side fears for different reasons dishonours your Name. We ask your forgiveness for the sinfulness of our hearts and the darkness of our minds that makes agreement impossible at the present time, and we ask that your Holy Spirit will teach each one of us over the next quarter-century and lead us in due time to an understanding that all can wholeheartedly embrace.”<br /><br />I believe that if our Church has this prayer on its lips and in its heart, and people from both sides continue to work shoulder-to-shoulder on matters of common life and shared concerns, the Holy Spirit will indeed take us to that place of unified understanding in respect of how same-sex orientation and same-sex relationships are to be received and handled in our pastorate and in our formularies, to the glory of God - and I don’t predict what that outcome will be.<br /><br />TrevorTrevDevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875646655407335207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3840988138165465972014-05-06T22:24:27.777+12:002014-05-06T22:24:27.777+12:00You may be right, Bryden; I am not prepared to say...You may be right, Bryden; I am not prepared to say that you are wrong!<br /><br />But I will observe that much as I want our church to be more theological it is very pragmatic and has been so for a long time.<br /><br />It may be so for a long time to come!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-92192933742293068052014-05-06T21:49:00.963+12:002014-05-06T21:49:00.963+12:00Working backwards:
Pragmatic is good only if it tr...Working backwards:<br />Pragmatic is good only if it truly works - and not merely short term (most pragmatic solutions I've used are even deliberately short term).<br />I've never seen ethnic specificity as the only form; there are others, like cultural exposure by the same ethnic group, and then observing different reactions within that group - fascinating!<br />As for size: I think we should consult Elijah on that one ...<br />So; I repeat what I said on another thread: if the ideology undergirding our political practice is shot, then we're in deep trouble.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29985881458279377392014-05-06T21:34:42.988+12:002014-05-06T21:34:42.988+12:00Hi Bryden
Good question!
No, it does not concern t...Hi Bryden<br />Good question!<br />No, it does not concern the possibility of a Fourth Tikanga.<br />What I think is unique (or, maybe better, distinctive) is our smallness (so we are well related across our differences; and any schisms could yield tiny groups), the historical particularity of our relationships as Pakeha, Maori and Polynesian, our tendency towards pragmatic rather than theological solutions.<br /><br />I could probably think of other things but the hour is late ...!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9580440318582286442014-05-06T20:51:54.834+12:002014-05-06T20:51:54.834+12:00What do you consider Peter to be the unique nature...What do you consider Peter to be the unique nature of our political reality here in these Islands? Surely not the possibility of a Fourth Tikanga?!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-673219329847928012014-05-06T20:40:17.224+12:002014-05-06T20:40:17.224+12:00Hi Bryden
What I appreciate about Trevor's end...Hi Bryden<br />What I appreciate about Trevor's endorsement of my post is that it recognises certain realities about our differentiated but not yet divided and need not be divided church.<br /><br />Whether or not ER is correct, I put it again that we face a particular 'political' reality here in these islands that is neither North America, the UK, Africa, Asia or Australia.<br /><br />Facing that reality, what is the way forward?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-14790329271891937162014-05-06T20:34:59.451+12:002014-05-06T20:34:59.451+12:00Thanks Trevor for your considerations. I wonder wh...Thanks Trevor for your considerations. I wonder whether you have encountered this from Ephraim Radner re the nature of Blessings?<br /><br />http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/06/blessing-a-scriptural-and-theological-reflection/<br /><br />Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-28004617142054252032014-05-06T20:07:17.972+12:002014-05-06T20:07:17.972+12:00Thanks Trevor!Thanks Trevor!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52161122070658914452014-05-06T19:49:03.820+12:002014-05-06T19:49:03.820+12:00It is obvious that there is going to be no meeting...It is obvious that there is going to be no meeting of minds before General Synod on the issue of same-sex blessings. The more immediate concern, therefore, is how to avoid schism.<br /><br />Christ our Lord prays for the unity of the Church. Both those who hold to the orthodox understanding in the same-sex blessings debate and those who are creedally orthodox but have a different opinion, owe it to each other and to our Lord to do their utmost to avoid schism. I hope that all sides are agreed that division should only occur over an issue where the gospel itself and the doctrine of God are threatened, so I would like to examine the present debate in those terms.<br /><br />1. It seems to me that people on each side are implicitly accusing the others of wilful misreading and mishandling the relevant texts. Those in favour of same-sex blessings offer thoughtful arguments that contend that the “abomination” texts of the Old Testament and Paul’s words in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 apply to homosexual practices in particular social contexts at particular times. Those on the conservative side find those arguments unconvincing and prefer an Occam’s-razorish adherence to the <i>prima facie</i> meaning of the texts. The “blessings” side see this as obtuse rather than principled and want to drive the issue forward even at the expense of not carrying the conservatives with them. The conservatives, however, see the arguments for blessing as expedience-egesis rather than exegesis and think that the other side is not handling the revelation of God with straightforward honesty. While contributions from both sides to the various blog debates are generally phrased eirenically, I believe those undercurrents are nevertheless perceptible.<br /><br />I hope, therefore, that both sides as they continue this dialogue will commit to seeing each other in Christ and rejoice in their common faith in the Saviour and drop any attitude that impugns the other.<br /><br />2. The conservative side believes that any change in the Church’s attitude toward same-sex relationships subtracts from the doctrines of the holiness and immutability of our God and therefore changes the gospel itself. The "blessings" side, however, thinks that the conservatives are subtracting from the grace of God by not seeing that this development was - as they think - intended by God as part of the plan of salvation.<br /><br />I would ask the "blessings" side, "When a conservative pastor counsels someone of homosexual orientation that they must remain celibate if unable to enter a heterosexual relationship, is that counsel so contrary to the gospel that you must excommunicate the pastor for it or at least defrock him/her?" – for that would be the effect of making your view the official position of the Church. And I would ask the conservatives, "Is the 'blessing' view so inimical to the doctrine of God and the gospel that you cannot continue in fellowship with those who hold it? Will a profession of faith made by someone who has heard the gospel from a minister who blesses same-sex couples be therefore a false profession? Will the blessing of same-sex couples inevitably lead to a break-down of the Church’s standards of holiness in regard to heterosexual relationships and business dealings and sobriety, etc, or are those safely independent of the same-sex question?"<br /><br />It is probably therefore clear that I think that Peter Carrell’s suggestion is wise: permit episcopal discretion regarding allowing priests according to their consciences to bless same-sex relationships; do not make any decision regarding recognising same-sex relationships as marriages; and declare a 25-year moratorium on further change, to allow plenty of time for the Holy Spirit to bring us all to a common understanding. For one side or the other to force a precipitate decision would be a huge mistake and far more damaging to the gospel than this gentle programme of patience.<br /><br />Trevor MorrisonTrevDevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875646655407335207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38768586850348118482014-05-06T17:13:53.264+12:002014-05-06T17:13:53.264+12:00Thanks Bryden those origins are interesting..., yo...Thanks Bryden those origins are interesting..., you are a good source of information! Much easier than google. So really once you believe understanding comes, and the modern interpretation of theology is discussing the resulting understanding : ) .... <br /><br />Peter it is also interesting the wording used in services of baptism and thanksgiving. <br /><br />What I was trying to get act was not so much that words were explicit but surely the act of Baptism itself is explicit of coming under the rule of/being dedicated to/belonging to Christ. As in the Old Testament days when people were baptised when they chose particular emperors as Lord.<br /><br />Hope the sun has been shinning up your way today...<br /><br />JeanJeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62715951820556644592014-05-06T13:35:05.886+12:002014-05-06T13:35:05.886+12:00Hi Jean: “what is the definition of theology?” A c...Hi Jean: “what is the definition of theology?” A classic one is just this: “faith seeking understanding”. This definition is derived from the second century BC Greek translation of Isaiah 7:9 (which differs somewhat from the standard Hebrew version), “If you do not believe, you will not understand”, which in turn was translated into Latin at the end of the fourth century AD. Thereafter, Augustine, who wrote in Latin, was very fond of this verse and used it often: “Unless you believe, you shall not understand.” His practice gave rise to the expression, “faith seeking understanding”. All of which means: every Christian is some sort of theologian. Go to it! Enjoy!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-33295330900131127692014-05-06T13:02:00.171+12:002014-05-06T13:02:00.171+12:00I much prefer, Jean, sidetracking from sexuality t...I much prefer, Jean, sidetracking from sexuality to baptism than the other way ...<br /><br />One quick set of comments:<br /><br />Off the top of my head I cannot think of any explicit words in our baptism service where either priest or parents say, We give this child back to God.<br /><br />With our alternate non-baptism service in the prayer book, we have very carefully called it a service of thanksgiving for a child, i.e steered well clear of the language of dedication and deliberately invoked the language of thanksgiving for God's gift to us.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25711224568824275942014-05-06T12:26:37.761+12:002014-05-06T12:26:37.761+12:00Hi Peter
Smile - what is the definition of theolo...Hi Peter<br /><br />Smile - what is the definition of theology? Perhaps I understate my musing as non-theological as it always appears (to myself) that my level of understanding falls a bit below the depth of others comments : 0 ....<br /><br />Do you mean explicit only by the liturgical words used? I would have thought the idea/understanding of Baptism in scripture a dedication of one's life to God through Christ, is explicit.<br /><br />Anyway don't want to side track the blog onto this topic which is one of mere curiousity.... so feel free to reply another timeJeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50504176135015455182014-05-06T09:08:50.364+12:002014-05-06T09:08:50.364+12:00Hi Jean
(Respectfully) to write what you write abo...Hi Jean<br />(Respectfully) to write what you write above is definitely 'theological' and not 'non-theological'!<br /><br />Obviously baptism is a 'large' subject and perhaps I should post separately on it sometime. But one quick reply here is to acknowledge that there definitely is an implicit dedication within baptism (i.e. parents bring the child to the house of God; or the adult comes with a presenter who presents them to God). Whether a baptism is an explicit dedication when the liturgical words emphasise God's gracious love for us is then a question.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76515653606560258552014-05-06T08:27:43.122+12:002014-05-06T08:27:43.122+12:00Hi Peter in response to your post (quoted as a few...Hi Peter in response to your post (quoted as a few conversations have ensued since then : ) ):<br /><br />"To go back to your comment re dedication/baptism:<br /><br />my questions are: has the NT moved on through baptism from dedication (in the OT)? Is baptism a dedication to God or a reception from God (of grace, new life, redempetion)?"<br /><br />In my most likely very non-theological musings : ) if done on behalf of a parent for a child, and if baptism infers we have now 'died to self' and 'live for Christ' - the essence of both strikes me as being a 'belonging to God'. <br /><br />However, I do realise the reference to dedication is somewhat limited in terms of biblical reference and was used in the Old Testament (e.g. in the case of Samuel). And that it has been re-instated mostly by christians who prefer adult baptism, and as such dedicate their child to God for His care until such time as they choose their own path.<br /><br />Being a baptised as an infant Anglican (oh my gosh who did that!); I have looked at the voices of all sides adult baptism, infant baptism, dedication, confirmation; and decided theology aside what appears most significant is a child is committed in some way to God as an infant and then as an adult makes a public declaration of their own personal belief in Christ.<br /><br />Here-endeth my ramblings for the moment. I just realised theology aside is probably a brave thing to say on your blog - smile.<br /><br />Have a good day.jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-21060753064265914412014-05-05T22:09:42.790+12:002014-05-05T22:09:42.790+12:00Hi Ron
Plagiarism only occurs when the citation is...Hi Ron<br />Plagiarism only occurs when the citation is unattributed.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30678639361867190062014-05-05T22:08:48.392+12:002014-05-05T22:08:48.392+12:00Hi Ron
When I haven't acted as 'ventriloqu...Hi Ron<br />When I haven't acted as 'ventriloquist' I have tended to have people objecting to being commented upon rather than having their comments commented on.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26141880600827239012014-05-05T21:18:17.720+12:002014-05-05T21:18:17.720+12:00In my day, Peter, they used to call the over-quota...In my day, Peter, they used to call the over-quotation of other people's academic musings 'plagiarism'.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45985094056341370282014-05-05T21:15:21.222+12:002014-05-05T21:15:21.222+12:00Peter. Have you ever thought of taking up a new ca...Peter. Have you ever thought of taking up a new career as a ventriloquist. I cannot but admire your skill at interpreting what I have to say. Sadly, not always very effectively. However, your blog!!!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70646733236339703462014-05-05T11:13:25.571+12:002014-05-05T11:13:25.571+12:00Hi Ron
Once again you make a perfectly good commen...Hi Ron<br />Once again you make a perfectly good comment which is marred by one line. Hence,<br /><br />"Caleb, I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion - vis a vis a comment of Chris - that "the point of disagreement on most of the content of this thread is how to interpret the Scriptural expression of God's goodness in the Gospel".<br /><br />Interpretation of Scripture is the crux of most of the arguments here - and in the Communion at large. <br /><br />''<br /><br />One of the Baptismal gifts - in my opinion - is that of discernment. How we use that discernment may be crucial, in our acceptance or rejection of other people's academic protestations. <br />"<br /><br />What I have removed as an objectionable is a comment which attributes laziness to commenters here because they cite others. For goodness sake, Ron, what do most biblical commentaries consist of?!?!? Lots of citations of previous commentators ... citing another person's thinking is a time efficient way of offering a viewpoint. That is fine.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-2459775181312817522014-05-05T10:20:17.525+12:002014-05-05T10:20:17.525+12:00Hi Caleb
I accept that life is more complex. I don...Hi Caleb<br />I accept that life is more complex. I don't have time this week to 'argue the toss' on the observations you make but there is (to agree with you) much to reflect on re what 'church', 'society' thinks and does about these matters.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com