tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post8865948721885736059..comments2024-03-30T00:33:32.285+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Tragic marriage split through misunderstandingPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23986669160259339112013-07-18T11:12:42.759+12:002013-07-18T11:12:42.759+12:00Joshua:
Well, I don't expect to change your m...Joshua:<br /><br />Well, I don't expect to change your mind, but consider this:<br /><br />1. As far as we can tell from the Church Fathers, the early church in at least the first two Christian centuries interpreted the Scriptures as forbidding Christians from participating in war. The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus goes so far as to say that if a Christian becomes a soldier he has denied the faith. So the early church obviously did not understand it to be an issue on which freedom of conscience was granted.<br /><br />I'm not saying they were right; I'm simply saying that your judgement that homosexuality is a crystal clear issue which admits of no variance, but war and peace is a matter on which freedom of conscience can be granted, is every bit as subjective as you claim mine to be.<br /><br />2. If you read the sweep of Romans 12-14 it is clear that Romans 13:1-7 is addressing the non-Christian state. Paul tells Christians to submit to those in authority (an attitude, by the way, that would have ruled out the American Revolutionary War, if we interpret it literally). But his instructions to Christians as to how they are to behave, in Romans 12:9-end, are quite clear - don't repay anyone evil for evil, bless those who persecute you, don't avenge yourselves, give your enemy food and water etc. In other words, as Jesus said, 'Love your enemies'.<br /><br />3. It is true that John the Baptist does not tell soldiers to stop being soldiers - but, as Jesus pointed out, John the Baptist was still living in the Old Covenant. Note also this: there is no recorded command of Jesus telling prostitutes to stop being prostitutes, either. Why do we assume he did? Because he spoke out against sexual immorality, and we assume that would preclude prostitution. Interesting - we assume that avoiding sexual immorality would rule out being a prostitute, but we don't assume that loving your enemies would rule out being a soldier! Why, I wonder?<br /><br />I am quite sure you are correct that Scripture has an intrinsic meaning. I'm not, however, as confident as you seem to be that I always understand it or can get outside my own subjective frame of reference to do so. You feel you are speaking objectively when you say "The Bible is against same-sex marriage', but you feel that I am speaking subjectively when I say, 'The New Testament forbids Christians from engaging in violence and war'. Now, it seems clear to me that for the majority of the Church Fathers, my statement was regarded as equally objective, but you don't see it that way.<br /><br />Right, gotta go home and cook some supper!Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-12430769995492209652013-07-18T10:54:33.278+12:002013-07-18T10:54:33.278+12:00Thanks Joshua. I've actually met Sam Allberry ...Thanks Joshua. I've actually met Sam Allberry - my best friend from high school goes to St. MAry's Maidenhead.Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81101204545445565752013-07-18T09:40:02.862+12:002013-07-18T09:40:02.862+12:00Tim,
For your reading.
http://www.christianitymag...Tim,<br /><br />For your reading.<br />http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/Browse%20By%20Category/features/A%20different%20kind%20of%20coming%20out.aspx<br /><br />Blessings<br />JoshuaJoshua Bovishttp://creideamhamhain.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18773170657837510632013-07-17T19:29:58.047+12:002013-07-17T19:29:58.047+12:00@ Tim,
Tim, No need to apologise. I don't get...@ Tim,<br /><br />Tim, No need to apologise. I don't get a lot of time to blog. <br /><br />Although I don't have the same struggle you do regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality; I am assuming that it is not that different to when we struggle on an emotional level with the teaching that those who die unrepentant will spend eternity in Hell. Coming from a non-Christian family, on an emotional level I would love this not to be the case, but I simply cannot escape the teaching of Scripture on this. <br /><br />Regarding Christians going to war. My explanation is this:<br />1. If a Christian feels it is sin to serve in the forces then they have the liberty not to. And I think passages such as Romans 14 apply). But they don't have the liberty to tell other Christians it is a sin to join the armed forces.<br />2. Romans 13 I think makes it clear that there is a role for the state (which includes the armed forces)<br />3. In Luke 3, when people come to John for baptism, Roman Soldiers ask what are they to do (how they are to put their repentance into practice), notice that John does not tell the soldiers to stop being soldiers, but tells them "not to extort money from anyone by threats of false accusation, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14)<br /><br />I don't think this issue is a gospel issue. However the reason why I think homosexuality is a gospel issue is because Scripture is clear that there are two types of sexual expression that God blesses and endorses:<br />1. Sex between a man and a woman who are married to each other.<br />2. Celibacy for those who are unmarried. <br /><br />The issue at hand with the same sex matters is that proponents are saying that God blesses a third expression, sex between a man and another man or sex between a woman and another woman. There is no where in Scripture ever where this expression is portrayed as being blessed by God in Scripture and Scripture is clear that any sexual activity outside of marriage is sin (1 Cor 6.6-18).<br />In no way am I suggesting Tim that homosexuals cannot become Christians, the biggest need for homosexuals who are not Christians is not for them to become straight but to submit to the Lordship of the Lord Jesus Christ. And there are many Christians who are painfully away of their attraction to members of the same sex, but because they believe in the Lord Jesus and have repented, they live his way and know that God's will for sexual expression is the first two categories that I mentioned. <br />Rev David Ould has written an article about Vaughan Roberts, rector of St Ebbe’s, Oxford, and a prominent leader amongst English evangelicals who announced that he experiences same-sex attraction and yet he remains celibate since this is the clear teaching of Scripture. Certainly well worth a read.<br />http://davidould.net/?p=4388<br /><br />I am sorry Tim, but in all honesty I cannot add the proviso "to me" when it comes to what Scripture says. The reason is that it does matter what Scripture says to me or to you or to anyone else. What matters is what Scripture says. Scripture has intrinsic meaning in and of itself and it is inerrant. The problem of course is that we are not inerrant and we can get things wrong. But it is the post-modern world that says that we cannot know what truth is and at best truth is just our view or interpretation of the 'truth'. This leads to relativism.<br /><br />As for divorce, as I said to Peter earlier, this is certainly worth discussion and I think your question is an absolute cracker of a question. For Anglicans who are Reformed and Christians of other denominations who defend the Biblical view of marriage, their case is certainly not helpful by fudging on this issue; and as a adult child of divorce, it is an issue that is very much one I am mindful of. <br /><br />I hope that in some way what I have said is helpful to you, or at least elucidates my position in a clearer way.<br /><br /><br />Joshua Bovishttp://creideamhamhain.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74522733262013620492013-07-17T15:11:48.006+12:002013-07-17T15:11:48.006+12:00The ghost of Marcion is alive and well on this thr...The ghost of Marcion is alive and well on this thread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65539830994961120482013-07-17T14:44:55.075+12:002013-07-17T14:44:55.075+12:00Tim,
If Scripture is subjective, then God has not...Tim,<br /><br />If Scripture is subjective, then God has not spoken.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-13229991685285069912013-07-17T04:21:59.633+12:002013-07-17T04:21:59.633+12:00Hi Joshua:
I apologize for taking so long to resp...Hi Joshua:<br /><br />I apologize for taking so long to respond to you; I had a somewhat busy weekend. And then, I was pondering your comment and wondering about the best way to respond.<br /><br />You may be correct that I ranted a little too much. It is difficult for me to be detached on this subject.<br /><br />I emphasize again that I personally still accept the traditional understanding of the biblical texts about homosexuality (although it is a great struggle for me). However, I have good friends who do not, and I do not think they see themselves as rebelling against Christ or against the authority of scripture. I also have good friends who accept the just war theory. As I have explained to you, I do not; I see the New Testament as being crystal clear that followers of Jesus are forbidden to engage in violence or war. However, I do not have all the answers as to how we are to work this out in daly living, and my 'just war' friends who are honest are prepared to admit that they don't have all the answers about how to work out their position in harmony with the teaching of Jesus either. As I have explained to you, I do see this as an issue that has fundamental implications to our understanding of the Gospel, so it's not a minor issue for me. And yet - I live in a church that includes both pacifists and military chaplains, and we receive communion together at the Lord's Table. So is sex more important than killing and war?<br /><br />So, when you say, 'Scripture is crystal clear on this', I would like you to add the proviso, 'To me'. Gay and lesbian Christian friends do not see it so clearly. For instance, the only text in the entire Bible which is usually interpreted today as referring to lesbian sex (Romans 1:26) was, I am told, commonly understood by the Church Fathers to refer to anal sex (I admit I have not researched this myself - I have been told it by people I consider to be reliable scholars). Gay Christians tend not to see themselves in the phrase 'giving up natural intercourse with women', since many of them have never had it! And they also read on in verses 29-32 ('...every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice...envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness... gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents...' etc.) and think 'Does this really describe me?'<br /><br />I have personally wrestled with these texts with gay and lesbian Christians who are struggling to be faithful to God. Many of them have spent years praying that God would change their sexual orientation, and have finally given up, since he does not appear to be answering their prayer, and have concluded that he does not want to do so.<br /><br />To me, it isn't a simple matter to be pastor to people like that. In the same way, in any given Christian congregation today, I suspect that 25-30% of the couples in the congregation are divorced and remarried, and many of them were not divorced on anything like what we would refer to as scriptural grounds. What constitutes a faithful pastoral response to that situation?<br /><br />I confess that on this issue I have more questions than answers. But I ask you to believe that I am struggling to submit to the authority of Christ, as you are.Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29445392205180402532013-07-14T22:39:22.228+12:002013-07-14T22:39:22.228+12:00Hi Peter,
Just got in from evening church. Will r...Hi Peter,<br /><br />Just got in from evening church. Will respond more fully later in the week. But can I say that the topic of divorce and Evangelicals is certainly worth a discussion. <br /><br />Albert Mohler on his blog wrote this:<br /><br /><b>Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing.<br />Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience.</b><br /><br />He makes a very very good point. His blog is below:<br />http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/30/divorce-the-scandal-of-the-evangelical-conscience/<br /><br />in Christ<br />JoshuaJoshua Bovishttp://creideamhamhain.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62004647074986076912013-07-14T21:22:29.804+12:002013-07-14T21:22:29.804+12:00Hi Joshua
We are writing comments here, not textbo...Hi Joshua<br />We are writing comments here, not textbooks: in a textbook I think I would discuss the whole question of how we make decisions in the church.<br /><br />Nevertheless individuals in the church do have some discretion about matters. Thus (as a licensed priest) I may refuse to remarry a divorcee on the grounds that I do not believe it can be done "theologically;" I may so remarry; and I may hedge my bets. As far as I know among my colleagues, whether I think of the "organisation" I belong to, or of the gospel fellowship of (relatively) like-minded evangelicals that I belong to (at least I think I am still included :) ), these views are held to. I am not aware that the variety of views on the remarriage of divorcees concomitantly makes such collegiality a matter in which "two different faiths" are held across the groups.<br /><br />Thus I need convincing that if there are differing views on same sex marriage held by Bible-believing, Bible-teaching Christians, that trying to hold ourselves together is a promotion of organisational unity rather than a maintaining of gospel unity.<br /><br />(As for myself: I keep thinking about these things. I want to be faithful to the whole counsel of God revealed in Scripture, a counsel which admits of God's love for humanity seeking to bless its flourishing. I am concerned lest I misunderstand the Bible and deny humanity's full flourishing.)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27987172793897820702013-07-14T19:37:36.385+12:002013-07-14T19:37:36.385+12:00@ Tim,
Sorry about the numerous typos in my last ...@ Tim, <br />Sorry about the numerous typos in my last post to you. <br /><br />@ Peter, <br /><br />So which one is it then? You place too much onus on the individual. Scripture is clear. Jesus affirms heterosexual marriage very strongly. The Apostle Paul (speaking with the authority of Christ, as an Apostle) also affirms marriage and condemns all forms of sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage. <br /><br />Peter, respectfully it does seem from your previous post that you are trying to stand between two opinions that are held in the context of two different faiths at the same time. This is not true unity Peter. We are called to maintain the unity of the Gospel, not promote organisational unity.Joshua Bovishttp://creideamhamhain.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-56917431803882513642013-07-14T17:52:18.548+12:002013-07-14T17:52:18.548+12:00Hi Joshua
If I have written words which suggest we...Hi Joshua<br />If I have written words which suggest we cannot know what God thinks about same sex marriage etc, then I need to restate what I am saying!<br /><br />(1) I think a reader of the Bible can make a claim that they know, via the Bible what God thinks about same sex marriage etc. (Anglicans are used to our brothers and sisters variously claiming God is agin it and God is for it!)<br /><br />(2) I also think a reader of the Bible can make a claim to be uncertain of what God thinks about same sex marriage etc (e.g. because not specifically mentioned) even while being certain about other matters on which the Bible speaks directly.<br /><br />An analogy in my mind concerns the remarriage of divorcees (beyond the narrow grounds seemingly allowed by Jesus). Some are certain this should not take place, some are certain this should take place, some are still weighing the evidence.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37087585272784449632013-07-14T17:40:13.967+12:002013-07-14T17:40:13.967+12:00Tim,
My response initially was to Peter and I sta...Tim,<br /><br />My response initially was to Peter and I stand by what I said. This whole issue about SSM, pan sexuality (esp pro homosexuality) is to do with the authority of Scripture. And since this is the main issue within the Anglican communion and myself being an Anglican priest who meant his ordination vows when it comes to the Articles, I do not feel that I am (nor have been remiss) in bringing up the 39 Articles.<br /><br />I realise that on blogs there is no nuance, but your response to me did some rather like a rant. And also I did not like the implication that I was being dishonest. You ask me question after question and then presume to know my answer is going to be, so perhaps you may understand why I don't really want to engage with you.<br />As I said, blogs are notorious for their inability to convey tone and nuance and inflection and if your response to me was a genuine, you really want me to explain them then I am happy to. For your encouragement I believe that they are not contradictions and can be explained. I am happy to engage with you, if that was the spirit in which you made them. And I apologise is that is the case.<br />Your call.<br /><br />As for the gay issue, this is gospel issue in my view for people to endorse something that Scripture is very clear is sin and evidence and expression of rebellion against God (like all other sexual immorality) is sending a message to homosexuals that they can "come as they are and stay as they" which is not the gospel as it is a gospel which is devoid of repentance. Which leads me back to my original response to Peter. In all truth Tim, I know for many Christians this is painful issue, in my previous profession (hairdresser) I have seen the pain that homosexuals go through, but there is no way I am aware of explaining to homosexual people and those who are pro-gay what Scripture says in a way that makes them think I am not being unloving. In their minds, if I were truly loving, I would approve of their lifestyle, but for me to do so would be going against Scripture and being extremely unloving. <br /><br />I respectfully disagree with Peter in him saying that we cannot know what God thinks of this and/or same sex marriage. Scripture is crystal clear on this. But he knows I think this already.<br /><br />Your call Tim.<br /><br />JoshuaJoshua Bovishttp://creideamhamhain.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39898296075814268292013-07-14T15:53:29.408+12:002013-07-14T15:53:29.408+12:00Peter said: 'I wonder if we are allowed to liv...Peter said: 'I wonder if we are allowed to live with genuine uncertainties (i.e. a genuine uncertainty as to how God views faithful, stable, permanent same sex partnerships ... compared with a 'pretend uncertainty' because, in reality, we are journeying to a new certainty that such relationships are perfectly fine in God's sight)?'<br /><br />Peter, thank you - that is very well put.Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29719006386969624632013-07-14T13:19:34.111+12:002013-07-14T13:19:34.111+12:00Hi Tim // Joshua
I think "OP" means &qu...Hi Tim // Joshua<br /><br />I think "OP" means "original point" or "original post (topic)."<br /><br />The argument between you, minus any personalization, is important to this blog: how do we read Scripture, what is the relationship between 'authority' and 'interpretation', how do we interpret Scripture in order to uphold the authority of Scripture for Christian life (rather than try to undermine it), how do we interpret Scripture so that it is God's Word of life for our lives and not a dead law diminishing life in the Spirit?<br /><br />I do wonder, Joshua, whether there are more uncertainties than you appear to allow for. And I wonder if we are allowed to live with genuine uncertainties (i.e. a genuine uncertainty as to how God views faithful, stable, permanent same sex partnerships ... compared with a 'pretend uncertainty' because, in reality, we are journeying to a new certainty that such relationships are perfectly fine in God's sight)?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53506952071806506712013-07-14T09:52:59.898+12:002013-07-14T09:52:59.898+12:00Joshua said: 'The reason I have not engaged wi...Joshua said: 'The reason I have not engaged with you on this is that I think it moves away from Peter's OP and also I think you are being argumentative because you are cranky. I could spend the next hour or two responding to all of your points, but I suspect it would not be productive. I think you have already made up your mind. '<br /><br />Hi Joshua:<br /><br />On the issue of homosexuality, my mind was completely made up until the day my daughter told me she was a lesbian. Now I have a lot of doubts about my certainties.<br /><br />On the issue of war and peace, my mind was completely made up until a few years ago when the writings of John Howard Yoder came floating in my direction.<br /><br />I do not seem to be constitutionally capable of certainty any more. Sometimes I envy those who appear to possess it.<br /><br />'Argumentative because I am cranky?' I am certainly argumentative at times. But cranky? I'm not sure how you would know that (it's only a couple of days since Bosco kindly called me 'a compassionate presence' here!).<br /><br />This all began when you made sweeping statements about how this was all to do with 'the authority of scripture' (i.e. those of us who aren't as sure as you are about homosexuality are denying the authority of scripture). I simply pointed out that accepting the authority of scripture doesn't necessarily mean accepting the authority of every statement of scripture, and gave a few examples. You then hit me over the head with the 39 Articles and their statement about interpreting one part of scripture so that it is repugnant to another. My response was simply to point out some obvious places where the new covenant abrogates parts of the old, and to ask you how you would interpret those discontinuities. At which point you accuse me of being cranky!!!<br /><br />As for whether or not I've steered the post away from Peter's 'OP' (whatever an OP may be, I have no idea) - well, my experience with Peter is that if he thinks we're getting off topic, he'll tell us.<br /><br />Speaking of which, Peter, if this post is getting a little too much like a personal scrap between Joshua and me, I know you'll do the right thing, and there certainly won't be any hard feelings on my part!!!Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-41386615518208212672013-07-13T21:56:02.184+12:002013-07-13T21:56:02.184+12:00From Fr Ron (not moderated - I pressed the Delete ...From Fr Ron (not moderated - I pressed the Delete rather than Publish button by mistake)<br /><br />Father Ron Smith has left a new comment on your post "Tragic marriage split through misunderstanding": <br /><br />" I could still be living as a lustful, fairly adept thief and nonchalant liar instead of having to endure the hard graft that I'm doing daily to try and come under the rule of Christ. I just don't get how you can be so quick to deny the transforming work of the Spirit of God who is completing the good work he began in me and sanctifying me more and more each day." - Zane Elliot - <br /><br />Zane, if you look carefully at any of my postings on this blog, I have never denied what you call 'the transforming work of the Spirit of God...sanctifying (us) more and more each day. In fact, one fruit of that work is that we come to the realisation that we can never attribute to our own efforts the sanctification that is going on within us - by the pure grace of God's redeeming work in Christ.<br /><br />You admit that you still have to struggle to remain within the orbit of god's saving grace; whereas I, as a priest of the Church - as well as part of the faithful laos - have to recognise that no effort of mine, no matter how godly, can ever earn the grace that has been made available by the loving mercy of God-in-Christ to redeem me - or anyone else.<br /><br />We cannot lift ourselves up by our own boot-straps. This fact has been acknowledged by Christians from the beginning. Redemption is God's free gift - given to all who recognise their need of it. My job is to help people understand their great need of redemption - not by threats of hell-fire; but by doing my very best to exemplify "the great love of God as revealed in the Son". <br /><br />Salvation history (in the wake of our redemption by OLJC) has been described, I think rather wisely, as : "One poor person showing another poor person where to find bread!" <br /><br />Blessings in your struggle, which is also my own! <br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7994067326779599762013-07-13T13:24:15.231+12:002013-07-13T13:24:15.231+12:00Tim,
There is a continuity and a dis-continuity b...Tim,<br /><br />There is a continuity and a dis-continuity between the Old and New Covenant. <br /><br />The reason I have not engaged with you on this is that I think it moves away from Peter's OP and also I think you are being argumentative because you are cranky. I could spend the next hour or two responding to all of your points, but I suspect it would not be productive. I think you have already made up your mind. <br /><br />JoshuaJoshua Bovishttp://creideamhamhain.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75922253892431173442013-07-13T10:20:35.458+12:002013-07-13T10:20:35.458+12:00Fr. Ron,
I've never claimed to be a Biblical...Fr. Ron, <br /><br />I've never claimed to be a Biblical Scholar, I majored in Systematics.<br /><br />Even so, you don't expect me to take the claim that Jesus will save everyone whether they repent or not seriously do you? You make a mockery of my faith. If repentance wasn't necessary I could still be living as a lustful, fairly adept thief and nonchalant liar instead of having to endure the hard graft that I'm doing daily to try and come under the rule of Christ. I just don't get how you can be so quick to deny the transforming work of the Spirit of God who is completing the good work he began in me and sanctifying me more and more each day.<br /><br />Jesus spoke of repentance often enough, check out Mk 1:15, and then the episode of Lk 10:13-16. <br /><br />John the Baptist preached repentance Mt 3:2, and Jesus certainly didn't say to him "oh John, cut out that repentance nonsense." <br /><br />When you speak of contradiction between the OT and NT are you suggesting then, that the moves made today, to condone behaviour which is considered to be sinful in both, is some kind of new writing of Scripture? Are we going to sanction and add the gospel of TEC to the canon? The 'contradiction' argument is a non-sense. The moral code has not changed - yes some of the customary purity Laws that ran as precursors to Jesus have now been revoked (mixed linens, dietary restrictions) but jesus himself is so clear that it isn't the outward ritual that makes one ceremonially unclean or clean, but the internal attitude of our hearts.<br /><br />And doesn't this all so clearly highlight the issues at hand? We do not submit in the same way to the Risen Christ. He loves us both, no doubt about it, but we can not mean the same thing when we talk of his atoning work on the cross. So how then, do you and I journey together? perhaps it works ok so long as you are in your part of the diocese, and I in mine, but when it comes to the unity required of the Church I can't hold up my end of the bargain with people who worship a different god. I wish there was a way ahead which was better than the idea that conservatives need to get over it and just accept this is happening, oh, and to stay in the ACANZP because we should be unified.Zane Elliottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-69451073413077689102013-07-13T04:24:17.422+12:002013-07-13T04:24:17.422+12:00" it has to be elevated to primary because we..." it has to be elevated to primary because we are now talking about God condoning something that was previously considered sinful in Scripture and tradition."<br /><br /> - Zane Elliot - <br /><br />Zane, do you realise how odd this sounds for a biblical scholar who ought to know jolly well that the N.T. writings have contradicted much of the O.T. philosophy on matters that were once considered just about incontestable by the Jewish community - most notably in the treatment of women in the community. <br /><br />Regarding your comment about the sort of 'Jesus' I proclaim; for me, Jesus does love sinners, He longs for them to repent, but His love does not cease if they do not. In fact, Jesus' love led him to 'give his life as a ransom for many' - a sure indication that "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us".<br /><br />I do think that your view may betray one of the evangelical problems with the real intent of God; Who "Sent His Son into the world to save sinners". Our sinful human nature is a reality! Jesus himself stated that he did not come to save the righteous, but sinners! He, himself, did not specify the word 'repentant' sinners. <br /><br />Salvation is in the hands of God - not even, solely, the Church.<br /><br />"God, have mercy on me, a sinner!"<br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54765674935561351352013-07-12T14:07:08.712+12:002013-07-12T14:07:08.712+12:00And yet Roger, I wonder if the posturing of Jeffer...And yet Roger, I wonder if the posturing of Jefferts Schori of this being a 'new move of the Spirit' does make this a primary issue. <br /><br />To my mind at least labelling this issue and agenda in such a manner means that it has to be elevated to primary because we are now talking about God condoning something that was previously considered sinful in Scripture and tradition.<br /><br />When we consider how this agenda is pushed (i.e. the TEC way come hell or high-water)how should the middle respond? And what way forward is there for conservatives who have seen this elevated to a primary issue? (I'm searching for a way forward here!) <br /><br />Just this week the Diocese of South Carolina was told that over 100 clerics have been given the boot because they hold an orthodox position. Maybe the concept of us being united is already a joke.<br /><br />Fr. Ron - how can we be united around a Christ who we both proclaim is different? the Christ I speak of loves all sinners, and grants all repentant sinners pardon. The Christ I've seen you proclaim here accepts people wholesale with no need for repentance and with no hope of transformation of the sinful nature. There's no way you and I can unite around the same Christ, for they look different.Zane Elliottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88718476015238987362013-07-12T05:37:29.887+12:002013-07-12T05:37:29.887+12:00Thanks, Roger, for your clear response to the ques...Thanks, Roger, for your clear response to the question of the relative importance of these issues - gay marriage etc., - to the basic understanding of what unites us in Christ.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-69453775303689323062013-07-11T20:04:13.283+12:002013-07-11T20:04:13.283+12:00Yes indeed Zane,
Both Conservatives and Liberals ...Yes indeed Zane,<br /><br />Both Conservatives and Liberals each in their own way deem gay marriage a Primary Issue. I suggested that the last Lambeth Conference tackle the question of 'primaryness / adiaphora.' Akinola and Jefferts Schori would have then been on the same side! Let's have no compelling of any conscientious minorities over gay marriage, because it is not a Primary Issue.<br /><br />Kurt,<br />Thanks for your agreement. For me, though, the recognition that gay marriage is not a Primary Issue means that we need to speak up more, because too many people assume that it is Primary, get away with it, and thereby forment disunity in Jesus' Church. <br /><br />I reckon that we 'not Primary' people are the silent majority. Most people with whom I talk privately, especially here in the UK, are concerned that too much energy and focus is on gay marriage. But these mild-thinking people don't speak up much. Many feel awkward that their answer to 'Is Gay Marriage OK for the Church?' is 'I don't know.' So the mild majority is quiet and only the strident minorities on both sides are heard. The middle ground needs to rise up and be heard! Don't sit by and let Jesus' Church be rent apart!<br /><br />Gay marriage is not a 'false gospel' - that is a divisive exaggeration. It is a development of the definition of marriage but it doesn't change the gospel as we have received it and proclaim it in the Creeds.<br /><br />See http://gaymarriagemaybe.wordprss.com for more.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-21298156919247453032013-07-11T17:04:25.720+12:002013-07-11T17:04:25.720+12:00Joshua, I notice you haven't shared with us ho...Joshua, I notice you haven't shared with us how you resolve the contradictions I pointed out.<br /><br />By the way, I'm not a liberal. I believe every word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and it's because I fully accept Chalcedonian Christology that I see the new covenant that Jesus brought as a better covenant than the old. Seems to me there's something about that in Hebrews.Tim Chestertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13676859074652475474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65476534133895869952013-07-11T16:47:12.259+12:002013-07-11T16:47:12.259+12:00Heh, Mike!Heh, Mike!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70500697346615813582013-07-11T16:32:24.058+12:002013-07-11T16:32:24.058+12:00Kia ora Peter,
Re women clergy, you say "I d...Kia ora Peter,<br /><br />Re women clergy, you say "I do know I find most of them to be faithful in serving Christ, keen on saying the creeds, reading Scripture and preaching from it. Which does not exactly add up to evidence that most are liberal!"<br /><br />Sounds like all the liberal clergy I know.mike greensladenoreply@blogger.com