tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post9099868369051526413..comments2024-03-29T22:00:02.999+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: I wish Reform Ireland would tell us what they really think Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88868513207782869342013-10-06T22:25:07.500+13:002013-10-06T22:25:07.500+13:00Hi Bosco // Shawn // Bryden
I think I can see why...Hi Bosco // Shawn // Bryden<br /><br />I think I can see why and how each of you have been making your most recent comments re comments involving each other. As moderator I am concerned that if we continue in this vein I am going to have to work harder than I wish to ensure that all is fair in love and blog comments :)<br /><br />Thus I direct you to what I consider to be the essential point Bosco is making, for your further consideration, if you wish to go further in this discussion. Namely,<br /><br />on certain matters we Anglicans appear to be able to go further than Jesus himself did, thus might we be able to do so on other matters?<br /><br />on certain matters of disagreement among ourselves we nevertheless seem to be able to continue to receive communion from one another, thus might we on other matters of disagreement also be able to continue to receive communion from one another?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59440464337512238032013-10-06T22:13:32.742+13:002013-10-06T22:13:32.742+13:00Shawn, I think you are putting words in my mouth t...Shawn, I think you are putting words in my mouth that I did not use. Nowhere did I suggest you accept error, or want to compound it by adding even more error.<br /><br />Bryden, I did not see a point, and certainly can see no question October 5, 2013 at 4:13 PM that I was addressing. <br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23628535699260380852013-10-06T16:48:19.062+13:002013-10-06T16:48:19.062+13:00G'day Bosco - and please run that past me one ...G'day Bosco - and please run that past me one more time [October 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM] and show how exactly it addresses my immediate question/point: October 5, 2013 at 4:13 PM. Thanks! (For currently I sense it simply evades it ...)Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57306345038027008522013-10-06T14:16:18.131+13:002013-10-06T14:16:18.131+13:00No, Ron. It's MY credo. I may defend GAGCON fr...No, Ron. It's MY credo. I may defend GAGCON from inaccurate and unfair attacks, but I only speak for myself.<br /><br />Bosco,<br /><br />Do not put words in my mouth that I did not use. I'm not interested in playing word games.<br /><br />Being in communion with those I do not agree with, does not mean I accept error, or want to compound it by adding even more error.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20551506499386613442013-10-06T09:55:48.629+13:002013-10-06T09:55:48.629+13:00"Thus, how to get along with or live with dif..."Thus, how to get along with or live with difference, is of no interest to me." - The GAFCON Credo?<br /><br />More likely the DGAF-CON credo...mike greensladenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70412396056560169872013-10-06T08:45:15.858+13:002013-10-06T08:45:15.858+13:00Greetings
Might I suggest that in the very denial...Greetings<br /><br />Might I suggest that in the very denial of my point lies its deeper affirmation?<br /><br />Bryden points to a way he has found to extend Jesus’ definition of marriage and its exception further (in theory, and may I presume for argument’s sake, in practice, in that in his long pastoral practice he has presided over the marriage of a divorcee whose divorce originates other than for adultery? If that presumption is incorrect, read Peter, or anyone else that fits that criterion). <br /><br />Shawn does not find Bryden’s reasoning convincing, in fact has no desire to just get along with Bryden in his difference but works, prays and fasts for God to bring correction to Bryden on all matters in which he deviates from God's Word. Yet, while Shawn does so, might I posit that Shawn has actually received communion with Bryden, nay from Bryden’s presiding at a Eucharist at which Shawn communicates.<br /><br />Fr A, Bishop B, Rev C, Mr D, Mrs E, etc have all found ways to extend Jesus’ definition of marriage and its exception further than Bryden (in theory, and may I presume for argument’s sake, in practice…) Might we not, using the paradigm of the previous paragraph, find it possible to not only receive communion together but even with any ordained presiding (quote your Articles and Montanism history here) all the while praying and fasting for God to bring correction to each one (and oneself) on all matters in which they deviate from God's Word?<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72288476214523594272013-10-05T23:07:44.929+13:002013-10-05T23:07:44.929+13:00"Thus, how to get along with or live with dif..."Thus, how to get along with or live with difference, is of no interest to me." - The GAFCON Credo?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37641983081812746742013-10-05T19:44:11.603+13:002013-10-05T19:44:11.603+13:00Hi Ron,
God defines marriage, not me. He does so ...Hi Ron,<br /><br />God defines marriage, not me. He does so at two of the most important places in Scripture, the first chapter of Genesis, and again in the Gospel, in which Jesus clearly affirms the teaching of Genesis. One man and one women. It is too clear to be misunderstood, or a matter of opinion. Thus it is not me who defines Biblical marriage, but God.<br /><br />Hi Bosco.<br /><br />The simple answer to your suggestion is that I don't accept no-fault divorce in the Church, or any other deviation from what God has said. <br /><br />So I have no desire to just get along with difference. I work, pray and fast for God to bring correction to the Anglican Church on all matters in which it deviates from God's Word.<br /><br />Thus, how to get along with or live with difference, is of no interest to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61485989457606195092013-10-05T16:13:06.241+13:002013-10-05T16:13:06.241+13:00I sense Bosco that the sorts of difference people ...I sense Bosco that the sorts of difference people are prepared to live with have to do with how we try to justify at all those differences. <br /><br />For example, I have repeatedly directed you to the Winchester Report of the CoE which deals with remarriage of divorced persons in church. Yet there has never been anything remotely like it (other than the St Michael Report, which actually does not come up with a definitive verdict, and so is perhaps not equivalent) with regards to same-gender issues. <br /><br />Until such a time as there are genuinely commensurate degrees of equivalence regarding said “differences” I would suggest that calls for unity/staying together are all the weaker.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81792546261839229382013-10-05T13:42:59.425+13:002013-10-05T13:42:59.425+13:00Hi Bosco
I wonder if I might encourage you to be m...Hi Bosco<br />I wonder if I might encourage you to be more open to the value of talk (x lots) and study (x lots)?<br /><br />Reflecting at least on my own experience of talk x study x lots, I believe it is helping me to better work out that we might be a church which would live with disagreement and may yet take me to the point of working out HOW we might live with disagreement!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64378797005414760452013-10-05T10:29:02.910+13:002013-10-05T10:29:02.910+13:00Greetings
I would like to meta-reflect on the Sha...Greetings<br /><br />I would like to meta-reflect on the Shawn-Alison discussion. I think digging a little deeper may move us forward.<br /><br />Shawn limits marriage to man-woman-life-except-for-adultery, calling this “Biblical Marriage”. It is clear that Anglicanism in NZ departs from Shawn’s Biblical Marriage (eg in “marrying” people who have “no-fault” divorce). How does Shawn react when bishop, archdeacon, vicar, spouse, or others with whom he worships, preside over a wedding that does not fit within his Biblical Marriage definition? And they do. How do those who accept such marriages and preside at them relate with “Biblical Marriage” holders such as Shawn? <br /><br />I think within that may lie the way forward to how we live together with those who would extend exceptions differently than merely into no-fault divorce. <br /><br />Yes, I again encountered this week, someone who changed from a strong, public supporter of the above “Biblical Marriage” position to openness to marrying gays – but I contend that such switching in either direction is and will continue to be rare.<br /><br />More time for talk, talk, talk, study, study, study on marriage is not going to bear some magical new fruit, IMO. Better to work out how now to live together in disagreement. Anglicanism has some classic examples of that, and IMO the paradigm of Shawn living within a church that holds a different practice to his ideal, does also.<br /><br />If I have misrepresented anything in Shawn’s position I am sorry – the point I am making is not dependent on the correlation with him.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26853066075439530882013-10-04T15:38:43.261+13:002013-10-04T15:38:43.261+13:00Shawn, with all due respect re your last comment: ...Shawn, with all due respect re your last comment: What you may be confusing with "God's will" on - not only the marriage question, but many others related to gender and sexuality in the Bible - is what you personally have discerned as 'God's will': Which may be two different things for other people than you.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17256859531441307342013-10-04T14:45:10.316+13:002013-10-04T14:45:10.316+13:00Hi Allison,
It is God giving the clarification, ...Hi Allison, <br /><br />It is God giving the clarification, or exception. That's my point. In my opinion we should, as Christians, listen to what God says, and nowhere does God define marriage as anything other than heterosexual. Why He does so (for example the issue of gender difference) may be interesting to discuss, but irrelevant. <br /><br />God defines marriage, and IMO only His definition is legitimate.<br /><br />Ron,<br /><br />The democratic State is irrelevant. In my opinion Christians obey God first in all things. The State is not God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1204193090116446742013-10-04T13:09:55.612+13:002013-10-04T13:09:55.612+13:00“My opposition to changing Biblical marriage … is ...“My opposition to changing Biblical marriage … is based solely on the fact that the only time God defines marriage, He defines it as one man and one women for life.” Shawn<br /><br />Shawn, is that "only time" the one where He immediately goes on to give an exception to that definition?<br /><br />AlisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42599200298511546792013-10-03T20:52:04.575+13:002013-10-03T20:52:04.575+13:00Bryden, just for the record, which 'poll' ...Bryden, just for the record, which 'poll' are you speaking of in your latest assertion? Was it an overall poll of the N.Z. population, or only a register of protesters against the Bill?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31531534492556483722013-10-03T15:52:57.375+13:002013-10-03T15:52:57.375+13:00Three things might be important here Ron, in the w...Three things might be important here Ron, in the way you set this matter up - or rather, try to set matters up.<br /><br />1. The Beehive has its own agenda often in the world of ‘politics’. Viz. the actual poll numbers among voting adults who supported the Amendment of Marriage Bill - or rather did <i>not</i> support the amendment. The votes among MPs were not reflected at all by these poll numbers. In addition ...<br /><br />2. As we see so clearly in Doug Farrow’s Touchstone article, you have quietly surrendered to the prevailing view that modern state law is preeminent in this matter. Why? When history is so utterly against such a view! See for example http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f So that lastly ...<br /><br />3. Once you surrender to state law in this area, what’s to stop positive law becoming supreme in <i>all</i> things?! And please don’t trumpet “democracy” at me! For what do you make of the old USSR’s cry of “democratic centralism”?<br /><br />All in all, for those able to read the social script of our contemporary (political) culture, far more is going on here than you seem to have noticed, Ron. ‘Marriage’ might be now a “legal” issue, but this has a context. There has been in the society/politics interface in western countries a most important shift these past 50 years; Christians neglect this to their literal peril. And while there might be ‘opportunities’ opened up by this shift, there lurk real dangers as well. At least Doug Farrow has alerted his readership to some of these dynamics.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77249933369415228512013-10-03T10:26:16.624+13:002013-10-03T10:26:16.624+13:00It is not strictly true - at least in the sphere o...It is not strictly true - at least in the sphere of democratic government, such as we have in New Zealand - that 'only God defines marriage'. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Government defines marriage as the Union between two beople, whether heterosexual or Same-Sex partnerships.<br /><br />This is also true in many other democratic countries of the world we live in. And that definition is absolutely legal.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51813394426904695972013-10-02T19:18:39.667+13:002013-10-02T19:18:39.667+13:00I actually don't make that argument Alison. My...I actually don't make that argument Alison. My opposition to changing Biblical marriage is not based on the relations between the Persons of the Trinity, nor on the claim only heterosexual marriage reflects the Divine image. My opposition is based solely on the fact that the only time God defines marriage, He defines it as one man and one women for life.<br /><br />Thus, no inconsistency on my part. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82169043435235701842013-10-02T10:21:26.215+13:002013-10-02T10:21:26.215+13:00“I agree with the doctrine of the eternal subordin...“I agree with the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father, and male headship, rightly understood.<br /><br />The two problems I see with interpreting the subordination of the Son to the Father as a model of male-female relations is that it that the Son and the Father are not husband and wife. …<br />The other problem is that the Father is always 'Father' and never 'Mother' it does not follow that there is a direct correlation between the Father and male human beings.” Shawn<br /><br />That is correct. Arguing from the Trinity to human conclusions only works for those things that one agrees with such as gender difference as a requirement for marriage.<br /><br />AlisonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88241701583830583282013-09-28T15:24:44.588+12:002013-09-28T15:24:44.588+12:00"... majority ... vast majority ... overwhelm..."... majority ... vast majority ... overwhelming majority..."<br /><br />I get it! <br /><br />As I say, I have heard exactly the same thing before, over many years, from "moderate evangelicals" in USA, Canada and England. A constant mantra that everything was going swimmingly.<br /><br />Okay, let's wait and see what happens in Ireland - touch base again in a year or two? Given the "overwhelming support" amongst evangelicals, you shouldn't have a problem... ;o)MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90485526436356494412013-09-28T07:59:43.772+12:002013-09-28T07:59:43.772+12:00MichaelA, I am not sure it is theoretical at prese...MichaelA, I am not sure it is theoretical at present - the Reform Ireland statement surely cannot be read as anything but a precursor to some form of separation.<br /><br />Yes, of course my judgement about CofI laity may be wrong but as an Irish Anglican it is a judgement offered in good faith. The basis of the judgement is the fact that Reform is very much a minority organisation in the CofI in general and amongst evangelicals in particular.<br /><br />As to CEs not leaving over WO, the Reform Ireland statement does somewhat beg the question as to why this should be. The 1990 GS approved WO to priesthood and episcopate. This, according to the statement, fundamentally disordered the CofI.<br /><br />Reform, however, came into existence in Ireland after the GS decision, and after evangelicals overwhelmingly supported WO.<br /><br />As to being worried - no, I am not. The CofI will continue to be enriched by a strong and vibrant majority evangelical tradition supportive of WO. I do, however, worry about the implications for mission of disunity, of a debate over WO when it has the expressed wish of the overwhelming majority in the CofI, and of the internal conflicts likely within CofI evangelicalism over a matter regarded by the vast majority of evangelicals as settled.laudable Practicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03067417779274226101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35213333594403692762013-09-28T01:02:25.449+12:002013-09-28T01:02:25.449+12:00BC wrote:
"Within NI I see little ,if any, e...BC wrote:<br /><br />"Within NI I see little ,if any, evidence that there is a "large mass" of laity willing to support an alternative Anglica polity."<br /><br />I am sure you don't. That may say more about you than about the Church of Ireland. I am not being rude, just saying that it has been the same story in USA, Canada and England over the last 15 years: Lots of people saying that they don't see any sign of support for an alternative polity. Except that we now have such an alternative polity in USA and Canada, and it is clearly happening in England as well. That does raise an issue about the judgment of those who assumed it could never happen. <br /><br />"When WO passed GS, the attempt to create a 'continuing CofI' attracted no support amongst laity."<br /><br />But why would you expect it to? Conservative evangelicals don't split over women's ordination, because they can just run their congregations with male clergy, and ignore the bishop. Evangelicals didn't split in the USA or Canada over WO, but they did eventually split. And in England evangelicals are starting to split, but not over WO even though they don't believe in it. <br /><br />"As for the non-Reform evangelicals, 'moderate' is perhaps the wrong phrase to use. They are a majority, they are vibrant, they are growing parishes, and they support WO."<br /><br />Well, if that is the case than those who disagree with Reform have nothing to worry about, do they? :o)<br /><br />"While property rules in the CofI complicate matters, I would agree thay something akin to AMIE is likely - but it will be very much a minority stance amongst Irish evangelical Anglicans, clergy and laity."<br /><br />I wouldn't doubt that it will start that way. Its still a minority stance in the USA also. But ACNA had added 300 congregations in the first four years of its existence, while TECUSA is shrinking. <br /><br />Anyway, this is all theoretical at present.MichaelAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9299797559687054352013-09-27T22:31:14.865+12:002013-09-27T22:31:14.865+12:00GAFCON, Anglican Mainstream, and similar groups do...GAFCON, Anglican Mainstream, and similar groups do represent traditional Anglicanism. Moreover they point to a much larger constituency in the Communion that is tired of the constant compromising with the spirit of the times.<br /><br />The vast majority of Anglicans in the global Communion are evangelical charismatic. Liberal-revisionists are a minority, and certainly don't represent mainstream Christianity. Thus it is not a "con/evo ploy" but simply the truth. I have no doubt many Liberal-revisionists find all this "distasteful". Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53088565081366187292013-09-27T17:22:49.109+12:002013-09-27T17:22:49.109+12:00MichaelA, many thanks for the further comments. I ...MichaelA, many thanks for the further comments. I restricted my comments to Northern Ireland due to the fact that I am not aware of any significant support amongst laity for a Reform agenda in the Republic. <br /><br />Within NI I see little ,if any, evidence that there is a "large mass" of laity willing to support an alternative Anglica polity. When WO passed GS, the attempt to create a 'continuing CofI' attracted no support amongst laity. There is an inherent conservatism amongst CofI laity in NI which will not, I think, be persuaded to join an alternative Anglican polity.<br /><br />As for the non-Reform evangelicals, 'moderate' is perhaps the wrong phrase to use. They are a majority, they are vibrant, they are growing parishes, and they support WO. <br /><br />Where I do agree is on the likely trajectory of Reform Ireland. It is difficult not to read the statement as precursor to some form of separation, not least because it elevates to creedal status their view of male headship. While property rules in the CofI complicate matters, I would agree thay something akin to AMIE is likely - but it will be very much a minority stance amongst Irish evangelical Anglicans, clergy and laity.laudable Practicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03067417779274226101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62131534607764132222013-09-27T16:20:44.132+12:002013-09-27T16:20:44.132+12:00“I agree with the doctrine of the eternal subordin...“I agree with the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father ...”<br />“... radical equality of the Persons of the Trinity, which cannot be discerned in Scripture.”<br />Shawn<br /><br />I sense Shawn these two lines of an earlier comment are far better appraised by another, richer understanding of the God of the Gospel as attested in the Scriptures. <br /><br />Succinctly put: each divine Person is essentially disposed towards the Other(s) by means of an essentially kenotic glorifying of the Other(s). In the case of the Son, both eternally and economically, this comes across as ‘humble obedience’. The fault of the likes of Reform and those who go along with their post is in stopping there and skewing this piece of evidence. They fail to notice Scripture thereafter also directs our attention to the Father’s glorying of the Son and the Holy Spirit’s act(s) of glorification, each according to their divine idiomatic identity. In my more irreverent moments, I speak of the heavenly passing of the buck, so eager are the Persons to always lift up the Other(s). Nor is such a line of thinking mere speculation or akin to angels on heads of pins. On the contrary, it lays bare the absolute well-spring of the divine character, in mercy and love and compassion, in truth and faithfulness and ... glory! And much follows thereafter ...Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.com