What is wrong with this argument?

The postscripted article I linked to in yesterday's post includes the following paragraph by William Oddie as he explores the likelihood of Rome deviating from its own script re marriage and divorce:

"In an interesting opinion piece in the New York Times on Kasper’s proposal, which is roughly that a second “marriage” might be tolerated but not accepted, Ross Douthat comments that “whatever individuals and pastors decide to take upon their own consciences, declaring the reception of Communion licit for the remarried-but-not-annulled in any systematic way seems impossible without real changes — each with its own potential doctrinal ripples — to one or more of three theologically-important Catholic ideas: The understanding that people in grave sin should not generally receive the Eucharist, the understanding that adultery is always a grave sin, and/or the understanding that a valid sacramental marriage is indissoluble.”"

The whole of Douthat's article and the whole of Oddie's reflection deserves a read.

But here I am interested in your responses, your critiques of the logic expressed here in support of the idea that a divorced then remarried person should not receive the eucharist. I have a thought or two myself ... but would be interested in yours before I set mine down in print.

To set the scene let me say that Roman Catholic doctrinal understanding is always impressive in its consistency and in its desire for objectivity. But I do not think it is just the Protestant in me that says something is not right with the above argument! Comment away ...

Sexuality contextuality?

POSTSCRIPT - on where the Roman church may or may not be heading re adapting to context, on the reasons why it likely finds itself unable to adapt, and on the coherency between its doctrine and its practice, untroubled by the times in which we live, read William Oddie.

START OF POST

Christians have shown an ability to adapt our traditional general rule of sexuality (no sex outside of monogamous marriage) because context merits adaptation. Polygamous converts, for example, in some contexts at least, have not been asked to jettison wives 2, 3, 4 etc. Remarriage of divorcees (beyond the 'pastoral exceptions' of Jesus and Paul) is accepted in some churches (and, frankly, my observations of some annulments in the Roman Catholic church have looked like a subtle form of finding a way to remarry divorcees while trying to strictly adhere to Jesus' teaching).

We do not talk about it much hereabouts Down Under, but there would appear to be more youth leaders living with their boy/girl friends than there used to be 'in my day' (when I knew not one such domestic coupling among my peers as we worked with youth groups), with numerous church leaders either implicitly or even explicitly colluding in this state of affairs.

Yet from such observations it would be a bit too fast and loose to move to a 'context has changed so Christian morality must change' conclusion. I do not sense any appetite, even on the part of young people, for the church to come up with some kind of synodical approval of sex outside of marriage. In remarrying divorcees the church is acting as much in sorrow as in celebration. Marriage is meant to be for life. Christian ministers do not agree to marry couples who want to trial marriage or stipulate in a contract that it is for a fixed period of time. While we understand the logic of mercy which leads us to accept polygamous converts, it is difficult to imagine the church universal finding any context in which it felt justified in conducting weddings for wives 2, 3, 4, etc so that Mr Husband has more than one wife at a time.

Sexuality blesses us with children and curses us with all kinds of questions about approved relationships. In respect of the questions, the church generally has not lost (as far as I can tell) its commitment to the ideal of monogamous, permanent marriage for a man and a woman yet it has in various ways across its manifold forms (i.e. denominations) found ways to 'cope with reality.' That is, the church has been alive to context even as it has sought to be faithful to its text, to Scripture.

Sometimes the church has been barely alert to its context (see, for instance, as a misjudgment of a church, the promulgation of Humanae Vitae and its subsequent tremendous disregard re artificial contraception by a multitude of Roman Catholics) and other times it has seemed so alive to it that the church has blessed the lead taken by secular leaders (see, for instance, those churches supporting gay marriage as it is legalised across many countries in the 21st century). It would be a brave church leader or theologian who stood up in the assembly and said, "I perfectly understand today's context and so I offer my precisely measured recipe for appropriately adapting the teaching of the church to the reality of our day."

Yet confronted by context we must offer some kind of understanding, however imperfectly or too hastily formed and where adaptation is called for there is normally a pressing pastoral set of issues generating the call. A few years after the availability of reliable artificial contraception the Roman hierarchy may have misunderstood the impact this technological development would have, but it rightly proposed that in this age we needed more than ever to respect human life, especially the life of the unborn. Some churches may yet be judged by history to have married the spirit of the age in declaring support for gay marriage, but society is changing before our eyes and those churches are attempting some kind of Christian response to the change. Same sex couples are asking for the protection of their relationship which marriage law offers: is the church to declare itself to be utterly free of concern for the well being of relationships which assist the good order of society? Surely every church in the West, if offered the bare choice of blessing faithful stable same sex relationships or blessing promiscuity would opt for the former over the latter? Even if we are against gay marriage for sound theological reasons, can we say what we are for in respect of couples seeking to live a sober, faithful, committed life together?

Further, as the Church of England is now experiencing, our rapidly changing societies around marriage laws are catalysing challenges around employment/appointment of clergy (e.g. here).

Perhaps the answer is a vigorous purging of church members in non-approved relationships. Perhaps we need to be black and white rather than (to coin a phrase) fifty shades of gray. Perhaps the future growth and vigor of the church is precisely located in crystal clarity on homosexuality: chastity or nowt. Yet put like that, is there the slightest tremor of doubt that would cause the church to consider that some kind of adaptation to context in the 21st century is required, to this context in which we are finding ourselves living? Do Western churches wish to be like the Anglican Church in Uganda whose Archbishop has just announced that the draconian law punishing homosexuals should NOT have been overturned by its supreme court? Is this the way we wish to go?

Neither Jesus nor Paul knew of licensing bishops, the consequences for employment when a license is withdrawn, the possibility of the affected person litigating against the church, the wider ramifications of being church in a society which wonders what the fuss is all about when we look like we are against love and for law.

Yet, to repeat myself from above, we are the church and we have ideals. We are called to be salt and light. We are not without divine help as to how to be salt and light in this generation: Pope Francis offers some models for leading a church which changes its ideals not one whit but adjusts the tone with which it speaks.

Here Down Under, Anglicans are invited to consider and work with Motion 30. It is an amazing motion when we consider context: both the context of a divided church and the context of a changing society, for to both those contexts the Motion speaks, and for Anglicans engaging with both contexts the Motion offers a way forward for engaging with each other and with our societies in these islands. It is premature to leave now - for where does leaving take the leavers? To a 'purer' church, yes, but that church has still to work out its witness in the same social context as before.

Some of us have friends and family across the divide in our church, and embedded in the social context in relationships which do not fit the ideals of the church. The least duty we owe them is to work through the process ahead of us.

Oh dear, David, you make me laugh!

Good grief, who are David Virtue's sources?

If only he would interview me - he knows where to find me - instead of interviewing his typewriter and coming up with this excoriation which is well suited to TEC but not so well suited to ACANZP which he confesses he does not really know.

Anyway, you can rely on David Virtue for a laugh when he talks about me. This is not my first excoriation at his typeface!

PS If you want to see a real train wreck in action, well a metaphorical one, have a look at this interview of the leader of one of our political parties.

PPS Dear David, Is this the Anglicanism you crusade for, the Anglicanism that wants to punish homosexuals in draconian ways? Sincerely, The Watching World.

The politics of Jesus - Monday 4 August 2014

It is remarkable that the beginning of the First World War one hundred years ago (today, re Britain's declaration) is being remembered against a tragic series of conflicts which arguably are a continuation of that war: Gaza as a reaction to the State of Israel which came into being as a reaction to the Holocaust which occurred in a defeated Germany prone to the rise of Naziism; fighting in Syria and Iraq which to some degree reflects the way boundaries were drawn in the Middle East at the conclusion of the war; civil war in Ukraine reflects a series of changes for that region since WW1 (borders, demographic change) though such changes have been ever present through that part of Europe. (Postscript: much better said by Robert Fisk here).

Yet we can be grateful that much peace also abounds. Europe, for instance, since 1945 has worked out its differences in political forums rather than in trenches. Commitments to all regional wars by modern 'great powers' reckon with the dangers of dragging the globe into another world war. Despite profound mistakes about regional intervention (Iraq, Libya,Afghanistan), some ability to not intervene is being seen in respect of Syria.

From another perspective the collection of intelligence about the world and its hotheads is a vital part of maintaining as much world peace as possible.

If there is one politician in New Zealand right now who makes me want to gag, it is Russell Norman speaking against the government's involvement in the 'five powers' agreement whereby we take our place in world intelligence gathering through listening in to phone communications around the world. I am all for it on the Christian basis that the maintenance of peace is always preferable to going to war.

On the specific issue I have heard Norman attack with special vehemence, that this activity constitutes some infringement of privacy, as a Christian I say with Jesus 'for nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known' (Matthew 10:26). If I am walking in the light then I have nothing to fear from surveillance. If I wish to see my children and grandchildren live lives freed from the fear of war I have every reason to support my government in playing its part, modest though it is, in the global task of preventing the spread of terrorism.

It is quite odd that the Green Party of all parties should be so opposed to intelligence gathering. Surely it is the least violent means of defending one's country from enemies?

TEC Changes Mind Re South Carolina?

According to this report it appears that TEC thinks it is okay "to disobey the order of the church for the sake of the orders of the church." Surely they have South Carolina in their mind ...

Health warning: contents of this post may disturb

One of the joys of my role is that I get to work with one of the coolest guys I know. He is featured in a smokin' profile in our Press' weekend section today. It begins:

It's true. Spanky is an unusual name for a reverend but it's a lot better than Idiot Pants. Meet Anglican minister Spanky Moore. The only time he goes by his real name, Joshua, is when he is ''asking for money''.

You can read the rest here, but if you object to food throwing, I need to give you a health warning before you read on. Also, don't have a hot coffee between your keyboard and your lips.

The best joke of the 20th century?

I am still working on 'context' but as an interlude, here is a candidate for the best joke of the 20th century. It comes from a book about the publication of one of my favourite stories, Dr Zhivago by Boris Pasternak. In The Zhivago Affair by Peter Finn and Petra Couvee (New York: Pantheon Books, 2014), the story is told of how Zhivago lived a charmed life under Stalin, relative to other artists being executed or exiled, despite his growing disenchanted with Communist rule. Nevertheless he did suffer some punishment for his unwillingness to write in a way more in tune with the political correctness of 1930s and 40s Soviet Russia. That punishment included pulping of 25,000 copies of his poetry. But in the strange spirit of those times he was not completely placed outside the pale and he was able to earn some money by translating foreign literature such as Shakespeare's works.

On p. 60 we read, "Pasternak was able to exact some sly revenge. In a revision of his translation of Hamlet, he introduced lines that bear little fidelity to the original. Even allowing for Pasternak's belief that a translation should never be an attempt at "literal exactitude," the lines from Hamlet, when translated back into English again, were a biting commentary on the politics of the hour.

Where Shakespeare wrote of the "whips and scorns of time," Pasternak had Hamlet say: "Who would bear the phony greatness of the rulers, the ignorance of the bigwigs, the common hypocrisy, the impossibility to express oneself, the unrequited love and illusoriness of merits in the eyes of mediocrities."

A very clever and very brave joke at the expense of the authorities!