Andrew Goddard (England) has written a thoughtful, zingy, "what implications for CofE/Communion" response to ACANZP's A Way Forward report. It is published in the independent Episcopal magazine The Living Church.
Here are two paragraphs for a taste:
"First, the group’s members were given a precise task, and they labored to square the circle and find a way to allow space for both viewpoints to be expressed within ACANZP. As we will see, it is less clear they have upheld the Christian doctrine of marriage.
Second, it is also clear that to do this requires the province to develop its doctrine and sexual ethic, formally recognizing as godly and “rightly ordered” a sexual relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman. If the report is accepted, ACANZP will explicitly embrace a new moral theology of lifelong (covenanted) relationships that includes same-sex couples. Those who do not share that theology will continue to have a protected place in the church, but they will now be those dissenting from the church’s teaching. That teaching will be that such sexual relationships are indeed consonant with Scripture, doctrine, and “the Sacraments of Christ.” What other provinces — not least the Church of England — need to recognize is that unless a particular church accepts the incoherence of authorizing liturgies and ordination policies that contradict its own teaching (as in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland) this change must follow from any decision to move to official recognition of “two integrities,” such as that which set the ACANZP working group’s terms of reference."
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Sunday, March 6, 2016
A Way Forward: Section 3: A Critical Review (2)
[The full report is accessible here. The section under discussion in this post is accessible here. In these posts I am aiming to work my way forward through A Way Forward report, posting on a new section each Monday. Pagination refers to the PDF version of the report.]
What follows is very critical of the section under consideration. I am risking offending some or all of the working party, a number of whom are friends as well as colleagues. But what is at stake for our church is too high to not address an inadequately thought through section of the report, the more so because this section sets out to be the theological underpinnings of the rest of the report.
Section 3 is titled "The dynamic nature of doctrine, the path of unity"
First part, p. 5, rightly sets the theological underpinnings of the report in our quest for fullness and contentedness of life as only fulfilled in union with God. Consequently, in respect of the particular matter at hand, the report says,
"There is a critical and present mission aspect to our discussions on the matter of same-sex relationships."
The report then turns to three "critical questions of theological import":
- What does it mean to be human in the now? (pp. 5-6)
- When we speak of 'two integrities' how can we also speak of the unity of the Church? (pp. 6-7)
- What do we mean by saying that Doctrine is dynamic? (pp. 7-8)
Frankly, I am not sure what the report is trying to say as its "key point" in response to the first question, and I am worried about what is not said.
On the one hand, I have no idea why statements are made such as "We must be open to how fresh insights may lead to change and dynamism." Why? Who says we must? Is this God's will for the church or the wishful thinking of the report writer(s)?
Then, I cannot make sense of this sentence, "Tradition is dynamic (as is discussed further below) and, as we seek to maintain our fundamental identity, this may be attained only by examining our context and its development over time." What may be attained? If it is our "fundamental identity" then surely that is already attained because we are the people of God? Or, is something different meant by "fundamental identity", and what is that?
On the other hand, it is beyond my imagination trying to understand why a section answering a question such as what it means to be human in the now says nothing about being created in God's image, redeemed by Christ through his death on the cross, enlivened by the Spirit in order to share in Christ's risen life, nor about being a disciple of Christ and finding our humanity through taking up our cross.
In other words, beyond a general recognition that "To be human in the now, is first and foremost to be in relationship with God our creator," there is no specific recognition that what it means to be human, for the Christian person, is to understand ourselves theologically. That understanding is (I suggest) more than a general recognition of relationship with God as creator. It involves a specific shaping of our identity in terms of who God is, being made in that God's image, being loved redemptively by God in Christ, and called into a consecrated life as a Spirit-filled follower of the risen Christ.
But, wait, intriguingly, when we get to the next question, about two integrities, pp. 6-7, suddenly we are presented with the foundational thought that "We believe that human beings are made in the image of God." But what then follows, "The Old Testament expressly forbids ... a weakness that has potential always to be reformed" is, well, difficult to follow. (Which, I hasten to add, may say more about me and my lack of comprehension ability, than about the report). However the question at the end of the first paragraph following the second question on p. 6 is very clear and worth asking:
"What would it be like if we as a Church committed to respect one another's difference, held with integrity, in a harmonious way?"
(Personally, I would get to that question by a different route, by talking about the church being composed of people with differences, including differences in ways of thinking and evaluating what Scripture says, what it means and what its applicability to each generation might involve, and then reminding that each member of the church has dignity as God's created and redeemed child. The question could then follow.)
The next paragraph, at the foot of p. 6 makes (in my view) two points, and each is worth making.
First, that in the cultures of these islands kaupapa [particular way of doing things] may and does differ, and (generally speaking) as we move from marae to marae, from context to context, we accept these differences and do not try to change them by forcing "them" to do things "our way." Here, contextually and culturally, is laid out precedent for our church, should it choose, to have two integrities on the matter of blessing of same sex relationships. There would be much to discuss when we discuss making that choice, such as whether the church is analogous to a series of differing contexts, no one of which rules over another, but the possibility can be discussed and considered.
Secondly, the point is made that the differing kaupapa are "second order" relative to the "first order" matter of offering manaakitanga (respectful hospitality). What matters, that is, is that guests are warmly and generously welcomed onto the marae (first order). What doesn't matter is whether, during the welcome, say, women do or do not speak as part of the powhiri (formal welcome): customs on these matters vary from marae to marae (second order). It is quite right and proper to propose this distinction between first and second order matters as a possible way forward for our church: if we can agree that blessings of same sex relationships are "second order" matters, not affecting the "first order" matters which bind us together as one church, then all should be well.
Naturally some associated questions arise! Not least we could ask whether we are agreed on what are the first order matters and what are the second order matters. With respect to same sex blessings the report may be implying at this point that they should be seen as a second order matter, but if so, is that something our church is agreed on? Was the working group itself agreed on the wording of that paragraph and the implication it appears to be making? In the end, I see no serious attempt to argue that blessing of same sex relationships is a second order issue rather than a first order issue.
The first paragraph on the next page also makes a vital point, re remaining in conversation and goes on in the second paragraph on p. 7 to develop what this conversation might mean when "two distinct views" are held "in integrity."
The third paragraph on p. 7 is a bit trickier. Making the claim that "There has never been a unity of the church that has been lost" needs, in my view, more unpacking than is given here. Yes, the church has always been diverse from the beginning, so there was, at the beginning "diversity in unity". But the church was clearly worried about breaking unity in Acts 15 yet, and this is the point of Acts 15, it did not break unity because it forged a way forward which was agreeable to the church and to the Holy Spirit. And, while we could say that the church by the end of the first century AD remained in both organic and formal unity, there were some serious breaks in unity in subsequent centuries, beginning with the dislocation between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity in the second and third centuries. So, I am left wondering what the report means by, "There has never been a unity of the church that has been lost." If the report means that the church was never unified, even at the beginning, then this is a clear and distinct contradiction of the first few chapters of Acts and a superficial description of the work the church did in both Acts 6 and Acts 15 to maintain unity in the face of diversity threatening to become division. If the report means that the unity of the church has always been its character and thus it has never been lost, then this belies the historical character of the church which has suffered multiple breaks in unity.
Nevertheless, at this point in the report, one clear point is made about church unity, on which I agree wholeheartedly, "Unity is God's destiny for the church and the world."
The next paragraph also contains important thoughts about unity and its fullness in God. But it does not address the question whether "two integrities" can be counted as part of this growth or could be lamented as a sign that growth in unity has stopped for the time being.
Finally, we come to the third question, at the foot of page 7, "What do we mean by saying that Doctrine is dynamic?" I find (and others, in conversation with me, are finding) that there is a tragic irony about citing Hebrews 1:1-3a at the head of this section! Those verses speak about a form of dynamic doctrinal development (i.e. the unfolding of God's revelation through "the prophets") but that development ends with the final divine word, "in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." The remainder of Hebrews is an exposition of what it means that the Son has come and spoken that final word, a word which transcends what God formerly spoke through Moses, David and the prophets, and fulfils what that former speaking had looked forward to. The past was shadows, the present age of the Son is final reality.
Now, it is true, and the report recognises this in the first paragraph on p. 8, that "the church has developed a deeper and richer understanding of faith". Development of doctrine in this sense, of deepening understanding of what has been spoken to us by a Son, has taken place and continues to take place. And the next paragraph offers a good account of how theology may do this particular kind of development work. But the final paragraph, at the foot of the page then, in my view, muddies the waters of the "deep pool" of development by deepening understanding.
In that final paragraph on p. 8 a series of statements are made, none of which in themselves are disagreeable, but, as a whole paragraph, I am not sure what is being said with respect to the present issue. First, note that this paragraph does not clarify what development of doctrine might mean for the doctrine of the Trinity. No one disputes that the doctrine of the Trinity might be "deepened" in the sense that as we discuss this impenetrable mystery we might learn more about (say) the communion between the Three Persons and thus deepen our understanding of what communion means for us. What is very disputable is whether development of the doctrine of the Trinity means that one day the church might add a fourth divine Person to the Godhead.
Secondly, by not clarifying that the former is possible and the latter is impossible, an impression is created that when, by analogy, we come to discuss the doctrine of marriage or the doctrine of blessing, we can "deepen" our understanding of marriage by changing it to include the never before included possibility that marriage can be between two people of the same gender, or we can "deepen" our understanding of blessing by enlarging that understanding to include blessing what is never blessed in Scripture, a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender. By not clarifying what "deepening" can mean in respect of the dynamics of doctrine, the report in this section fails in to offer a convincing argument that "deepening" our doctrinal understanding can include "changing" our understanding.
By focusing the dynamics of doctrine on "active conversation," the report offers no guidance as to what might give the church the authority to authorise the certainty of definition which is implied by producing formularies for blessings of same sex relationships. "Active conversation" as the means of evolving doctrine does not cut it at that point. Formularies state what we believe, not what the state of the conversation between divided parts of the church is.
When the church first determined the creeds it determined them in unity, not in two integrities, and that was because the church made a conciliar decision that the conversation could now stop and the doctrine be taught and recited. When later the Western church introduced the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed it set in motion a division that was not contained by two integrities but by two (still unreconciled) churches. The report, on my reading of this section, is over confident that what will be proposed in subsequent sections on the underpinnings of this section can be contained within "two integrities." I am arguing that a more careful reading of the history of theological discourse would lead to less confidence about "two integrities" and more concern at the prospect of schism - a schism that would be underpinned not merely by a few differences in theological outlook but by a canyon of difference in theological method.
Conclusion
In Christchurch prior to 22 February 2011 we had tens of thousands of homes which we presumed were built on adequate foundations. The earthquake that day put paid to that notion. On the one hand thousands of homes had to be demolished afterwards and on the other hand new standards for foundations emerged. I suggest this section of the report is simply inadequate for the task of laying down the theological foundations for the momentous direction the rest of the report offers to our church as a way forward. One option General Synod has in May 2016 is to request a higher standard of theological foundation for any proposal that we shift into two integrities and develop a formulary for the blessing of a same sex relationship.
Postscript
What about a constructive alternative in the light of the critical review above? Is there another way forward by way of theologically underpinning the blessing of same sex relationships? I suggest there is a potential route, but it lies in exploring theology of friendship and companionship. And I don't expect more than 1 in 100 readers here to agree with me!
What follows is very critical of the section under consideration. I am risking offending some or all of the working party, a number of whom are friends as well as colleagues. But what is at stake for our church is too high to not address an inadequately thought through section of the report, the more so because this section sets out to be the theological underpinnings of the rest of the report.
Section 3 is titled "The dynamic nature of doctrine, the path of unity"
First part, p. 5, rightly sets the theological underpinnings of the report in our quest for fullness and contentedness of life as only fulfilled in union with God. Consequently, in respect of the particular matter at hand, the report says,
"There is a critical and present mission aspect to our discussions on the matter of same-sex relationships."
The report then turns to three "critical questions of theological import":
- What does it mean to be human in the now? (pp. 5-6)
- When we speak of 'two integrities' how can we also speak of the unity of the Church? (pp. 6-7)
- What do we mean by saying that Doctrine is dynamic? (pp. 7-8)
Frankly, I am not sure what the report is trying to say as its "key point" in response to the first question, and I am worried about what is not said.
On the one hand, I have no idea why statements are made such as "We must be open to how fresh insights may lead to change and dynamism." Why? Who says we must? Is this God's will for the church or the wishful thinking of the report writer(s)?
Then, I cannot make sense of this sentence, "Tradition is dynamic (as is discussed further below) and, as we seek to maintain our fundamental identity, this may be attained only by examining our context and its development over time." What may be attained? If it is our "fundamental identity" then surely that is already attained because we are the people of God? Or, is something different meant by "fundamental identity", and what is that?
On the other hand, it is beyond my imagination trying to understand why a section answering a question such as what it means to be human in the now says nothing about being created in God's image, redeemed by Christ through his death on the cross, enlivened by the Spirit in order to share in Christ's risen life, nor about being a disciple of Christ and finding our humanity through taking up our cross.
In other words, beyond a general recognition that "To be human in the now, is first and foremost to be in relationship with God our creator," there is no specific recognition that what it means to be human, for the Christian person, is to understand ourselves theologically. That understanding is (I suggest) more than a general recognition of relationship with God as creator. It involves a specific shaping of our identity in terms of who God is, being made in that God's image, being loved redemptively by God in Christ, and called into a consecrated life as a Spirit-filled follower of the risen Christ.
But, wait, intriguingly, when we get to the next question, about two integrities, pp. 6-7, suddenly we are presented with the foundational thought that "We believe that human beings are made in the image of God." But what then follows, "The Old Testament expressly forbids ... a weakness that has potential always to be reformed" is, well, difficult to follow. (Which, I hasten to add, may say more about me and my lack of comprehension ability, than about the report). However the question at the end of the first paragraph following the second question on p. 6 is very clear and worth asking:
"What would it be like if we as a Church committed to respect one another's difference, held with integrity, in a harmonious way?"
(Personally, I would get to that question by a different route, by talking about the church being composed of people with differences, including differences in ways of thinking and evaluating what Scripture says, what it means and what its applicability to each generation might involve, and then reminding that each member of the church has dignity as God's created and redeemed child. The question could then follow.)
The next paragraph, at the foot of p. 6 makes (in my view) two points, and each is worth making.
First, that in the cultures of these islands kaupapa [particular way of doing things] may and does differ, and (generally speaking) as we move from marae to marae, from context to context, we accept these differences and do not try to change them by forcing "them" to do things "our way." Here, contextually and culturally, is laid out precedent for our church, should it choose, to have two integrities on the matter of blessing of same sex relationships. There would be much to discuss when we discuss making that choice, such as whether the church is analogous to a series of differing contexts, no one of which rules over another, but the possibility can be discussed and considered.
Secondly, the point is made that the differing kaupapa are "second order" relative to the "first order" matter of offering manaakitanga (respectful hospitality). What matters, that is, is that guests are warmly and generously welcomed onto the marae (first order). What doesn't matter is whether, during the welcome, say, women do or do not speak as part of the powhiri (formal welcome): customs on these matters vary from marae to marae (second order). It is quite right and proper to propose this distinction between first and second order matters as a possible way forward for our church: if we can agree that blessings of same sex relationships are "second order" matters, not affecting the "first order" matters which bind us together as one church, then all should be well.
Naturally some associated questions arise! Not least we could ask whether we are agreed on what are the first order matters and what are the second order matters. With respect to same sex blessings the report may be implying at this point that they should be seen as a second order matter, but if so, is that something our church is agreed on? Was the working group itself agreed on the wording of that paragraph and the implication it appears to be making? In the end, I see no serious attempt to argue that blessing of same sex relationships is a second order issue rather than a first order issue.
The first paragraph on the next page also makes a vital point, re remaining in conversation and goes on in the second paragraph on p. 7 to develop what this conversation might mean when "two distinct views" are held "in integrity."
The third paragraph on p. 7 is a bit trickier. Making the claim that "There has never been a unity of the church that has been lost" needs, in my view, more unpacking than is given here. Yes, the church has always been diverse from the beginning, so there was, at the beginning "diversity in unity". But the church was clearly worried about breaking unity in Acts 15 yet, and this is the point of Acts 15, it did not break unity because it forged a way forward which was agreeable to the church and to the Holy Spirit. And, while we could say that the church by the end of the first century AD remained in both organic and formal unity, there were some serious breaks in unity in subsequent centuries, beginning with the dislocation between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity in the second and third centuries. So, I am left wondering what the report means by, "There has never been a unity of the church that has been lost." If the report means that the church was never unified, even at the beginning, then this is a clear and distinct contradiction of the first few chapters of Acts and a superficial description of the work the church did in both Acts 6 and Acts 15 to maintain unity in the face of diversity threatening to become division. If the report means that the unity of the church has always been its character and thus it has never been lost, then this belies the historical character of the church which has suffered multiple breaks in unity.
Nevertheless, at this point in the report, one clear point is made about church unity, on which I agree wholeheartedly, "Unity is God's destiny for the church and the world."
The next paragraph also contains important thoughts about unity and its fullness in God. But it does not address the question whether "two integrities" can be counted as part of this growth or could be lamented as a sign that growth in unity has stopped for the time being.
Finally, we come to the third question, at the foot of page 7, "What do we mean by saying that Doctrine is dynamic?" I find (and others, in conversation with me, are finding) that there is a tragic irony about citing Hebrews 1:1-3a at the head of this section! Those verses speak about a form of dynamic doctrinal development (i.e. the unfolding of God's revelation through "the prophets") but that development ends with the final divine word, "in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." The remainder of Hebrews is an exposition of what it means that the Son has come and spoken that final word, a word which transcends what God formerly spoke through Moses, David and the prophets, and fulfils what that former speaking had looked forward to. The past was shadows, the present age of the Son is final reality.
Now, it is true, and the report recognises this in the first paragraph on p. 8, that "the church has developed a deeper and richer understanding of faith". Development of doctrine in this sense, of deepening understanding of what has been spoken to us by a Son, has taken place and continues to take place. And the next paragraph offers a good account of how theology may do this particular kind of development work. But the final paragraph, at the foot of the page then, in my view, muddies the waters of the "deep pool" of development by deepening understanding.
In that final paragraph on p. 8 a series of statements are made, none of which in themselves are disagreeable, but, as a whole paragraph, I am not sure what is being said with respect to the present issue. First, note that this paragraph does not clarify what development of doctrine might mean for the doctrine of the Trinity. No one disputes that the doctrine of the Trinity might be "deepened" in the sense that as we discuss this impenetrable mystery we might learn more about (say) the communion between the Three Persons and thus deepen our understanding of what communion means for us. What is very disputable is whether development of the doctrine of the Trinity means that one day the church might add a fourth divine Person to the Godhead.
Secondly, by not clarifying that the former is possible and the latter is impossible, an impression is created that when, by analogy, we come to discuss the doctrine of marriage or the doctrine of blessing, we can "deepen" our understanding of marriage by changing it to include the never before included possibility that marriage can be between two people of the same gender, or we can "deepen" our understanding of blessing by enlarging that understanding to include blessing what is never blessed in Scripture, a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender. By not clarifying what "deepening" can mean in respect of the dynamics of doctrine, the report in this section fails in to offer a convincing argument that "deepening" our doctrinal understanding can include "changing" our understanding.
By focusing the dynamics of doctrine on "active conversation," the report offers no guidance as to what might give the church the authority to authorise the certainty of definition which is implied by producing formularies for blessings of same sex relationships. "Active conversation" as the means of evolving doctrine does not cut it at that point. Formularies state what we believe, not what the state of the conversation between divided parts of the church is.
When the church first determined the creeds it determined them in unity, not in two integrities, and that was because the church made a conciliar decision that the conversation could now stop and the doctrine be taught and recited. When later the Western church introduced the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed it set in motion a division that was not contained by two integrities but by two (still unreconciled) churches. The report, on my reading of this section, is over confident that what will be proposed in subsequent sections on the underpinnings of this section can be contained within "two integrities." I am arguing that a more careful reading of the history of theological discourse would lead to less confidence about "two integrities" and more concern at the prospect of schism - a schism that would be underpinned not merely by a few differences in theological outlook but by a canyon of difference in theological method.
Conclusion
In Christchurch prior to 22 February 2011 we had tens of thousands of homes which we presumed were built on adequate foundations. The earthquake that day put paid to that notion. On the one hand thousands of homes had to be demolished afterwards and on the other hand new standards for foundations emerged. I suggest this section of the report is simply inadequate for the task of laying down the theological foundations for the momentous direction the rest of the report offers to our church as a way forward. One option General Synod has in May 2016 is to request a higher standard of theological foundation for any proposal that we shift into two integrities and develop a formulary for the blessing of a same sex relationship.
Postscript
What about a constructive alternative in the light of the critical review above? Is there another way forward by way of theologically underpinning the blessing of same sex relationships? I suggest there is a potential route, but it lies in exploring theology of friendship and companionship. And I don't expect more than 1 in 100 readers here to agree with me!
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Oh no, evangelicals are taking over the church
Well, arguably they are doing so, sort of, in the CofE, as analysed here at Psephizo.
Actually, I think the key point is not whether evangelicals are taking over the C of E, but why fewer and fewer ordinands are being drawn from its liberal and catholic wings.
Actually, I think the key point is not whether evangelicals are taking over the C of E, but why fewer and fewer ordinands are being drawn from its liberal and catholic wings.
First and Second Order Issues
Anglican Taonga reports on an announcement Bishop Victoria has made to the Diocese of Christchurch. She has invited Prof. Chris Marshall to speak in the Diocese on Friday evening 1 April 2016:
"Dear friends,
"Dear friends,
I am delighted to announce we have Professor Chris Marshall
coming to St Christopher’s Church, Avonhead, on 1 April at 7-9 pm to
address how, in reading Scripture, we determine what constitutes a first and
second order of doctrine. This question has been raised with respect to
the A Way Forward report which references first and second order doctrinal
questions. Professor Marshall will give a 45-60 address and then entertain
questions. Afterwards there will be opportunity to speak with him also
over tea and coffee.
Prof Marshall is not addressing the blessing of same sex
relationships but rather the theological foundations of how we read and learn
from Scripture. Chris is well known as an outstanding teacher. He
presently holds the Diana Unwin Chair in Restorative Justice at Victoria
University although his doctoral work and early teaching appointments at the
tertiary level were in the Department of Biblical Studies. He was
enormously appreciated as a speaker at the Anglican Schools Conference in
Christchurch last year.
I look forward too seeing many of you at St Christopher’s,
Avonhead, on 1 April.
In Christ,
+Victoria"
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Change the flag!!
For NZ readers: I am unabashed and unembarrassingly for changing our flag.
Let's do it!
Let's throw off the shackles of the Union Jack.
All the best reasons for making the change are here, as well as the reason why the reasons for not doing so are poor.
Let's do it!
Let's throw off the shackles of the Union Jack.
All the best reasons for making the change are here, as well as the reason why the reasons for not doing so are poor.
The Faithful Few At the Edge of the Communion
We tend to hear about "Iran" in the context of some kind of conflict (fighting proxy wars in the Middle East currently) or potential conflict (developing nuclear weapons, No, wait, we have a deal not to do that), much to do with Islam, and much driven by religious leaders in Iran.
But there is a tiny Anglican church in Iran which you can read about here.
I wonder if there is a more isolated Anglican diocese anywhere else in the Communion?
But there is a tiny Anglican church in Iran which you can read about here.
I wonder if there is a more isolated Anglican diocese anywhere else in the Communion?
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Even Canadians Admit that Squaring Circles Is Theologically Impossible!
In news emerging from north of North America, Canadian Anglican bishops admit they are unlikely to secure a required two-thirds majority among themselves to approve changes to their marriage canon. See here, here or here.
No doubt (from some initial comments on the Thinking Anglicans' site) there will be debate as to whether this is a craven response to the Primates' Meeting or whether other issues are troubling the minds of the Canadian bishops. But it does seem an example of the immense difficulty which emerges in Anglican churches when an attempt is made to change the doctrine of marriage in favour of inclusion of same-sex marriage.
The doctrine of marriage is about the circle of love and affirmation which runs through a man and a woman marrying and the Scripture as well as the Tradition of the church affirming this as God's intended plan for humanity, along with Christ's approval via Cana, and Paul's embedding marriage imagery into ecclesiological vision for Christ's relationship with the church, all of course completely "reasonable" since it helps us humans to propagate in socially safe and secure ways.
Squaring this circle involves changing the definition of marriage from one woman and one man to any two people, invoking Scripture and Tradition in support of this change, with focused attention on selected parts of the narratives involved (e.g. focusing on companionship in Genesis 2 rather than on companionship and sexual differentiation). It is a change of such magnitude that the circle can only be squared in a theologically responsible manner if the catholic church (i.e. the whole church) agrees that the Spirit is indeed upending and overturning God's own revelation to the church. It is not impossible but it is much, much more difficult than some people (notably some Anglicans) think.
The recent Primates' Communique was not so much a "power play" as part of the catholic church saying that it is not yet obvious, even less agreeable that the circle can be squared. We might also note that a tiny proportion of the global church is considering the attempt to square the circle. In itself that observation should give pause for thought!
My sense is that the Canadian bishops are recognising that the circle cannot be squared and they will settle for an alternative to changing doctrine on marriage, authorising the blessings of same sex relationships.
I am happy to take comments here about the Canadian bishops' dilemma, or about the general situation of the churches worldwide considering change to understanding of marriage. Any comments specific to ACANZP's own attempt to square the circle should be made to yesterday's post. I will not publish comments made to this post which discuss ACANZP's A Way Forward report.
No doubt (from some initial comments on the Thinking Anglicans' site) there will be debate as to whether this is a craven response to the Primates' Meeting or whether other issues are troubling the minds of the Canadian bishops. But it does seem an example of the immense difficulty which emerges in Anglican churches when an attempt is made to change the doctrine of marriage in favour of inclusion of same-sex marriage.
The doctrine of marriage is about the circle of love and affirmation which runs through a man and a woman marrying and the Scripture as well as the Tradition of the church affirming this as God's intended plan for humanity, along with Christ's approval via Cana, and Paul's embedding marriage imagery into ecclesiological vision for Christ's relationship with the church, all of course completely "reasonable" since it helps us humans to propagate in socially safe and secure ways.
Squaring this circle involves changing the definition of marriage from one woman and one man to any two people, invoking Scripture and Tradition in support of this change, with focused attention on selected parts of the narratives involved (e.g. focusing on companionship in Genesis 2 rather than on companionship and sexual differentiation). It is a change of such magnitude that the circle can only be squared in a theologically responsible manner if the catholic church (i.e. the whole church) agrees that the Spirit is indeed upending and overturning God's own revelation to the church. It is not impossible but it is much, much more difficult than some people (notably some Anglicans) think.
The recent Primates' Communique was not so much a "power play" as part of the catholic church saying that it is not yet obvious, even less agreeable that the circle can be squared. We might also note that a tiny proportion of the global church is considering the attempt to square the circle. In itself that observation should give pause for thought!
My sense is that the Canadian bishops are recognising that the circle cannot be squared and they will settle for an alternative to changing doctrine on marriage, authorising the blessings of same sex relationships.
I am happy to take comments here about the Canadian bishops' dilemma, or about the general situation of the churches worldwide considering change to understanding of marriage. Any comments specific to ACANZP's own attempt to square the circle should be made to yesterday's post. I will not publish comments made to this post which discuss ACANZP's A Way Forward report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)