Quo vadis for ACANZP?

After a great correspondence at Radner Undone?, Christopher Seitz has offered a couple of significant comments which I post here for discussion.

Effectively Professor Seitz is saying, 'When all is said and done on the respective theological arguments for blessing or not blessing same-sex partnerships, the question is how the majority argument will treat the adherents of the minority argument.'

The twist in what he says is that he is working and writing from the context of North America where the majority argument is the argument in favour of such blessings and the minority adherents are feeling driven out of their churches.

Naturally the question arises Down Under, which way (quo vadis) are we going on these matters?

Anyway, here are the comments:

"C Seitz said...

I’d like to pose a different kind of question. One more from the realm of social-religious history.

I have read the exchanges and much is predictable in the conclusions though the way one gets there is often curious (is Genesis 1-3 not foundational and does it not describe a basic Christian anthropology, in a way the tradition has always reflected?). Clearly we are seeing an argument made on behalf of something unprecedented: rites and pastoral care that see marriage redefined so as to include two men or two women. That part all agree. We are being asked to go to a new place.

Now this would not be the first time the church wrestled with a new thing. The 16th century was a famous one for formal disputations over matters like indulgences, treasury of merit, papal infallibility, and so forth. What is different here is the format. Experts from the ancient universities of Prague, Vienna, Paris, Heidelberg cannot now be assembled, or exact ground rules worked out with civil authorities. We have instead blogs, conferences, general conventions, the Telegraph and other UK broadsheets, and various other fora.

So my question is: with this new thing will come ecclesial division, just as before, so how will that be conducted?

Will Bishops and Dioceses within Provinces, and whole Provinces themselves, which view the new thing as beyond their ability to warrant, be allowed to move forward with the status quo rites and pastoral teaching?

Will they be able, in other words, to inhabit churches whose previous practices they do not hold to be out of date, and so remain as before?

The individual conscience idea is just that: an idea, based upon a dubious warrant.

I am speaking here about whole dioceses inside provinces (provinces that wish to do the new thing); and whole provinces. It seems to me that at this point division is inevitable. We have one group endorsing the new thing that describes homophobia as being unwilling to embrace same-sex marriage. If these are the conditions obtaining to the new thing, invariably we are going to have division. Will the proponents of the new teaching seek to constrain all to conform, or see to a peaceful division, allowing churches, dioceses, provinces to remain with the teaching previously agreed by all?

C Seitz

August 30, 2013 at 3:42 AM 

Peter Carrell said...

Excellent question, Chris. Thank you.

August 30, 2013 at 6:12 AM 

C Seitz said...

You are welcome, Peter.

I have never understood how people want the church to move to a "new place" but also want to constrain members of the same church to follow them, even when it is against their conscience and even when all they want to do is stay with the same theological truths all shared previously (seen in constitutional rites, teaching, understanding of scripture as received in the tradition, etc).

People like +Mark Lawrence are not "leaving" the faith of TEC. Sadly for the progressives, they are in fact dropping the biggest possible anchor. They honor the church they inhabit. They understand others want it to go to a new place. I think this will require a new constitution in TEC, and a new BCP.

For those who wish to stay with the agreed rites and teaching that all formerly inhabited, can they do so? Do these formerly agreed understandings just time out? This is an odd account of the church in time.

Also, I do not think people should delude themselves. These new teachings and understandings of how we understand marriage will in the nature of the case cause division. Honest revisionists admit this and want it to happen. That is at least truthful."

One thing in favour of our church is that our Three Tikanga arrangements have demonstrated historical 'form' on finding a way for the voice of the minority to be treated as importantly as the voice of the majority ... can we do this again?

Addendum for a Sunday read, from Damian Thompson:

"By that point they will be no more in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury than with the Grand Mufti of Egypt – and the label “Anglican” will have fallen out of use. Already it encompasses fundamentalist bigots in Kampala and spaced-out pantheists in San Francisco; the last Lambeth Conference, in which bishops faced each other in mock-Zulu tribal meetings, was the stuff of high comedy. Even in England, “Anglicanism” is past its sell-by date: as the contorted Synod debates over women bishops and gay priests reveal, it’s simply an attempt to sanctify pragmatism.
So are we approaching the last rites of the Church of England? Not at all. There is a demand for a Church that follows public opinion rather than leading it; whose magisterium is shaped by good manners rather than canon lawyers. Plus, the cathedrals are lovely."

Now, why does he say that? Read the larger comment here.