As the dust settles on our recent General Synod, both here and elsewhere people are critically evaluating what we have agreed to, via, let us remember, the unanimous vote of the elected representatives of every episcopal unit of ACANZP.
I would like to post here critical contributions from readers who wish to post them to me.* I am looking for contributions which in one way or another advance consideration of the resolution. Just a few pages would be good, not a tome.
The first contribution is from Rev Dr Bryden Black - I recently posted before GS/HW his preview thoughts. Now we have his review. Most pertinently, in terms of advancing the debate, is his question about how our church can evaluate a Two Integrities approach since by definition that approach seems to rule out appeal to a higher authority to determine which integrity, in the long run, reflects the will of God.
The meeting referred to at the beginning of the writing is the first of two opportunities for the Diocese of Christchurch to hear from our Bishop and GS/HW representatives. I was not at that meeting but plan to be at the next one, this Thursday evening.
Read on ...
Fortunately, for ACANZP, our General Synod, which made its decision known about holding together the 'Two Integrities' may not be directly affected by outside critics - like Dr. Black - who seem determined to undermine the eirenic outcome of the recent G.S. Meeting.
ReplyDeleteAn awful lot of prayer, fellowship and humble listening went into what emerged as a unanimous decision by the G.S. membership.
I believe that our learned bishops, clergy and faithful laity on General Synod have enough collective wisdom to determine, on behalf of our Church in New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, what is, and what is not, good for the future of our journey in Christ. This is why we elect our synods and General Synods - to do what God might be calling them to do on our behalf.
Yes, we can discuss, amongst ourselves, what we think about their decisions but, canonically, it is their appointed task to make determinations on future polity - that is what we elect them to do.
I do not think that anyone outside of our ACANZP should be encouraged to offer what they believe to be the correct way for our Church to proceed - on matters that concern us. They are responsible for their own polity - and not ours.
Christ is risen, Alleluia!
He is risen indeed, Alleluia!
Hi Ron,
ReplyDeleteWhile I endorse what you say re the role of GS to be a collection of representatives to make decisions on all our behalf, I do not agree with you about now muting critique of the decision (whether from inside or outside of our church).
The decision envisages a forward process, both the immediate forming of a working party which will do theological and other work and should be open to being informed by responses to the Motion, and the prospect of legislation being proposed which will be of the kind that will come to local synods to discuss and vote on. In other words, the decision of the GS is one which continues discussion not shuts it down.
But there is a further point to be made: any such decision needs to be received by the laos (the people of God, here meaning both clergy and lay) and thus it is very important that through ADU, your blog and other forums we have open and frank discussion about the state of receivability of the motion, including its preamble.
I am all for outsiders commenting: there is a strong chance that the decisions we have made and will make have a bearing on relationships with the wider Communion. Let's hear their voices too.
I am a follower of Karl Popper who wrote a book while at Canterbury University in the 1940s about the importance of the 'Open Society'!
Sadly, Peter, the open society that you purport to support seems not to include the possibility of Gays being part of our Church. Or, at least, that's what I hear critics of the process just completed by our General Synod saying. There seems to be a whiff of determined exclusivity - not the spiritual openness to inclusivity in the Body of Christ.
ReplyDeleteI see our G.S. determination as bringing the Church into an era of welcoming ALL - not just the majority heterosexuals. Now, if that is not Open Society (in the Church), I don't know what is!
In terms of authentic Anglicanism (which Fr Ron is in other threads so deeply concerned with defending) the decisions of General Synod, while important, are clearly subordinate to the plain sense of Scripture to which the Articles of Religion appeal.
ReplyDeleteArticle 21:
And when [Councils] be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
And Article 20:
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
I think that's what we're arguing about, whether the resolution is supported from Scripture or not.
In fact, the consultation of Synods with the people of God is a vital part of Catholic Order--it has saved the Church from multiple heresies, and, after all, if GS shouldn't pay any attention to outside voices and critics, surely the process by which we got to this resolution is also open to question, being as it comes from huge agitation both here and overseas against the traditional teaching.
We might like to seal ourselves in a South Pacific bubble, but we're part of a family, and a Communion, and rightly subject to bonds of free affection, fellowship, and, yes, authority-the same authorities our Constitution appeals to. And I think that's a very good thing--much like Fr Bryden's analysis.
"I do not think that anyone outside of our ACANZP should be encouraged to offer what they believe to be the correct way for our Church to proceed - on matters that concern us. They are responsible for their own polity - and not ours." - Do I take this to mean you will also no longer offer comment on church (or for that matter, social) policy in any jurisdiction outside NZ?
ReplyDelete"The unity of the Church and its acceptability overseas as a church that supports overseas mission are in peril. It is time to speak forthrightly in support of the clear scriptural witness about the sinfulness of homosexual acts and the position adopted without dissension by Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Churches alike for nearly two thousand years" - Dr. Matthieson, Q.C. -
ReplyDeleteThis is not the exegesis supported by most people who have accepted the modern understanding of homosexuality - as experienced in the actual lives by homosexuals in the more-informed society of today.
Along with other biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage; the treatment of women as second-class citizens; and the contrived understanding of all marriages being open to procreation, the first-century understanding of same-sex relationships can no longer be sustained as, necessarily, the final word on the Creator's will for humanity.
The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, has not stopped communicating with His human children on matters of gender and sexuality - as witness our Church's acceptance of no-fault divorce, contraception, and same-sex relationships.
Our polity is not influenced by 'sola scriptura', rememebering that God's Word has now become flesh and shared our common humanity. God has given us Reason and an ongoing Tradition which is subject to constant reformation - 'Sempoer Reformanda'. This was declared by Pope John XXIII at Vatican II, but has been resisted by subsequent R.C. officials - to the detriment of the future witness of that Church.
We Anglicans are more versatile in our understanding of God at work in the wider world of today. The Holy Spirit is still around, informing and bring enlightenment into the new realities of every day life.
Fear is the enemy of Love.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteGays are part of our church. The question before us is what kind of church are we in which we are all a part: are we a church of one view on Scripture or two or more views? Is our tradition mutable or immutable? If it is mutable, on what basis do we make changes?
Here is a teaser question for you: on what basis would the substitution of chips for bread and Coke for wine be prohibited in our church?
In other words, there are many questions for our church to be an 'open society' on, even as we work on welcoming all into our church.
"This is not the exegesis supported by most people who have accepted the modern understanding of homosexuality - as experienced in the actual lives by homosexuals in the more-informed society of today."
ReplyDeleteThat is just a tautology – those who agree with a particular viewpoint about homosexuality agree with it. I think what Fr Ron means to assert is that we have rational or scientific reason to believe that homosexuality is an innate condition. But we don't, and it isn't.
"Along with other biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage; the treatment of women as second-class citizens; and the contrived understanding of all marriages being open to procreation, the first-century understanding of same-sex relationships can no longer be sustained as, necessarily, the final word on the Creator's will for humanity."
Okay, an entirely unsupported assertion by Fr Ron. Thanks, but I would rather follow the teaching of our Saviour and his Holy Spirit.
"The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, has not stopped communicating with His human children on matters of gender and sexuality"
Indeed he has not. His teaching remains the touchstone for all true Christians.
"as witness our Church's acceptance of no-fault divorce, contraception, and same-sex relationships."
Yes, that shows that the Church can depart from God's teaching and fall into sin. Very true.
"Our polity is not influenced by 'sola scriptura', rememebering that God's Word has now become flesh and shared our common humanity."
You can use whatever Latin words you like (even incorrectly) but that doesn't change the important fact – Anglicans follow the teachings of Scripture, as do every church.
"God has given us Reason and an ongoing Tradition which is subject to constant reformation - 'Sempoer Reformanda'. This was declared by Pope John XXIII at Vatican II, but has been resisted by subsequent R.C. officials - to the detriment of the future witness of that Church."
No it wasn't, actually.
"We Anglicans are more versatile in our understanding of God at work in the wider world of today. The Holy Spirit is still around, informing and bring enlightenment into the new realities of every day life."
Indeed He does, and He always draws Christians back to scriptural truth.
Hi Father Ron
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you often defend the Anglican Church of New Zealand on other blogs where people comment quite scathingly about our position of homosexuality.
As Peter indicated he would post other views/reviews on the decision made it would be interesting to hear your perspective. Especially on the scriptural basis for the decision, and also a theology of understanding how LGBT people view themselves as having a seperate identity (e.g. homesexuality as a gender alongside male and female).
Cheers Jean
Hello Jean. In part response to your request for evidence from Gay people about their own, unique, understanding of their sexuality - in terms of their local Church membership - here is a very recent video recording the stories of several young Christians who want their stories be heard.
ReplyDeleteUnsurprisingly, to me, these young people are all evangelicals!
See: Diverse Church has made an impressive film. You can watch it on YouTube here.
As for John's quoting of the 39 Articles here, in defence of his conservative outlook on sexuality, this may be one very good reason why ACANZP does not require of its ordinands their specific endorsement of these artifacts of early Anglicanism.
My dear Ron, I have to say I am disappointed in your first comment, both its content and its tone, as I cannot see how it advances our discussion. For example, our host, Peter, in his preamble gets the most serious point of my questions in section 2 when he says: “Most pertinently, in terms of advancing the debate, is his question about how our church can evaluate a Two Integrities approach since by definition that approach seems to rule out appeal to a higher authority to determine which integrity, in the long run, reflects the will of God.” This is an admirable paraphrase of the quandary we have placed ourselves in. Perhaps I need to spell it out.
ReplyDeleteWhile properly speaking section 2 might to some degree have to await a fuller examination (the results of the questions from section 1), already we can see that the rationales for each position, a & b of the motion, are just so very different. That is, the forms of argument and criteria/frames of reference by means of which evaluations and justifications are made (for positions a and b) are sufficiently different to the point that, when and if any new whole, in which a & b are now ‘together under one roof’, is established, how on earth might its supposed “integrity” be evaluated?! For: which set of adjudicating principles might one use? We may not use either a’s or b’s since there is so very little overlap; they constitute much of the sources of contention, anyway! The dilemma is literally BASIC. I am of course making an important assumption here: that all members of this new entity, this new whole, feel the need to have at least as much integrity re this new position as they felt re their respective positions previously.
So that’s the first real question I put to you and any one else for that matter regarding the course of action ACANZ&P has now asked us to pursue.
Section 3 poses a truly troubling series of questions. They have to do with our fallen nature, our curious human tendency to twist matters our own way, by seeking rationalizations that, after the event, seemingly support our own stance(s). Any careful, judicious reading of history (back to section 1) can display countless examples of how people have tripped over themselves, one way or another. It would be seriously naive to discount the possibility that either a or b is “mistaken”, either in their conclusions or in the processes whereby they seek to justify those conclusions. For it cannot be denied that the place where much of western Christianity has finished up collectively these past 40 years or so is pretty weird: we’ve an internal stand-off, regarding a pretty serious matter, incapable of seeming resolution. How did this come about? The questions of section 3 dare to ask the obvious! [They also pose a serious issue of authority once more: by what means might any of us evaluate the notion of “mistaken”? I am not naive ...]
So; over to you Ron - to join us in advancing the discussion ...
Hi Ron,
ReplyDeleteYour video links didn''t come through.....
; ) Jean
Hi Bryden
ReplyDeleteI have only just managed to read your post.
You write with clarity re the 'two integrities' approach, and also wisely insuate the current position does allow some 'grace' at the present moment.
Raising the question of the sociological origins of each position is an interesting one, and it would be interesting to have a summary of this (a.k.a. in an unbiased accounting). For we as humans do make genuine mistakes, but wisdom and insight comes from understanding.
I was surprised to have a conversation recently with my sister who generally can engage for 5 minutes on serious topics. She is Generation Y but came across firmly, "I would be too embarassed to invite my friends to church if the church held the position that denied people the chance to [be christian] and live in a long term committed relationships." While I managed to inject a few points to help her widen her viewpoint (of which I am guilty of the sin of pride - she is a litigation lawyer). It did make me curious about how different her reaction as Generation Y was (compared to my own generation X). Thinking (which I do so occassionally) that she has grown up with the notion of homosexuality being a given so therefore, like the teaching of evolution, the questioning or discussion of its origins or its acceptance or otherwise actually undermines her personal belief system.
Now I am rambling, thank you for your input.
All the best, Jean.
Hello Jean. Yes, I'm sorry, the link provided doesn't seem toi translate to my blog set-up. However, the video can be accessed via the blog 'Thinkg Anglicans', under the title 'Diverse Church', which celebrates the testimony of young evangelicals in the U.K. who have found their rightful place in their various church bodies - including the C. of E., after years of wrestling with their inbuilt sexuality.
ReplyDeleteA Good and thoughtful presentation that ought to be seen by everyone - especially conservative evangelicals on this thread!
(I note, Jean, that you are now fruitfully engaging at T.A.)
"Section 3 poses a truly troubling series of questions. They have to do with our fallen nature, our curious human tendency to twist matters our own way, by seeking rationalizations that, after the event, seemingly support our own stance(s"
ReplyDelete- Dr. Bryden Black -
One question I might ask of you, Bryden - at this point of your very long dissertation - is: How do you know that your own voluminous arguments are not subject to the very same 'fallen-ness' of our common human nature that you, by inference, accuse others of succumbing to?
This is something I really struggle to understand in your so learned, itemised and considered, attempts to deny the veracity of other's arguments. What gives you the idea that your suppositions are more correct than those of us who have different suppositions? Just because you argue them well, that does not guarantee that your are always correct.
Your arguments from sola scriptura have been seen by more than myself to be flawed - not because of any deficit in God's revelation, but rather, because of the 'fallen nature' of the human interpreters.
For instance, Jesus said to his disciples that "When the holy Spirit comes, S/He will lead you into all the truth - about me; about sin;.... " N.B. this is a process, still being revealed: - 'will LEAD you into' Revelation did not stop with the publication of the Scriptures. Otherwise, God might really be dead.
However, Christ IS Risen, Alleluia! He Is risen indeed!
Re Jean: you quote in regards your sister namely, "I would be too embarassed to invite my friends to church if the church held the position that denied people the chance to [be christian] and live in a long term committed relationships."
ReplyDeleteHere we encounter an ongoing complication in this whole mater. It is not dissimilar to the discussion in the early chapter of Genesis, "did God really say you can not eat from any tree in the garden?” The answer of course is "no" .
There was that "slight" change where "one" tree became "any" tree and with it the inference that God was being unfair and in some way of ripping us off.
The extra bit that betrays a line of thinking that is often encountered in the discussion surrounding gay inclusion in the church is seen in the two words re Jeans sister comment "[be christian]".
There is the belief, it seems, that exclusion from "being blessed" is exclusion from the church.
Or full inclusion equals full permission to engage in any activity that has become normalised in our culture.
The key question is this, according to the scriptures "is homosexual activity sinful" Yes or No.
If "no" we can "recognise", "affirm", "bless", whatever. If "yes" our options are somewhat more limited.
One thing is clear, scripture calls us to love and hope. The church is called the house of God and it is to be a offered as a home, and one, one would hope, a safe home to any and all.
However, I know as a parent you can love and offer a home but there are guidelines within that home that are best maintained if it is going to
be a happy and helpful home.
Blessings
"As for John's quoting of the 39 Articles here, in defence of his conservative outlook on sexuality, this may be one very good reason why ACANZP does not require of its ordinands their specific endorsement of these artifacts of early Anglicanism...."
ReplyDeleteSo we shouldn't subscribe to the Articles, (and presumably the Prayer Book, the Ordinal, the English Bible, the Sacraments or the Church Fathers) for two reasons:
1. They are artifacts of early Anglicanism (old is bad, clearly)
2. They might put a spoke in our wheel in our headlong rush off the cliff towards the Liberal Brave New World (which by the way is now both out of date and showing it has rickets), and the Inclusive Gospel (tm).
It is precisely the function of authority to tell us hard truths we don't wish to hear. It's the rest of the Communion outside the West which can spotlight our blind spots about sex. It's the Bible, the Prayer Book and the Fathers (including the writers of the Articles) who tell us "Stop. You're cutting off the branch you stand on...."
That isn't a reason to tear them up as traditionalist artifacts. It's a reason to listen harder. In the words of the tradition dear to both of us, Fr Ron, it's time to "Hear the Church" in its full entireity.
This is exactly why I say we have an authority problem. Authority
Thanks Ron for the information.
ReplyDeleteYes I made a few posts although I doubt I'll have too much time to frequent multiple blogs. Thanks for your comment on being 'fruitful' a book I know said good trees produce good fruit (there goes my pride again).
I am a person who likes to have a definite point of view (but can live with exceptions to a rule), however, in attempting to form my viewpoint to be one I can stand by I like to listen to ideas on both sides of the fence, alongside my own deductions (in this case influenced by scripture). I also dislike it when people go into the name and blame type of emotional reasoning such as 'Apostles of Hate', far different from a firm statement on ones position.
Hogsters, you are correct on one point after a discussion with my sister about how there are other things the church teaches which would be contrary to the average persons beliefs she accepted this as true and referred to the Did God really say? question.
Most certainly the debate centres around whether homosexuality, or precisely homosexuality within a committed relationship, is sin or not. Hopefully we can all agree at least on that - smile.
G’day Ron; three parts to my response to your comment of May 21, 2014 at 10:55 AM.
ReplyDelete1. Re sola scriptura. Given the way you use this phrase, I’m really not sure you appreciate how either the Magisterial Reformers applied it or how I try to apply it. For example, I’d ask you: what on earth are my recent references to the likes of Wittgenstein, Lonergan or MacIntyre doing, if I am as you assert the sort of “sola” you seem to think I am?!
2. I would simply ask you Ron to re-read my section 3, and then the further elaborations under my comment @ May 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM. Should you do so, then I’ve a feeling I’m just not guilty of your accusation; far from it, quite the opposite! Furthermore, the entire point of all three sets of questions taken together is to raise the sort of possibility that a collective form of penitence akin to either Daniel 9 or Nehemiah 9 might just be more than appropriate - as part of the answer. And despite your wishing at one point in a past comment of yours to banish me back to Africa - I’m going nowhere! We’ve been lighting camp fires here as a whanau for five generations now ...
3. I notice you are totally silent about the irrefutable logic of the questions under section 2 - despite Peter’s correctly picking up on them. It would still be good if you were to actually join in advancing this post GS conversation, and rather than merely asserting a tired old position trying to argue a way forward. For if you follow the three sets of questions I pose, they might just take us to places where the current dissonance gives way to creativity - as is its wont!
" It's a reason to listen harder. In the words of the tradition dear to both of us, Fr Ron, it's time to "Hear the Church" in its full entirety. " - John -
ReplyDeleteThis is where we might have a point of difference, John.
Hearers of the Scriptures at the Eucharist are bidden to "Hear what The Spirit is saying to the Church - Not the other way around.
The Spirit operates in reception - otherwise the Word goes back to seed - for further reflection
The Holy Scriptures are written For our LEARNING, not as Law. We learn from the example of Jesus Christ, who is revealed in the Scriptures but not locked up in them. "The Word became flesh...."
I read the Scriptures on a daily basis, and I have still more to learn from them. I also meet with Christ in the Eucharist on a regular basis. He feeds me, and energises me for His mission. What more can I ask of Him? I recognise my sate as a fellow sinner - with all humanity. I am not, thereby, commissioned to seek out hidden sins of other people.
The mission of the Gospel is 'one poor sinner showing another poor sinner where to find Bread!
"It would still be good if you were to actually join in advancing this post GS conversation, and rather than merely asserting a tired old position trying to argue a way forward." - Dr. Bryden Black -
ReplyDeleteFar from being a 'tired old position' being promoted by me; I think that you may be more prone to such reversion to antiquity. Why not be open to 'what the Spirit is/may be saying to the Church - not yesterday, but today?
Apparently our G.S. has been doing just that - listening to one another and to the Holy Spirit. I may not be entirely happy with the outcome; but then, who am I to judge the Church. At least, the outcome seems pragmatic - in the circumstances of our environment.
Thanks Ron for the video reference. It is well done. Especially what is evident is once admitting to their churches that they were attracted to people of the same gender they were surprised at the love and support they received (even if not all people agreed with their behaviour). I think this is too often overlooked in this debate, one can disagree and still love.
ReplyDeleteTheir internal struggles and turmoil were also evident.
Best, Jean
Taking up your latest extract of my most recent comment, I’ll try one last time Ron.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about this post GS ‘space’ which we have been granted is this: perhaps, just perhaps, BOTH a & b are “tired old position[s]” with respect to where this Motion 30 is seeking to take us.
My three sets of questions are deliberately trying to stand back, to inhabit the gracious, spacious ‘pause’ we’ve been given - even if it be only brief in terms of the history I myself typically address with regards to our present dilemmas (300+ years; section 1).
Now; it may indeed become impossible to actually find a new form of structure that would be ‘home’ to BOTH a & b of the first part of the Resolution. Be that as it may. Nonetheless I am genuinely trying to advance the discussion by asking us all to address the sorts of issues I raise in the opening piece, and then elaborate in my comments/replies. For one of the quickest ways to shut down any enquiry is by sheer assertion. On the other hand, the surest way to open up enquiry is via probing questions. For it is of immense amazement that we in most of the Western Church have indeed reached this weird stand off. Now; you might not quite see it in this way. But I can assure you, coming as I do with a strong international and cross-cultural, and ecumenical background, plus something of a grasp of the history of the last 300+ years, sifted via certain theological grids (NB the plural please), I ask, with Edith Humphrey, “Why This Issue?”
Enjoy this next part of the journey, Ron, offered us via GS 2014 - but may you at least please actually address the more gutsy aspects of this particular thread, as we all try to advance the discussion ...
Thanks for your response, Fr Ron.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, it's not the hidden sins of other people I'm worried about, but the public blessing of open, public and stubborn ones.
As for "Hear the Church" it comes from Matthew 18--and I'm with the Oxford Movement on its importance. Our own discernment of the Spirit is often faulty or imperfect, which is why we need each other's, that we may discern the Body of the Lord--to pick up your eucharistic metaphor.
Of course, the Scriptures are written for our learning and our law, but the Church is both Mother AND Teacher--yes, we are included and belong (I can't tell you and needn't tell you what a grace that is, that emphasis comes through all your posts), but we are all transformed by Christ too.
What more may we, all of us ask of Him?
Humility of heart, so that we can hear, and hear properly.
“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built..." (Luke 6)
" But I can assure you, coming as I do with a strong international and cross-cultural, and ecumenical background" - Dr. Bryden Black -
ReplyDeleteDitto - with an added bonus of 85 years on God's earth - mixing with all sorts and conditions of men women and children. Such human attributes, however, are not a recommendation in themselves - it is the heart that is vulnerable and biassed - either For or against God's leading.
We are ALL sinners, Bryden. Im sad about my sins, but they are a reality. I have responsibility for mine, but you have responsibility for yours, too. Jesus Christ is the only efficacious medicine for our souls. And only as we live 'en Christo' are we capable of helping others to recognise their need of God. I have no other Gospel. But at least what I do have is Good News (Gospel) for sinners like myself. Jesus mercy; Mary pray!
Dear John. I'm glad you are, like myself. an avowed supporter of our catholic and apostolic heritage in the Anglican Church.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe that we have to move beyond past treasures of our inheritance in order to take up the call to become, As St.Paul once witnessed to: 'All things to all people'. When Jesus said, in today's Gospel (John 22-31) that we are his disciples when we do as He commands, he had just uttered the words of the New Commandment - of Love. That was not the reiteration of the old commandments, but, in fact, a new commandment - surpassing that which had gone before. That we might love God and our neighbour as ourselves.
To do that, we need to be really convinced of God's love for us, so that we can begin to love our-selves - as a paradigm for the love we might measure out to the other people we come across in our daily journey with Christ.
My task, as a priest, is to show God's unconditional love for others - on the basis that I have experienced God's unconditional love for me, warts and all. Today's Gospel makes that clear.
"However, I do believe that we have to move beyond past treasures of our inheritance in order to take up the call to become"
ReplyDeleteThe Israelites in Deuteronomy might be a little suprised to hear that love of neighbour was a new idea--not to mention all the present-day Jews. The steadfast pursuing hesed of God is all through the Bible from the beginning to the end.
What on earth makes you think we have to "move past our heritage" in order to "become" anything? Has the Almighty changed His Nature? Are we the first generation of English speakers not to be able to understand the Gospel as this Church and Realm have received it?!
And, of course, the second question: Free to become what?!
Without the transforming power of Christ that convicts of "sin and righteousness and judgement" as well as steadfast and wide mercy (the two go together) what on earth are we? "A rather pathetic NGO..." (Pope Francis) and not even a very relevant one.
"Without the transforming power of Christ that convicts of "sin and righteousness and judgement" as well as steadfast and wide mercy (the two go together) what on earth are we? "A rather pathetic NGO..." (Pope Francis) and not even a very relevant one."
ReplyDelete- John -
I have no argument with you, John, on what you have said here.
One wonders, though, what Jesus REALLY meant, then, when he insisted that to Love was a 'NEW Commandment'. Was he being hyperbolic, or what?
In the pharisaical interpretation of the Law, Jesus obviously had encountered little love. In fact, what he experienced was hatred - and all because he was 'opening up the Kingdom of Heaven' to ALL who would come to believe in Him. - widening the nets. Jesus was not separating himself out from known sinners (a tendency of the Pharisees). In fact, he was feasting with them - loving them into The Kingdom.
Love is the only commodity that increases - the more you give it away. Abandonment to the Divine Providence is not a bad paradigm.
I'm wondering why this term LGBT has been used at all in Motion 30. I think that the B stands for Bisexual and my understanding is it means needing to have sex with both a male and a female to be "lovingly fulfilled" Surely Bisexual people hardly fall into being SS in a "monogamous loving and long term committed relationship" as some people are arguing for.
ReplyDeleteWhat is meant in Motion 30 when it asks them them along with Lesbians and Gays to recognise that any process of change within the church takes time.
If anyone is Bisexual please could you explain how you/they are going to be satisified with just blessings for same sex unions or is there something more from the church you will be expecting/wanting?