You are welcome to comment but there is no particular expectation that this is a post for discussion here - discussion in your local church using these resources may be more fruitful ...
Explanation re terms used in list of resources below:
"Side
A" refers to the view that sexual activity is for faithful monogamous
relationships irrespective of gender...
"Side
B" referring to the view that sexual activity is for faithful monogamous
relationships between a man and a woman...
Thus
avoiding labels such as "traditional" and "revisionist"...
No
pretense is made of this list offering any sort of balance, but one might
describe it as somewhat diverse.
From
www.gaychristian.net
the Youtube video, "Through my eyes..." is a set of testimonies
which I think are of equal helpfulness irrespective of whether one is
"Side A" or "Side B". It has a 30pp booklet with three
sections, (1) for "Side B" churches; (2) for undecided churches and
those who don't discuss this at all, and (3) for "Side A" churches.
These are linked at https://www.gaychristian.net/resources/
From
http://sexualidentityinstitute.org/resources/videos/
(Mark Yarhouse) are six video links, three on homosexuality, three on gender
dysphoria. Mark comes from what I would describe as a compassionate, scholarly
Side B perspective. Side A folk won't agree with all of his views but
some Side B folk might not either. I found the clip titled "Sexual Identity
and the Question of Viocation" particularly helpful. Mark has also
written a paper attached below as "Yarhouse.pdf". Mark has written a
book Understanding
Gender Dysphoria: Navigating Transgender Issues in a Changing Culture which I found helpful
because it looked at this issue through three different perspectives; I suspect
that transgendered people would find much here to agree and disagree on. His
2013 book, Understanding Sexual Identity, is geared towards supporting
young people but applicable for any whose cultural context is either
Gay-affirming or shame-based (for the latter, read some conservative Christian
contexts).
Two
vimeo links on the page linked below contain (a) discussion on the manner in
which "the discussion" on diverse views of sexuality in the church
can happen constructively, and (b) an actual discussion from two very different
viewpoints discussed in a constructive manner. Useful irrespective of whether
Side A or Side B.
Sprirtualfriendship
is worth reading if one is Side B and other-than-heterosexual or if one is
simply compassionately interested. (Most of the) comments that folk have posted
in response to the articles are worth reading too.
Tim Keller has a very
helpful short interview clip on You Tube clip at https://youtu.be/IZFCB9sduxQ
. Side A folk will find plenty to disagree with. It might challange some
Side B folk too.
In
terms of books, The Gospel and Sexual Orientation is the best Side B
exposition I've read and has the advantage of being succinct.
Slaves,
Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
uses these three case examples in the outline of his (William J Webb's) views.
Side B.
Gregory
Coles' Single, Gay, Christian : A Personal Journey of Faith andSexual Identity Published this year;
and was particularly encouraging. (Side B).
Wesley
Hill's Washed and Waiting: Christian Reflections on Faithfulness and
Homosexuality is both testimony and reflection (Side B).
Rosaria
Butterfield's Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert is testimony and
reflection from a woman who became a Queer Studies lecturer, adopted a lesbian
lifestyle, became a Christian, then (after some time) adopted a heterosexual
lifestyle. If one accepts Yarhouse's perspective of multiple homosexualities it
isn't so hard to understand that while her experience isn't the norm, it is
real. I found the most helpful part was her account of how she became a
Christian. Side B.
Books
currently on order are Changing Our Mind : Definitive 3rd Edition of the Landmark Call
for Inclusion of Lgbtq Christians with Response to Critics by David Gushee
which seems to promise one of the better arguments for a Side A perspective
from the point of view of a reader who is Side B; and William
Loader's Making Sense of Sex : Attitudes Towards Sexuality in Early
Jewish and Christian Literature (probably Side A).
The
website "Living Out" (livingout.org)
describes itself in these words: "We experience same-sex attraction and yet are
committed to what the Bible clearly says, and what the church has always
taught, about marriage and sex. We do not identify
as gay Christians, preferring to use the
term "same-sex attracted" (find out why)." They don't support reparative therapies. It has a range of
testimonies and articles, one of the best being a review of current academic
literature on the causes of same sex attraction which is attached as
serve_pdf_free.pdf below. Sam Alberry, one of the key folk of this website, has
a You Tube video at https://youtu.be/oAQ8S5gRvDY
Also,
courtesy of You Tube: The
Journey of a Gay Christian: A Short Documentary by Kyle Williamson; at https://youtu.be/ZfotzIBzhps
(Unsure whether Side A or Side B or both); Matthew Vines: "God and the Gay Christian" |
Talks at Google is a
Side A proponent being interviewed by a Roman Catholic priest, at https://youtu.be/HyVvjAdbaaQ
and Faithfully
Gay: A Documentary at https://youtu.be/h8mgVO88g-Y
And,
from a secular perspective, https://qlife.org.au/qlife-guides/
has some useful online fact-sheets; https://au.reachout.com/articles/coming-out
has some useful material incl a video clip; on bisexuality at https://youtu.be/oIUcSkAx668
.
132 comments:
"Side A...
"Side B...
"Thus avoiding labels such as *traditional* and *revisionist*...
Why would we want to avoid these labels? Is anyone arguing that SSB is traditional, or that MWM is revisionist?
To have a better discussion, the words should be used, albeit defined differently. There are four important reasons why.
(1) Debate is distorted by confusion about what the tradition has actually been. The BCP solemnisation rite and the Lambeth resolutions on marriage define the actual traditional position, and that position not only emphasises procreation, but encourages celibacy and discourages fornication. It is important that all recognise that what you have called Sides A and B are both very recent revisionist positions which have been embraced by different generations following different fashions. It is orwellian in itself, and unfair to Revision A not to expose this truth about Revision B.
(2) Clarity about the traditional position permits a more meaningful comparison of the two revisionist ones. This is because the two revisions A and B both reject the tradition's concern for procreation, but each nevertheless continues something from that tradition in a dilute form. More of the tradition's horror of fornication survives in Revision A. More of the concern for procreation survives in the male/female dyad of Revision B. Which dilution of the tradition makes more sense, and why?
(3) Three robust positions are less polarising than two, and polarisation is a bad thing for a church which lives as a unified koinonia. This needs no proof.
(4) The three positions offer different evaluations of gay sex acts. The traditional position disvalues them as useless and distracting in light of the obvious teleology of sex-- making babies, and sustaining marriages for their sakes. Revision A values them so long as they conform to bourgeois mores for childless, heterosexual couples. Revision B disvalues them because they do not embody the alterity of the male/female dyad for its own sake. Because there are varying understandings of what same sex attraction actually is, it is not as clear which position is easiest for someone with SSA to live with as many assume. Nor is it clear to all whether the teleology of sex, bourgeois mores, or the alterity of the male/female dyad has the broadest scriptural support. A three-way debate is needed.
Bowman Walton
A lot of obfuscation here. Where I come from, we're used to calling a spade 'a spade'.
The issue is quite clear. Does our Church acceot the fact that intrinsically gay people have a place in the Church and in the world? Once this is decided, then what is needed is a decision about whether they can be welcomed as faithful committed couples in a relationship akin to that of heterosexual people in marriage.
The question is not so much about how the majority heterosexual constituency in our Church feels about this minority group's behaviour, but whether they think that - in today's enlightened understanding of sexual orientation - Jesus would be disposed to 9ffer his blessing on such a faithful relationship.
Like the issues of circumcision, slavery, patriarchy, divorce, the view of women in society, that have caused changes in society and the Church; same-sex relationships have been proved of benefit to the persons concerned, and to have helped alleviate problems of promiscuity and social dysfunction in the community - faithfulness being a Gospel imoerative in the lives of human beings.
Our Church will be judged by outsider on its felicity (or legalism) in a matter of common human thriving.
Hi Peter,
The ACANZP is legally formed under a written Constitution 1857;
reinforced by the Church of England Empowering Act 1927.It is both legally and morally bound to adhere to that Constitution.It makes little or no difference what anybody outside of N.Z.thinks about SSM/SSB.;the General Synod of the ACANZP is legally bound to hold the Doctrine as defined in that Constitution;whether they agree with it or not. As +Selwyn told the First Synod,{in 1859},"If the Doctrine of this Church does not suit you,find a Church which does". But warts and all,this is the ACANZP. All the talking in the world makes not one jot or tittle of difference;nor does the actions of Parliament. In short the proposal either conforms with the Doctrine of the Constitution 1857 or it does not.There can only be a Church with a single INTEGRITY and that INTEGRITY comes by Her adhering to the Doctrine of Her legal Constitution.Render unto Caesar,that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is His. Abiding by the terms of Her legal Constitution is Her duty to Caesar;and being true to Her mission as "witness and keeper of the Holy Writ,is Her duty to God. "UBIQUE,SEMPER,AB OMNIBUS".
"The issue is quite clear. Does our Church acceot the fact that intrinsically gay people have a place in the Church and in the world? Once this is decided, then what is needed is a decision about whether they can be welcomed as faithful committed couples in a relationship akin to that of heterosexual people in marriage. "
The Church accepts everyone Fr Ron, that is what the word catholic really means {from Greek Katos (in respect of) Holos (the whole)} - aside: perhaps we should use Katholikos or Katholic in place of catholic and that would eliminate any confusion with the Latin Church in written communication anyway
Bur that does not mean celebrating wedding ceremonies for everyone - it means celebrating wedding ceremonies for those who meet the requirements for that sacrament - that is opposite sex couples, of marriageable age who are not already married and who are in agreement with each other to embark upon this journey.
In any case on the news tonight it was reported with glee that the institution of marriage, even in the secular sense is in rapid decline and that the majority no longer bother with the formalities which have been rendered essentially meaningless except as a premise for a grotesque reality TV series .
We are part of a civilization in its last gasp and as we enter the new dark ages the Church should be standing firm and saving as many souls as in can and speaking out against these monstrosities.
But instead, parts of it at least, find itself entangled in this utter nonsense
You have a very valid point here, Andrei. Encouraging same-sex couples into the commitment of a stable legally-recognised relationship should help - not hinder - the cause of an understanding of the value of lifelong, faithful one-to-one relationships, that uphold the preference for an open and publicly declared commitment.
Faithfulness, with the blessing of the Church, rather than random coupling, is surely the better option for both gay and straight couples who love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Surely God want to bless such relationships?
The simple fact is that the ACANZP exists in a Nation which has laws and
demands accountability of all persons,both natural and otherwise {companies and institutions}.The ACANZP was established in 1857 with a lawful Constitution, to which it is expected to adhere.Because of Her Mission, as spelt out in that Constitution,the ACANZP gets tax breaks and is allowed to accept donations.That the Church is required to use Her property and assets to further Her Mission as defined the Constitution 1857; is no different to investment companies ect being required to adhere to their prospectus.Over the last few years,how many directors of such have gone to jail for not doing so???
General Synod is required to adhere to the Doctrine as defined in the Constitution 1857; and in Part C para.14 states,"No doctrines which are repugnant to the Doctrines and Sacraments of Christ,as held and maintained by this Church shall be advocated or inculcated by any person acknowledging the authority of General Synod or with the use of any funds or property held under the authority of General Synod".
Therefore,the question is;does the advocating and inculcating of SSM/SSB form a breech of this clause in civil law and if so,are the members of General Synod liable;as no doubt,funds have been used for both the Ma Whea Commission and the Working Party????
I wish online discussion of SSM had been this reasonable ten years ago.
"Our Church will be judged by outsiders on its felicity (or legalism) in a matter of common human thriving."
Yes. That judgment will probably be based not on an obscure vote on SSB, but on the broader response to civil SSM that Anglicans show in their private lives.
BW
Hi Ron, just one thought:
I think you are being a bit narrow in your understanding here (you may think that ironic!).
That is because it is not simply a case of whether intrinsically same sex attracted people (which, as shown by some of the resources Peter notes, is not a simple category itself - eg Rosaria Butterfield) have a place in the church and world (the answer to that is YES!). It is trickier than that. The question is what constitutes faithful dealing with their sexuality as they experience it. For a very faithful and articulate example of why your simple either/or distinctions are too narrow, see Wes Hill's great work for a start, let alone the many Christians contributing for example to the living out website. Gay/same-sex attracted Christians have different opinions about this! To ignore this (by lumping all gay people into one basket) is to silence an important voice unjustly.
That question, by the way, is the same one we all need to ask - what constitutes faithful dealing with our sexuality as we each experience it? The different shades of attraction and experience (not to mention marital status, experience of sexual abuse, sexualisation during upbringing through pornography, and other things) complicate our experience of working through the answers, but the basic question seems to me to be there for all of us.
God bless
Chris., far from 'linking together all Gay people - even Christyian Gay people - too narrowely together (and they are the minority in society, after all); my subject is really about those Gay couples (Christian, mainly) who are desirous of celebratung their intentional lifelong loving commitment to one another with a Blessing from God in the Church.
As is well-known, there are too few hetersexual couples today in our country who have this same desire for God's Blessing on their relationships. Perhaps this new sign of intentional commitment from Gay people, under God, would help to stabilise - rather than undermine - the ideal of mature human relationships.
What you have said about the reasons for promiscuity and pornograhy applies equally to the sexual lives of everyone - regardless of sexual orientation.
Reading Glen's contributions again, I find them more legalistic than grace-filled - somethng that Jesus was very careful to point out ti the Scribes and Pharisees. When we judge people by thr Law, we are always, ourselves, judged by the Law. Christianity offers a 'new and living Way'
Also, I note Glen is quoting, mostly, Civil Law - whch now allows for Equal Marrage. What does he think about that? Ought he not be consistent with his application?
Thanks Ron, I am not entirely clear how what you said follows from what I was saying, but I do want to agree on one thing: what I said about pornography (I didn't mention promiscuity) does apply to everyone - that is exactly what I said I am pretty sure - hence my saying this question is 'the same one we all need to ask'. That was the context I mentoned pronography, as well as abuse, marital staus, etc - in the context of all of us.
Dear Peter, the issue of our Church's acceptance of monogamous relationships among the Gay community is well within the Gospel parameters of 'loving one another as Christ has loved us' - sinners all, but redeemed - rememberiong that Christ has only 'sinners' to proclaim the Good News of God's abiding love for us all. Here is another timely quote, from today's Jesuit website:
"Love changes everything. It changes all that we do and say. Jesus embodies the love of God for us. This love was seen in Jesus’ preaching and healing, his interaction with sinners, and his compassion for the poor. Jesus so loved his Father that his only mission was to do the will of the One who sent him. Jesus reveals to us the face of God. As we come to know God through Jesus, we are drawn into love with the Father. As we grow in this relationship, our love spills over to others, and the circle of love keeps growing." - Note, particularly: "His interaction with sinners".
"Perhaps this new sign of intentional commitment from Gay people, under God, would help to stabilise - rather than undermine - the ideal of mature human relationships. "
You live in a world of your own Fr Ron.
Do you know who has transmitted our Faith down the generations from the Apostles to the present day?
Kept it alive in places under the Turkish yoke and under the Atheist communists?
It wasn't learned theologians spending their days dissecting the Holy Trinity using big words and that's a fact
Faithful and humble priests played their part but the most important propagator of the Faith through the ages has been the grannies who sat their grandchildren on their knees and told them stories from the Bible, taught them the Lord's Prayer and the Creed...
In communist times even party members children were often baptised, officially the communist parent or parents didn't know (nudge nudge, wink wink) and Babulya organized it all.
And this is why Satan has organized the post modern attack on the family...
"As is well-known, there are too few heterosexual couples today in our country who have this same desire for God's Blessing on their relationships."
Is God refusing to bless couples who are married by notaries, judges, mayors, sea captains, etc?
Or rabbis, imams, Vedic priests, etc?
Are those who do God's will not blessed in the doing?
If the *res* is sex, what possible *sacramentum* can any church decently have?
How does it promote acceptance of all couples to erect a discriminatory distinction between those whose solemnising clerk-work was repeated by a church and those who were content with that of their community?
Honesty is good for the soul, dishonesty corrosive in a church. And two wrongs do not make a rite. Better to end solemnisation altogether than to parody what has never made theological sense and then search for an expedient rationalisation for it.
Bowman Walton
PS-- This thread is missing my earlier comment admiring the contributions of all the others who have posted here. My thanks to them all. I wish the debate on That Topic had been this good a decade ago.
"The Family', Andrei, is actually much larger than you might think. On that topic, Jesus once asked" "Who are my mother, my brothers...? Those who do the will of my Father" - implying quite clearly that God's Family is much bigger than the nuclear Family - upset at it may be at the present moment by those heterosexual couples deciding not to even get married to raise their families.
Respected by Jesus - as his mother Mary undoubtedly was; Jesus pointed to a truth beyond - to the Family of those who, by their love (as Jesus taught): exemplified those who were His disciples: "They will know you are my disciples by YOUR LOVE". - Not by who your granny is, wonderful as she may be!
Ron,Jesus also said,"If you love me,would you not keep the commandments". He also said,"Render unto Caesar.....". The ACANZP is a legally Constituted (1857)Institution in NZ. law and that Constitution is reinforced by the NZ. Parliament, by the Church of England Empowering Act 1927.She is required by both "civil law" and "criminal law"; to adhere to that Constitution.The Doctrine, as defined in the that Constitution, can not be undone or changed by Parliament or General Synod; without dissolving the whole Church,in which case the property, assets and pensions would pass to those holding true to Doctrine as defined in the Constitution 1857;(Law Lord's decision,1904).
Rendering unto both God and Caesar,our obedience to the Constitution 1857 of the ACANZP, and the DOCTRINE therein DEFINED; shows our love of Her great Commission of being the "PROTECTOR and PROCLAIMOR" of the HOLY WRIT, on one hand and of accepting that when the national laws do not conflict with God's law,we accept the separation of the Church and the State. However,to appear modern and with it,secular politicians may pass laws which do not comply with God's Word; as is the case with the same sex marriage laws.Here,the ACANZP must stand firm and state to the Parliament,"You may wish to appease your voters but this law conflicts with our CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, which can not be changed".
Ron, it is not that we object to people with same sex attractions being part of Christ's Church;it is the demand that we accept such, as "the CREATED NORMS OF GOD".I spent the last 25 years of my working life providing housing and care for people,some of whom did not know where they were,let alone what day it was.Never once did I accept their condition as part of GOD'S CREATED NORM. NEVER ONCE DID I SAY" GOD CREATED THEM LIKE THIS AND I WILL REJOICE IN IT".I pray fervently that these people will come to know the fullness of GOD'S GLORY and GRACE,but I do not accept their condition as part of GOD'S CREATED NORM. Our LOVE is not only for our fellow broken man; but more so for Christ,His CHURCH and His Holy Writ.
Glen, I must say that your equivalence between those you have called 'broken men ' with those who are intrinsically gay is a little way out - but, I suppose, natural for the majority of hetrosexual males who just have no understanding of what it might be like to love another person of one's own gender - enough to want their relationship to be publicly recognised in a ceremony of commitment akin to marriage.
Jesus' own comments about marriage pertained to the situation obtaining at the time in Israel. He did not mention homosexual partnerships such as are being legalised in our modern society. Why? because there was no understanding of such in that context. That there must have been hidden relationships between two persons of the same gender is quite probable (humanity does not change - only the rules), but they were not recognised or thought to be possible.
In today's world - wth its understanding of sexual differentiation (someting not even contemplated, probably, in Jesus' time - apart from Greco/Roman orgiastic behaviour which was condemned) - Society has come to terms with the need for us all to understand matters like the problems of slavery, paternalism, homophobia and misogyny, racism, sexism and other discriminatory behaviours that militate against personal freedom and human respect.
Whatever you and your conservative friends may have to say, Glen, about the etiology of homosexuality (which accords with the understanding of GAFCON, whose Primates are still active in the promotion of criminal charges against LGBT+ people by their governments); you really must try to understand that many Christian LGBTs have been forced to live with the culture of homophobia from fellow Christians like yourself, who would never accept that their sexual-orientation is, for them, an inescapable reality. For their own mental health and well-being, they have in past times had to hide their sexual identity from other people (sometimes even their own families) in order to simply survive. No intrinsically Gay person - especially a practising Baptised Christian - wants to be labelled a rebel against God.
Unfortunately, the majority heterosexual conservative Evangelical preacher seems intent on classifying LGBT+ people as especially sinful, broken or maimed; when, in fact that could be said of every single human being. What seems not to be understood is that, in the infinite variety of humanity created by God, there happens to be a number of people whose sexuality is different from the heterosexual majority. They need (some of them, not all) to give and receive the sort of loving relationship that is natural to them in their given situation. (See Jesus' reference in Matt.19 to 'Eunuchs from their mother's womb' for a possible etiology).
Ron,
I accept Article 9,and believe that we are all sinful,broken and maimed.I do not understand that anybody is any more especially sinful or broken than any body else;hence St Paul says "I,chief of sinners".We do not need to dig to deep into our spirits to find part of our lives in which we are rebels against God.
But the main point I was striving to make, is that the ACANZP can not legally start blessing SSM/SSR. All of us are free to leave the ACANZP and join/form a Church which will perform what ever blessings we wish; but the ACANZP can not legally go there.
The Church can and does fall into two errors;Graceless Truth or Truthless
Grace.Only with the guidance of the Holy Spirit can we find the right words to speak to a fellow broken man.With Graceless Truth,we take it upon ourselves to do the Holy Spirit's function of convicting our fellow man.With truthless Grace,we are offering grace which Bonhoeffer referred to as "cheap grace". What the ACANZP needs to do is to allow the Holy Spirit to lead them into a form of "pastoral Care" based on both Grace and Truth. From there we need a new type of Bishops who will perform their duties according to their vows.Then She would be a Church with "INTEGRITY"
and not two integrities.
Glen, you have said:
"But the main point I was striving to make, is that the ACANZP can not legally start blessing SSM/SSR. All of us are free to leave the ACANZP and join/form a Church which will perform what ever blessings we wish; but the ACANZP can not legally go there."
Glen, you may not have realised this but ACANZP is no longer bound by the English Law, nor yet by the Canons of the Church of England. We are not the State Church, and are free to change our Church Law by the means of canonical revision - as and when our General Synod requires. This capability has already allowed ACANZP to set up Synodical Government and to ordain women as priests and bishops - long before the Church of England even thought of doing the same.
If ACANZP decides, at the next meeting of General Synod, to Bless Same-Sex Married Couples, then it will go through its own legal processes in order to do exactly that. As far as the moral authority to do that is concerned; then it is within our own polity that makes that decision - not any group such a FOCA or GAFCON. Nor are we bound by any other ecclesial authority to obey their particular rules. That's just the way things are.
As you rightly say, though, any one of us is free to leave ACANZP at any time - according to our own conscientious choice - this is called the freedom to worship wherever we choose.
If, however, an organised body within the Church chooses to leave - that is called schism.
Ron,
The sad thing is that many gay people in the ACANZP have been led to believe what you say is correct. One Priest who openly supported your stance, told me that the Constitution was a living document and could be changed at will. Now they have found that this not the case,they are looking for ways to get even blessings permitted.
From 1857,the Church in N.Z. was at the most only a Branch of of the Church of England;but most importantly,one with Her own legally binding Constitution; which clearly defines the Doctrine She must adhere to.Certain paragraphs of it were clarified by the NZ Parliament in 1928. If the next General Synod steps beyond the Constitution,I can assure you that litigation will quickly follow.
Well, Glen, time alone will tell - whether you are correct in your assumption - that
ACANZP has to wait for ratification of any new polity by the New Zealand Government (or indeed in a NZ court of law) before implementing a new General Synod decision. This will be especially interesting in view of the fact that the NZ Government has, of its own authority, passed legislation which allows for Same Sex (Equal) Marriage.
Any private legal action taken against the General Synod of ACANZP would probaly be quite costly. But then, it would seem that, with private U.S. Backing - as has taken place within the GAFCON and ACNA activities - anything could happen. Also, big money has already thwarted the express will of the Christchurch Diocese to build a new Cathedral in The Square - proving that money talks, in many areas of contention.
Another source of help with legal costs might be the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, which has already donated one million dollars to the NO Coalition on Equal Marriage in Australa. Also, it is common knowledge that Sydney has its own influence over the local polity of FCANZ.
Peter has asked from time to time what prevents evangelicals from allowing formally the SSM that they tolerate informally. We might ask the same basic question in a converse way-- what makes liberals so insistent on an institutional endorsement of SSM that has no support in our organic tradition and only factional support in the Body? About both, the answer is: it's the way they believe.
Evangelicals believe through a personal and interior experience of grace defeating sin that leads them to think of the Body as a web of personal contacts among the similarly graced that make an organic Body that is, more or less, what late moderns mean by a *movement* that spreads and decides by contagion. The administrative apparatus of a European church-- bishops, boundaries, synods, etc-- carry no weight in saving belief, and indeed most evangelicals are suspicious of their pretensions. After all, Jesus is King, not some nomenklatura.
My evangelical friends remind me of my Buddhist friends: the church/sangha is important and useful, but authority in anything that really matters resides in the shared experience of what the scriptures/sutras say. Somewhere some body is organising things and paying the bills, but the one who can credibly move your mind is the best teacher of the Word/meditation.
Answer #1: Evangelicals will not allow formally the SSM that they tolerate informally because, quite apart from the matter itself, their personal faith cannot concede that much power to an institution.
Cont'd
Liberals have often been suspicious of the apparatus too, of course, but theirs is a very different suspicion. By definition, all liberals dislike authority and have struggled to believe in a non-material world that influences the material one in irregular ways. But where high modern liberals tried to lighten the load of required belief (eg cranky hatred of the 39A, rationalistic accounts of biblical miracles), late modern liberals have learn to shift the burden of believing onto their churches, which somehow hover above the mind's inability to see through myth to truth. In that way, today's liberals believe the otherwise unbelievable, as traditionalist Catholics have always done, on the testimony of an institution.
But all institutions sin. They do so because concentrated power everywhere enables cruelty, stupidity, indifference, and vice. For evangelicals and Buddhists this is more an expected annoyance than a serious problem, because they do not believe and cannot believe in perfect institutions in the first place. When their organisers and bill-payers disappoint, they just go back to studying/meditating the Word/sutras. But for recent liberals, a church that does not fully accord with their most cherished expectations is a scandal because if it cannot be trusted on those mundane matters, then how can it be trusted about the heavenly ones on which we stake our lives? Fear of this scandal is not only why recent liberals-- like recent Catholics, both revising and conserving-- have invested so much energy in trying to remake their churches in their own images, but why, ironically, they have been so hateful, insistent, and coercive in their efforts to do it.
Answer #2: Liberals are insistent on an institutional endorsement of SSM that has no support in our organic tradition and only factional support in the Body, because their social way of believing is threatened if their church rejects a belief that they cherish.
Please note, dear reader, that the liberal's pathology is not in her intuitions about the good, the just, and the beautiful-- hypothetically, those may all be sound-- but in the fear that if her institution does not officially absorb them, then she will lose the mainstay of her faith, and with that any possibility of remaining a Christian. The cure is to point out that this does not happen. If she relies on God, her faith will become more resilient as it is more personal and less institutional.
One could avoid this evangelical/liberal dilemma by recognising the Holy Spirit's work in tradition, rather than only in individuals or institutions. Since we have already had a thread about that this month, I will end here.
Bowman Walton
"Answer #2: Liberals are insistent on an institutional endorsement of SSM that has no support in our organic tradition and only factional support in the Body, because their social way of believing is threatened if their church rejects a belief that they cherish." - Bowman -
Dear Bowman, I'm not sure of the question you are answering in the above, but I do have some understanding of what you are indicating here.
Perhaps it would be as well to remember that there have been other instances of the need for change in basic Church adaptability that have caused, first, concern to the Church and then, more recently, an understanding of the need to accommodate what seems to be the actual needs of the world in our days. Such topics as: slavery, the treatment of women, racism, readily come to mind. don't you think that new understanding of gender and sexual difference should now be brought into focus by the Church? Or do you think that the wisdom of the Holy Spirit is limited to our past understanding of the Cosmos?
Father Ron, have you asked all this before? Never mind; it is good to hear from you.
"Please note, dear reader, that the liberal's pathology is not in her intuitions about the good, the just, and the beautiful-- hypothetically, those may all be sound..."
Peter's intriguing question and my belated reply to it had to do, not with the merits of the matter but with the way, given their respective views of those merits, each side has chosen to live with them. Since both sides could hold their basic opinions unchanged and yet do very different things about them, it follows that we cannot understand what either evangelicals or liberals are doing in the Church by looking only at their answers to the presenting question.
"...there have been other instances of the need for change in basic Church... slavery, the treatment of women, racism..."
Historical analogies are a treacherous shorthand. Slavery, mistreatment of women, and racism were never basic Church teaching. And in each of those instances, Christians of different times and places have seen different and even conflicting moral imperatives in the same facts.
For who was led by the Holy Spirit?-- the Christians who thought slavery would be a thousand Downton Abbeys saving black souls from hell, the ones who tried to send baptised slaves back to pagan Africa, or the ones who started a war that claimed 620,000 lives? Did the Holy Spirit unreservedly prefer the northern factories with unhealthy conditions, low wages, child labour, young women living alone, etc to the southern plantations? Did the Holy Spirit lead Christians to pay men more than women so that wives could stay away from trade, or to insist that women be paid as much as men so that mothers could be independent of fathers? Did the Holy Spirit lead Christians to pair the white privilege of ruling others with a white burden of helping them, or did it lead them to treat all races as equally privileged and needing only their rights? None of these leadings are without problems, and the Zeitgeist is too fickle to be the Heilige Geist.
Cont'd
"...new understanding of gender and sexual difference..."
An adequate present understanding of That Topic is constrained by what we know about evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology. Which is not very much.
We do know that the difference between male and female is very pervasive in the world outside of the Bible, that it explains a lot about human behaviour, and that so long as Charles Darwin remains the secular culture's master narrator, the thinking public will continue to be fascinated by the reproductive binary and all of its myriad ramifications for the two sexes. That to me is the new understanding. One must rather force the imagination to think that a social constructivist view of gender that ignores these realities could win in the future where it has lost today.
On the other hand, neuroscience suddenly exposes the fragility and variability of all mental processes. Why would sexual attraction be different in that way from all other biological processes? And we have a sharper sense today than in the days of Jean-Martin Charcot, Pierre Janet, Sigmund Freud, and William James of the extent to which a mind's processes are invisible to its self-consciousness and subject to distortions that it cannot detect. We should not be surprised that those who tell us about their same sex attraction cannot account for its origin. Perhaps the most relevant text from Leviticus is the parashah Metzora, 14:1-15:33.
That Topic is only the first of a series of new, possibly welcome, challenges to our early modern way of thinking about the mind, personality, etc. Provisional and empirical responses are wiser than monumental and dogmatic ones.
https://tinyurl.com/y8aak8cb
"Or do you think that the wisdom of the Holy Spirit is limited to our past understanding of the Cosmos?"
The Bible supposes an ectypal understanding of the phenomenal world from within the archetypal knowledge of the Creator. It does not present a mechanism for the physical universe per se, nor does it draw any conclusions from one. It is not like Aristotle's Physics, nor Ptolemy's Almagest, let alone Lucretius's De Rerum Natura.
And St Paul at least lived comfortably with the dissimilarity, discussing visits to the third heaven but also the different tissue types within an organism, all without being troubled by whether he was in or out of the body when he traveled, or how all the tissue types in his body could have come from the dust. He did not even worry about how a boulder could have amicably followed his ancestors through the wilderness. How did he do it?
Israel before Christ had some interesting accounts of the origins of the cosmos-- not just Genesis 1, but also Proverbs 8, and what some say is the main one, Job 38-41-- but they all serve to introduce the Creator's relationship to man. This relationship is shaped by a heavenly will that is not protological-- a beginning that pushes time down railroad tracks to an inevitable end of the line-- but eschatological-- an end-in-the-making that can draw all meandering pathways toward its terminus. Which is obliquely to say that the Holy Spirit too is God.
In the prior case, if the Bible differed from what we saw, then the incongruence would be error, either in the text or in the perception. Full stop. But in the latter case we actually expect some slippage between the oracle and the actual that will only make complete sense when heaven is married to earth.
Bowman Walton
I do get your drift, Bowman. Those intances of injustice that you have mentioned here have been the direct result of the powerful NOT heeding the voice of the Holy Spirit working through a growing understanding of the liberation brought by Jesus in the Gospels. The zeitgiest has ever been active in our world, and there is the need of discernment on the part of Church Leaders to seek that spiritual gift
For instance, do the GAFCON Primates who have stayed away from the Canterbury Primates Meeting follow the Holy Spirit in their approval of local govenmrent persecution of intrinsically gay people, do you think? Perhaps their particular zeitgeist leanings come from their freedom from colonial oppression and their need to hit back at their former oppressors. (contravening the advice of Jesus to "Love your enemies...")
Father Ron, I hear several worthwhile questions in your 6:46, both on the face of it and between the lines. It is odd that some of them have not been asked here in the past year or so, and I suspect that others hereabouts may want to answer them. I'll ponder them few days and then sketch some answers. Thanks for the interesting reply.
BW
Hi Ron and Bowman
We do indeed need to discern the signs of the times.
On the matter of the GAFCON approach to sexuality issues in the Anglican Communion, I suggest we also need to consider the matter of most of the Communion (more than and including GAFCON) working out the meaning of the Bible in hostile environments, notably Islamic hostility. In those environments we do need to ask ourselves from the West whether we understand the extreme unlikelihood of Anglican Church in such contexts somewhat meekly and mildly agreeing with churches which, following changes to civil law unimaginable in Islamic and other countries, seek to bless that which cannot be blessed in hostile environments without exacerbating further violence. I do not say this to in any way justify Anglican support for state sponsored violence against gay and lesbian persons but to make a point that I think, Ron, your sense of how the Spirit is moving is insufficiently taking account of a very different society to what we and Bowman enjoy as Westerners.
At a recent meeting our Archbishop Philip, not long back from the Primates Meeting, showed a sobering video from the Church in Pakistan about violence against Christians there. Philip pointed out that 25/35 primates at the meeting live in environments hostile to Christians in ways unknown to NZ and USA.
I would also like to point out, re the Bible and ancient cosmology discussed above, that God through Paul as the gospel spread into the Hellenistic world had a perfectly reasonable opportunity to embrace and affirm love between members of the same sex. That did not happen. It did not need the so called discoveries of modern science about sexuality for such affirmation to be given. It was not. That should focus our minds on the utter reasonableness of maintaining the teaching of the ancient church that marriage is between one woman and one man for life. That we might consider the blessing of relationships entered into in civil jurisdictions which provide for same sex marriage or civil unions is not a matter of discerning a new teaching of the Spirit about sexuality but a matter of discerning what prayerful support might be given for those who make commitment to permanently love and support a partner for life - something which draws on theologies of friendship, covenant and partnership
" That we might consider the blessing of relationships entered into in civil jurisdictions which provide for same sex marriage or civil unions is not a matter of discerning a new teaching of the Spirit about sexuality but a matter of discerning what prayerful support might be given for those who make commitment to permanently love and support a partner for life - something which draws on theologies of friendship, covenant and partnership" - Peter -
Thank you, Peter, for this concession to the FACT of sexual differentiation in Creation. No one on my side of the argument has ever disputed the FACT that the binary sexual model is predominant in the Creation story. Children are the product of such relationships. However, as I have repeatedly asserted on this blog, Jesus DID mention the FACT that there are human beings created - in the very same Image and Likeness of God - who are not (for various reasons given by Jesus) disposed towards the act of procreation.
It is obvious, for instance - to go back to the O.T. - that sexuality is a gift of God not limited to procreation . One only has to read the Song of Solomon to understand the mystery of EROS. Many commentators are disposed to explain what God 'was up to' in this celebration of eros, which is that amazing combination of spiritual and carnal delight - which seems so worrisome to many conservative Evangelicals, dfor whom, maybe, the act of procreation may have become just a matter of 'closing one's eyes and thinking of Mother England'.
It is sometimes forgotten that EROS is an integral part of AGAPE - all the gift of God, which many of us celebrate as best we can in our circumstance.
And, Peter, there is still the biblical reference to the 'love that exceeds that of man for woman' - for David and Jonathan!
Itr needs to be remebered also that Jesus healed the 'servant' of the patrician Gentile. I don't suppose Jesus questioned that relationship.
Hi Peter,
My objection to what is occurring in the ACANZP goes much deeper and wider than the SSM/SSB issue. At it's heart, lies broken man's penchant for, "I did it my way". So it is with the ACANZP, a Church which is willing to warp and bend Her legally defined Doctrine, so that She can circumvent Her Constitution to accommodate modern cultural beliefs;is a Church "which has left HER FIRST LOVE".
It not happen yesterday; but has been slowing dieing a death of a thousand cuts.Darwinism destroyed our belief in the Creator and Marxism, destroyed our belief in God led social structure. The Church did not stand firm against these false doctrines; but allowed Herself to be misled from Her Mission.
The issues which we face today are only manifestations of our unwillingness to take bold stands against those false doctrines.
Glen, with all due respect to your comments here, you seem unable to comprehend the true nature of the Traditional Anglican diversity in understanding of our commmon humanity - which Christ shared so that God could have the hands-on experience of what it is like to be 'fully human'. Jesus understood, from the inside, how deeply flawed we are, and that it is only by virtue of being united to Christ in Baptism and the Eucharist (that Christ left us as the unique means of reconcilation Eucharist in and to Christ) that we have any hope of helping the rest of humanity to find and to know God-in-Christ.
By our pious negativity toward our fellow human beings in the world - on the basis of what we perceive to be their 'sins', ourselves being beyond reproach - we do not draw them into a vital relationship with Jesus; on the basis, not of our personal sinlessness but of His. To emphasis the reality of our sinfulness - rather than the sinlessness and Love of God-in-Christ, we fail to be messengers of the Gospel.
Hi Glen and Ron
Glen is touching on a matter which goes beyond diversity of Anglican understanding, and beyond whether we end up calling a fellow Christian a sinner or not.
Our constitution provides for us to be a believing church which attends to and engages with its Scriptures. Unfortunately not all Anglicans in the church we love are faithful to what our constitution asks of us in respect of belief, even allowing for some latitude or diversity.
I am not going to give chapter and verse of my personal experience of doctrinal laxity in our church but it does exist!
Well, Peter, even Pope Francis has said recently that doctrine is not fixed for all eternity. It can be changed. What cannot be changed is faith in the fact that, in Jesus alone is our redemption.
"What cannot be changed is faith in the fact that, in Jesus alone is our redemption."
Yes. Both the Word and the Body are eternally from God, and the alternative to belief in saving revelation from God-- recognised dogma both evangelical/scriptural and ecumenical/conciliar-- is atheism. That God's own archetypal knowledge transcends our received ectypal knowledge is doubtless true, but beside the point. Atheism is not Christian, and what is not Christian is not Anglican either. To be an Anglican of any branch, one has to get to some sort of peace with the idea that God has spoken and meant what he said.
In fact, Anglicans-- sit down before you read this-- are the most emphatically dogmatic of all the Christians who have ever been. We are the only global communion that is clearly and coherently both evangelical and ecumenical. So our breadth, latitude, accommodation, tolerance, blah blah blah depend not on having loose tent-pegs, but on having those very strong tent-poles, so that you can actually stand up in the tent. In contrast, there are churches that have their tents very securely pegged at the edges, but not much holds up them up at the centre, so that you have to crawl around inside them with canvas on your back. Our tent is better than any other.
This is why Mere Christianity was written by-- at the time could only have been written by-- an Anglican. This is why we have had conservative bishops-- + Mark Lawrence comes to mind-- who actually want to found Anglo-Catholic and maybe even liberal parishes in their overwhelmingly evangelical dioceses; to any other tradition this is absurd inconsistency, but to an Anglican it is godly maturity. This is why we produce so many of the world's best theological scholars, but worry rather less than other Christians do about this or that breeze of alleged doctrine. This is why one can leave one branch for another-- C.S. Lewis began as an evangelical and ended close to Anglo-Catholicism-- and experience this not as conversion but as being changed from glory to glory in Christ. Uniquely, Anglicans recognise the common roots of the whole vine.
Cont'd
Three understandings and a corollary enable the Anglican tent to stand. (1) The recognised dogma are sufficient for the salvation of every creature under heaven, so that no church, nor any member of one, actually needs any further doctrine for salvation; the discourse of private devotion only matters to the whole as it recurs to the root and centre that are salvific for all creatures under heaven. (2) Nevertheless, a margin for private reception and devotion is recognised as the consequence of the Creator's will to diversify his creation, which is evident from both scripture and nature. (3) The Body of Christ is identified only with the whole, so that what any lesser church rightly does is done with both inner and outer unity, and what acts without this unity is not the Body, but a sect. The Corollary: Anglicans must do the best theology that they can, but there can be no such thing as Anglican theology, because-- the scriptural gospel and the ecumenical dogma belong to all (by 1), and any Anglican theological establishment actually operates in margin for merely private religion (by 2), where it has no claim on Anglicans as a whole until it recurs to the root (by 3). This has worked for centuries.
The Anglican anxiety is that some Anglicans think-- in error, I believe-- that they need "doctrinal change," but because of the understandings above we do not have, and can never have, a mechanism for giving them what they want. The main obstacle is not that some want to holding the line on some bit of scripture or tradition; it's the whole way that Anglicans understand the Body of Christ that stands in the way of this confounding of the root and the branch, the church and the parachurch. Instead, we have a simpler act of discerning from Communion to parish the difference between the central faith and the marginal reception. Those who would breach that membrane are thinking schismatically, and should ponder the understandings above. If these do not dissuade them from their insistence, then it would be best for them to negotiate, with Canterbury or a nearer metropolitical see, the ecumenical relationship with Anglicans that they truly want. This may sound dire, but we end where we began--
Both the Word and the Body are eternally from God, and the alternative to belief in saving revelation from God-- dogma both evangelical/scriptural and ecumenical/conciliar-- is atheism.
Bowman Walton
A Russian church historian by the name of Bolotov has distinguished three levels of authority with regards to the Christian faith as follows:
1. Dogmas, to which all believers are obliged to adhere.
2. “Theologoumena,” being beliefs and their expressions which are probable, and so authoritative, but not absolutely in the form of 1.
3. Theological opinions, which may be useful/ helpful but lack due authority— until/ unless for reasons of need they come into focus and are adopted by e.g., a church council. At all three levels, theology, in a general sense, has been at work. Yet the results of this work within a specific community, the church, has been elevated to the point where this church community now seeks to firmly and formally identify itself by adherence to certain doctrinal formulae as dogmas.
--p. 13. A. Bryden Black. The Lion, the Dove, & the Lamb: An Exploration into the Nature of the Christian God as Trinity. Wipf & Stock. Kindle Edition.
BW
Hi Peter,
Hi Peter,
I am sorry, if I appear to be repeating over and over again,the issue of the ACANZP'S Constitution; but I fail to see how the Church can move forward in a meaning way, to fulfill Her Holy Mission,until She repents of the ERRORS She has made by letting the doctrine of Arius,Darwinism and Marxism (and others) to pervert our understanding of the Holy Writ She was given to keep pure and proclaim.
Ron,
The Church of England is awash with the blood of Englishmen, eg. Bloody Mary. Elizabeth 1 tried to end the needless bloodshed and allowed what is called today,Via Media; to accommodate ALL Englishmen into the Establishment Church.
The ACANZP at the most was/is only a branch of the Church of England (Anglican Communion); and was established here in NZ by voluntary compact with a very specific legal Constitution 1857,which clearly defines Her Doctrine. The ABC,English Law nor NZ Law can redefine that Doctrine.General Synod (NZ) can not do so either.In regards to the thoughts of the Pope, which do not concur with the Constitutionally defined Doctrine Of the ACANZP;refer to your General Synod Handbook and Canons-Standing Resolution 1.paragraph 3.
The time spent on all this talk feast and considering all these extraneous opinions which can not alter the Doctrine of the ACANZP, would have been better spent developing,administering and supervising top rate pastoral care based on correct Doctrine.
Ron,I do find the underlying message of your blogs extremely interesting,to say the least. What you mean by "true nature of the traditional Anglican diversity in understanding our common humanity"?; what tradition Anglican diversity are you talking of?; it is easy to throw this term around to cover up the fact that we want to ,in reality be "Arianists, Progressive Christians or liberationists and yet remain on the payroll and pension scheme of the ACANZP.
Jesus did become 'fully man",but not man with the "Adamic Archetype" in His spirit.Man after the fall was no longer fully man-"he did surely die".Adam had the Godly Archetype and was able to talk to directly to God but that died at the fall. Common humanity now bears the Adamic Archetype and not the Godly Archetype. Jesus bore the Godly Archetype in His spirit,hence He was the second Adam.Empowered by the Holy Spirit common humanity can only talk to the Father through CHRIST.The reality of our sin is that SIN is not what we do ,but what we are- bearers of the Adamic Archetype. Be Christ,through the Holy Spirit imputed his RIGHTEOUSNESS onto His followers,they can start to untie the bounds of the Adamic Archetype and put on the Godly one.Therein lies the basis of true pastoral care.
Glen, I'm sorry but I couldn't give you a Pass mark in Divinity on your last attempt to define what God was doing in Christ. Christ's humanity was still our Full Humanity. In being the 'Second Adam', Jesus was still Adamic, but with the vital add-on-of full divinity. (a Mystery!)
If Jesus were not fully human, then humanity was never redeemed. Full Stop.
You'd better begin your arguments again.
Bowman; By giving Anglicanism the primary place in Christianity, you do realise that you are dismissing the viability of classic Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism (Bye-Bye Andrei and Nick). We are actually ALL in this together (see ARCIC and other ecumenical alliances).
Ron,
I am equally sorry, but your blogs would get you a D- in Philosophy.I stated quite clearly that Christ was "FULLY HUMAN" and that the humanity which He took upon Himself, was the perfect humanity which Adam was created with and had before the Fall (Article 2);not the sinful nature he had after the fall Article 9). Unlike Adam,Christ did not fall prey to Satin. Did you not study the Formularies which explains the Doctrine that the ACANZP must hold. I respectfully refer you back to Articles 2, 9 and 10.
Having descended from Adam and Eve, and carrying the Adamic Archetype in our spirit;we share with them,the vulnerability to deceived about all things,particularly our human nature and identity.
"Unlike Adam, Christ did not fall prey to Satin (sic) - neither did he take silk as a lwayer, Glen. He was clothed in our flesh - born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was fully - post-Adam - human just like us. He took upon Himself our fallen human nature and redeemed it from within. (n.b. I do not subscribe to your theory of a 'sinless BVM' - although we were asked, in Scripture, to call he 'Blessed').
Ron,
Christ was certainly clothed in our flesh,but it is not our flesh which causes us to sin.He said that it is out of the evil heart (spirit)
that comes forth .......
I know my understanding of the Godhead does not suit Progressive Christians.
Glen, you obliquely raise an interesting question-- do *Progressive* Christians have the same christology as the old [German] *Liberal* Christians (eg Harnack)? It is purely definitional, so I am inclined to ponder and discuss, not to propose and defend.
In American politics and culture, people have adopted *Progressive* to distinguish themselves from *Liberals*. This tacitly acknowledges that there is some similarity, but that there are also consequential differences that conservatives and centrists tend not to recognise. Once upon a time, Democrats with roots in the New Deal and the Great Society were Liberals, but Democrats with roots in the New Left inspired by C. Wright Mills were Progressives (eg Tom Hayden). They did not like each other.
In religion, I have mainly have heard "Progressive" being adopted by Christians like Peter-- Protestants who are traditional in their theology, but who are not on that basis socially or politically conservative.
Growing up in Washington, I sometimes worshiped with the Sojourners Fellowship. Although in those days even Catholic Worker Catholics, Lutherans like Richard John Neuhaus, and Episcopalians like William Stringfellow would worship with them, the theological tenor was Reformed and Neo-Orthodox-- the most theologically literate of these folks knew Calvin or Barth far better than SS Maximus or Thomas. But although they mourned the prevalence of abortion and divorce, they agitated for the poor, immigrants, racial minorities, and the earth. They were and are Progressives. Among my friends today are the most traditional Friends on the planet-- Christian identity, biblical literacy, familiarity with early Quaker writings, silent meetings, plain dress, thees and thous, pacifism, non-resistance to evil, etc-- but their traditionally Quaker view of marriage easily accommodates SSM, and therefore so do they. They are Progressives.
These Progressives did not think of Jesus in the kenotic way of most Liberals.
I will admit to a personal bias: because my other ancestry is Anabaptist, Christians who-- in politics, culture, religion, etc-- are ALWAYS for the new or ALWAYS for the old seem to me to be in thrall to a personal temperament for which they have not learned to compensate. Those who are conservative or liberal in EVERYTHING can and do say interesting things, but I hope and expect that, when they reach maturity, they will say things that are more perceptive, nuanced, and true.
Bowman Walton
Father Ron, you have not understood my 8:06, 8:07, and 1:21 of October 23.
Thank you again for your interesting 6:46 of October 20. I am still pondering it.
BW
Dear Bowman,
How does a simple man such as myself, with so few words, answer your questions. I fear that my blogs on Peter's site,may have portrayed me to be of a rather legalistic nature; but if it is possible to have a robust philosophical argument, I certainly would rather do so.
My dear old Scots Grandfather married a rather beautiful English lady who was very Anglican. She died rather young and left him a grieving widower for many years. My father married into the Scots Church and all my siblings were baptized into that faith; but for some reason,Granddad had me baptized into his late wife's church.
So, here I am as a member of the ACANZP. There are of cause many influences that have led me to be who I am. At home,my father was a Elder in the local Kirk, and here in NZ; I saw Geering destroy the Scot's Church as the leader of their Theological College. He promoted the same beliefs as Spong Et Al.
The Anglican Church in NZ was established in 1857 with a very specific legal Constitution, with a very well defined Doctrine.That Doctrine is defined as:"Doctrine and Sacraments of Christ which the Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word, as the Church hath received and explained the same in the Book of Common Prayer, the form and manner making,ordaining and consecrating Bishops,Priests and Deacons and the 39 Articles of Faith".
To me, Bowman, there is little room for SSM/SSB as the Constitution 1857 forbids any change to that Doctrine. Further more, in 1928 it was thought necessary to have certain parts of the Fundamental Provisions
to be clarified by the NZ Parliament.The "Church of England Empowering Act 1928 reinforces all the provisions of the Constitution 1857, prohibiting
the alteration of the defined Doctrine.
I am happy to abide by that Doctrine. Anyone who is not ,I feel should find a Church whose Doctrine,they accept and join it.
Granted, Glen, your attachment to the extant Constitution of ACANZP, It should be understood that the original Constituion has already been changed - with the incorporation of our 3-Tikanga form of gevernance. So, per se, the Constituion is NOT what you insist it to still be. Several matters have been added to our original Constitution - thyat have already been quoted on this blog that perhaps you have been unaware of in tghe passing. For instance; Baptism as the fullness of Christiuan Initiation, allowing entrance to reception of Holy Communion; Women's Ordination and Re-0marriage after Divorce - all changes in basic doctrine. So perhaps you are already outside of the modern Anglican Church by your insistence on an outdated theology of belonging.
Ron,
The Constitution,roughly speaking falls into parts: 18 preambles,Part A
(The Fundamental Provisions,which define the Doctrine and can not be altered),
which are followed by the non-fundamental Provisions.It was by adding to the latter,that the changes of which you speak came about.
Glen, contrary to yourself, I do not believe that the blessing of a couple who have been married by the State could ever be a contravention of basic doctrine; and must, therefore, fall under the same non-fundamental provision as the matters of which I have already written - and you have recognised.
My question of you, Glen, is: If ACANZP agrees to the blessing of such relationships, will you carry out your threat to leave? I would be sad about that possibility, but then it must be your conscientious choice.
Ron,
The issue is not as simple as you express.Parliament,in altering the Marriage Act had no power to require anything of the ACANZP. Nor does the ACANZP have the power to determine that the new Act complies with Her Doctrine as defined in the Fundamental Provisions of Her Constitution 1857.I made submissions to the Crown on the issue of where the Crown stood with the ASCANZP in relation to the Church of England Empowering Act 1928.The Minister (Crown) informed me that I was not entitled to say that SSM was not legal. My reply was that I was not saying it was not legal but that it was not moral.
If the ACANZP agrees to blessing to SSB, then General Synod has disregarded Article 20 and Article 35 Homily 18.;and in doing so,opened itself up to civil litigation.
This whole issue has been handled in a manner, which brings the governance ability of all concerned,into question.
Hi Glen
I wonder if you are mistaken in your understanding of the 1928 Act and its force in the life of our church?
The thrust of the Act is to (i) safeguard the church (that it and its property might not be claimed by a remnant claiming to be a purer form of the church (e.g. because only subscribing to the BCP and AV); (ii) provide for the church to alter its formularies, providing certain doctrinal (but rather general doctrinal) constraints are met.
The proposal before us, in its interim form, is for no change to formal doctrine re marriage and provides no new or changed formulary for consideration.
Consequently, I am not sure how it could be a source for litigation that the GS approves of a course of action which does not formally affect the doctrine of the church, nor offer formulary change or innovation which could be measured against the doctrine.
In particular, I do not see how a permission for clergy to offer prayers for two people committed in love to each other could lead to a substantive case to be brought against the church, for the church in its own defence could readily provide evidence that it is part of the doctrine and practice of the church that we pray for people.
Hi Peter,
It is a nonsense to claim the giving of permission to Clergy, to offer prayers for two committed in love to each other, does not affect the Doctrine of the ACANZP. On what authority are such prayers offered up? If these two people have gone through a civil marriage and prayers are offered up,are we not in fact recognizing that marriage? It is certainly part of the Doctrine and practice of the Church to pray for people,but not to ask for blessings on sin. It is also contrary to ART.10 and 18th Homily of the 35th.
Have we gone through all this angst just to say some prayers.I do not think that this is what certain Churches in Auckland were seeking. How dishonest to have led them on when it was obvious that their pipe dream could become a reality.
If indeed Peter these last remarks express your assumed position and the assumed position furthermore of our church, then clearly neither you nor our church has dug deeply enough into the matter. For at root, given the Christian Faith is essentially Incarnational, and given the concern before us addresses our basic anthropological nature, then we’ve to do with core doctrine. Sure; there are issues of genetic make-up possibly to be considered. Yet even here, given a stratified view of reality (Roy Bhaskar as used by Alister McGrath), and the likely multifactorial nature of same-sex attraction, a due Christian ethic still nonetheless pertains. Not least, as the key matter before us anthropologically is this.
Our contemporary view of human being is that of a self-positing autonomous personal subject, the result of a random evolutionary process. Christian Faith would insist on a richer view, one which sees human being as essentially good yet also simultaneously, fundamentally flawed. For on the one hand we are created in the image of God, worthy of great dignity, being distinct from the rest of creation, even as adam is too a creature like the rest; while on the other hand we are duly responsible to the Creator; our freedom and dignity stands accountable; we are in authority over the rest of creation (however the image is actually, traditionally formulated, Gen 1-2) in as much as we are under God’s authority (Gen 3, 2 Sam 14, Matt 8:5-13)—and we’ve blown it somehow! Curiously, as I’ve often claimed, the former view is a bastard step-child of the latter and could have only arisen out of a culture derived from the latter. And so, in the end, we contemporary Christians may not have a bob each way - without becoming seriously compromised, confused and alloyed, even heretical.
So Peter; Glen has a most serious point. Even as the formula re “marriage” is due to remain unchanged (although we’ve yet to see what GS 2018 actually proposes and passes), the consequences and implications of the blessing of same-sex relationships drive to the very heart of the Christian Faith, anthropologically. And if that supposedly does not convey any “alteration of our formularies”, then it’s game over ...
[PS You have a copy of my annotated bibliography of sundry resources gathered ever since the Ma Whea Commission and our own Doctrine Commission proffered theirs ...]
Hi Glen and Bryden
I am trying to make two points (in relation to your comments above):
(1) Before anyone seeks to litigate the matter on points of law, I am urging caution because it is possible that what GS ends up resolving will change little or nothing in respect of canons, constitution, formularies (the only basis on which litigation can proceed). That whatever is resolved might be good, bad, indifferent or even dangerous theology is up for discussion and is being discussed (e.g. here) and that is what Anglicans are quite good at. But theological controversy is not necessarily either necessary or sufficient grounds for litigation.
(2) A theology of sexuality, humanity, divinity, creation, divine image (as Bryden above) is important and, believe it or not, I remain closer to your theology Bryden than you might think!). But these are not the only theological considerations at stake here.
Also at stake is the nature of the church, of the offices and officers within it, the breadth of theology which may be promoted and practised by the same, what it means to exercise conscience, theological dissent-within-theological-diversity and such.
A question - as far as I can tell from above (and many previous posts), Bryden, is whether you do or do not think a church with the history of theological diversity within it, could properly permit difference of viewpoint and practice on what and whom may be prayed for? (I wouldn't bless battleships but some of my colleagues in the Communion do and I am able to live with that.)
Again, you well understand that there are differences of views in our church on matters such as marrying, or not, those who have the partner to a previous marriage still alive. Are these differences of views able to be sustained within the one ecclesiology to which you subscribe? (I assume that you do ...!).
In other words, in a church which - obviously - needs some common doctrine to even presume to be a church but which has, over centuries, been able to live with a certain amount of difference, is it an obvious matter for litigation ... or, for that matter, schism ... if we retain a common doctrine of marriage and permit priests to exercise their conscience on whether they pray that a relationship which is not marriage might be blessed?
To me, it is not obvious that this situation must lead to litigation nor that it should lead to schism.
I have long been interested in the Law Lords' holding in the case of the Wee Frees that Glen mentions.
Why? Because it does not assume any religious allegiance on the part of the judge. In a society with a secular state that has a certain salience.
A general argument abstracted from the holding might be something like this--
(a) Religions, like sports, comprise specified and ruled practises.
(b) Religions, unlike sports, do not derive their practises from the practitioners.
(c) Being religious, churches, like leagues, incorporate to ensure the uniformity of practise.
(d) Being religious, churches, unlike leagues, also incorporate to ensure the stability of practise through time.
(e) Not being religious, leagues, unlike churches, do not incorporate to ensure the stability of practise.
(f) Recognised malpractise cannot become recognised practise without an agreed change to the rules of practise.
(g) Such a change is presumptively possible for a league, but impossible for a church.
(h) The presumption can only be overturned by an express clause of the incorporation.
(i) By definition, referees intentionally treating recognised malpractise as recognised practise are corrupt.
(j) In churches, as in leagues, when referees permit malpractise as practise, courts may intervene to restore the recognised practise.
(k) The appropriate intervention depends on the circumstances of the case.
Is that a usable summary of the argument?
Also: Would a prudent, reasonable, and scrupulously secular person see less change in issuing an alternative prayer book or ordaining a woman to holy orders than in assuring a couple that sins of God's favour?
Bowman Walton
I’ll address, Peter, these parts of your response for the moment:
“But theological controversy is not necessarily either necessary or sufficient grounds for litigation.
(2) A theology of sexuality, humanity, divinity, creation, divine image (as Bryden above) is important and, believe it or not, I remain closer to your theology Bryden than you might think!). But these are not the only theological considerations at stake here.
Also at stake is the nature of the church, of the offices and officers within it, the breadth of theology which may be promoted and practised by the same, what it means to exercise conscience, theological dissent-within-theological-diversity and such.”
These parts of your response have a degree of cogency at first blush, but further digging I suspect shows your lines of argument to be weaker than you suppose.
“Theological controversy”: where that controversy is conducted in such a way that the questions under debate are merely viewed as being steadily open-ended, then we have that absurd stance I have already countered both formally and here on ADU. There is adequate Church history to refute these sorts of moves favoured by some. Short-hand, as reminders: the contemporary setting of pluralism versus Tradition; Robert Jenson versus Rowan Williams; the glaring weaknesses of synodical government—all previously canvassed and so not repeated (except for one aspect below).
“Diversity” (sic): where it can be reasonably shown that views held are incompatible and so mutually exclusive (which my last sought to show clearly, as does my published essay of 2006), then to pander to the zeitgeist of pluralism, as if it were the same creature as that which Anglicans might have historically espoused ala “comprehensiveness” shall we say, is surely again absurd. This is not merely to say there are “limits to diversity”. Rather, it is to bring to the surface the incompatible assumptions being held. Failure to acknowledge this is not just silly; it is a form of “double speak”, and so an affront to the Truth. Unless of course we really do wish to go down Orwell’s road ...
Finally, just so once more, those questions I posted earlier on ADU, notably regarding how people become genuinely mistaken, etc. Longitudinal questions of aetiology might be difficult to grasp in this age of Twitter and the instant-13-second grab; for all that, CS Lewis was right: “chronological snobbery” abounds - to our profound detriment, and to the detriment of the Truth. For once more, another reminder: it’s all very well our touting synodical government’s virtues, together with the notion of “provisionality”. YET it’s actually impossible to undo certain things historically once enacted. Even Kenneth Locke, whose work is heavily relied upon by the Working Group and its draft, acknowledges this. And frankly, certain key concerns have NOT been addressed and/or concluded by our church at all these past few years. And so to act precipitously with these unaddressed is another folly.
So Peter; there is a real Rubicon type possibility here slip-sliding into view. And recall, that wee river was indeed but a wee river; but its crossing set in motion a seismic event/series of events. THAT is what is truly at stake here.
Postscript-- When an American judge looks at TEC and the Diocese of South Carolina, what s/he sees is a dispute about who owns what property. S/he makes rulings and enforces orders in that dispute on the basis of a common law norm that *owners should have and control their property*.
What Glen is arguing is that when a Commonwealth judge looks at cases of disputed practise, s/he will make rulings and enforce orders on the basis of a common law norm that *officers should act in a way consistent with the corporation's charter*.
Quite apart from litigation-- which heaven forfend-- such norms constrain churches to ponder their corporate acts in the light of Romans 13:1-7. Insofar as churches are corporations, they should be good as corporations within a civil fabric.
BW
Hi Peter,
It seems to me that you confuse the Anglican Communion in general with the ACANZP. What may be permissable in another part of Communion may well fall outside the Doctrine of the ACANZP, as defined in Her Constitution.
Red herrings such as blessing battleship; if they fall outside the Constitution, should become part of the Episcopal Discipline of the Bishop concerned. The question I put to you again is; by what authority do you bless or ask God to bless a relationship which is not permitted in His Revelation?
I ask you to explain, where you believe that the ACANZP{,(not the rest of the Communion);gains the legal right to be this diverse Church, you speak of.I respectfully suggest that it has come about because of the lack of Episcopal leadership[ and discipline; and that it has no legal basis.
For General Synod to permit these prayers (blessings) to occur, they must quote the authority or power under which they are acting. So what is that power or authority?. I tried to ascertain this very issue in regards to the Ma Whea Commission but could get no rational explanation from the Sec. Gen.
Litigation can proceed on the basis of The Church of England Empowering Act 1928 sec.7. This is why it is important to know by what authority or power General Synod is acting. In short; the days when General Synod,the Bishops and the Clergy can ride roughshod over the laity has gone.
Hi Bowman,
Spot on. The only point which can be added is that, anyone who collects or accepts public donations is legally bound by Civil Law to use the money for the purpose for which it was collected. Hence the Law Lords held that money and assets which were accumulated under a specific Doctrine belongs to that Doctrine. Their Decision rested solely on the Civil Law relating to fraud and false pretensions. With the ACANZP there is provision for issuing alternative prayer books provided the contents comply with the Doctrine as defined in the Constitution 1857.I do know of any prohibition in that Doctrine re ordaining a woman to Holy Orders. However,as is evident on Peter's site, SSM/SSB are a different kettle of fish.
Hi Bryden
I can never quite follow you to the point you go - though following you most of the way - to the point above where the relatively small community of gays and lesbians in our church are responsible for provoking such a large and dangerous theological issue! Is God - the God who will not break a bruised reed - really as concerned as you are for this situation?
Anyway, even if that question deters you not, I still do not find in your response any clarity why the Anglican church cannot yet absorb a further bit of diversity. Yes, lots is at stake, but it always is when we Anglicans grapple with difference!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was there in a sermon I heard recently which professed an interesting spirituality of the environment ... but I see no need to talk about Rubicons etc.
Hi Bowman
Not sure if I follow all that you say (while trying to cross match it to what I understand out situation to be) ...
But when you write: "Would a prudent, reasonable, and scrupulously secular person see less change in issuing an alternative prayer book or ordaining a woman to holy orders than in assuring a couple that sins of God's favour?" then I think the thrust of our church constitution x our 1928 Act of Parliament means that that secular person would see no particular difference between any of those changes.
The 1928 Act - so I understand - was intended to clarify that our church could make some changes (specifically, in that year, accepting the 1928 Prayer Book, additional to the BCP) without a "pure" BCP remnant claiming that it was the true Anglican faith and thus entitled to the property.
Fast forward to (say) 2021, I cannot see a secular court in NZ accepting a charge that our GS legislating for SSB to be permitted, while changing no doctrine and agreeing to no new formulary, was acting against the provision in the 1928 Act for legislative change to occur within certain boundaries.
Conversely, where I think our GS needs to be very careful is to avoid doctrinal change and proposing new formularies which could be readily argued to contradict our Fundamentals.
Your whole argument here, Bowman, depends on your theology of SIN. There are competent theologians in the Church - unlike your good self - who do NOT consider loving same-sex relationship to be sinful. Can you, Bryden and Glen live with that or not? - is the real question. If not, then you, like GAFCON, may have to begin your own Church of the Unsulllied.
As Peter here suggest. there is at least one other area of human sexuality that has been allowed into the Anglican ethos that used to be considered, by competent Church of England theologians 'SINFUL' - that of the use of artificial contrasception. Now I wonder h0w many con/evos refuse to practise that behaviour, believing it to be 'sinful' and AGAINST GOD'S ORDINANCE - to 'Go forth and multiply?
It seems to me that the Church has had to learn to 'live with ' modifications in its treatment of different human behaviour - to accommodate new understandings of what may, and what may no longer be considered (because of new understanding) to be outside of God's Ordinanc (Remember God's people having to accept that circumcision was no longer required to become a child of God and a follower of Jesus!
As Peter said: The Church has learned to live with re-marriage after divorce - a real taboo at one time in the Church. If our Church can live with that (which could be understood from Scripture as being corban) then what would be different about blessing two people in a loving same-sex relationship.
I supposed your argument might be that a married gay couple could be living in sin.
If you really believe such a relationships is sinful, how does that compare with a couple co-habiting after divorce in a second marriage?. How can the Church live with one and not the other situation?
Of course, if you believe that two people (1) practising artificial contraception; (2) continuing a new connubial relationship after divorce; or (3) living into a same-sex legal relationship; should not be Blessed, then the Anglican Church may not be your natural home. Personal conscience puts the responsibility for one's personal behaviour (within the constraints of the civil law) securely upon one's-self - which may better be where it belongs. ACANZP in not a sect, but a part of the Body of Christ which is not a mausoleum for saints, but a hospital for sinners (who, mostly, are aware of their own fallen humanity).
One purpose of Marriage is to celebrate human companionship in a world needing love - as well as to bring children into the world. Not all married couples are called to do the latter.
Thanks, Peter. Looking over the previous few comments, I can see why the word 'Fundamentalism' applies to people who fear change and cannot adapt - no matter how circumstances change to indicate a pastoral need for revision. If they were true to their O.T. origins they may have, even now, to access the rite of circumcision, and we know what the Blessed Apostle Paul had to say about those who insisted on the need for it to becoame kosher. Whoops, the knife slipped!
All I'll say Peter is that the Rubicon was indeed such a wee little river - YET ...!
And then to conclude, I'll cite the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount and especially their climax.
Fin!
Hi Ron (and Bryden and Glen and other commenters)
I am slightly reluctantly publishing your comment at 8.36 pm: there is no need to add to the points in your comment above that with a negative condemnation of those who differ in viewpoint. It is more than Anglican to be conservative (even fundamental) on important matters of theology and ethics. I do not detect any "fear" of "change" in those here who differ from you. I do detect (reasonable) "fear" of our church making a big mistake ... and let's face it, numbers of Anglicans in the pews these days do not allow us much margin of error for self-inflicted wounds.
Re your comment at 7.33 pm: I am flattered that you quote me approvingly but I still differ from you because the matters you raise do not represent "new understandings" - rather they represent matters on which faithful Anglicans have differing viewpoints having reached different conclusions when reflecting on the Scriptures we hold in common.
Peter re your comment on 26 @ 7:12:
The Rubicon was indeed a very wee river - YET ...!
I'll also point out the set of antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount and their climax. Which our Lord set before all of us ...
Fin!
An appropriate push back Peter at 7:22; thanks!
re B.B. @ 7.40 & 7.51 - I thought the word Fin meant finish - or does it mean penultimate in the rarified atmosphere of theolo0gical speculation?
Hi Peter,
I am interested to understand by what legal authority the ACANZP is held to a "broad and diverse" Church. The fundamental Provisions of the Constitution 1857 are abundantly clear that the Doctrine is not just the Scriptures; but the Scriptures as received and explained in the three Formularies. Therefore, it seems to me, that the ACANZP can only be as broad and diverse as the Formularies explanation of the Scriptures. Here, I am notspeaking about the Anglican Communion in general, just the Church in NZ.
In signing submissions to the Authority of General Synod, perhaps the Authority and Powers of General Synod are confused.The Authority of General Synod is the CONSTITUTION 1857. The Powers of G.S., are the "determinations" which the Constitution allow it to make. Therefore, in signing a submission to G.S., one is pledging allegiance to the Scriptures as explained by the three Formularies. Once one objects to those interpretations, no matter what outside scholars one can quote, one's submission goes out the window.
I do wonder if the expression "wide and diverse" is not another way of saying, "lack of Episcopal leadership and discipline; nod,nod,wink,wink".
Hi Glen
Our church got off to a pretty broad start when the initially CMS church was joined by Bishop High Church Selwyn and then flooded with settlers who came from various parts of England, including those parts engaging in the then new Ritualism. It has continued its diverse way through many interesting clerical sermons and some colourful appearances in the media of non-orthodox views, the holders of which have very, very rarely ever been held to account, partly or even wholly because wise bishops and lawyers know how hard it is to make charges of doctrinal dereliction stick (cf. Geering in the Presbyterian church).
The good thing is that we do have doctrinal standards to which we can informally hold one another to account and to which we can call attention when, e.g. we are selecting our ministers and choosing our bishops. Thus our church is much more orthodox than might have been expected if certain pathways pursued in the 1960s and 70s had been pursued.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your thoughts but it still begs the question why the question of the Episcopal leadership in NZ. has never had the fortitude to tackle the issue. They had/have the backing of Church history and tradition,The Constitution 1857,Parliament and the Civil Law. They had not only the legal right, but also the moral obligation to fulfill their Ordination Vows. Their failure to meet their foremost duty of "Protecting the Holy Writ"; is a failure of the most fundamental level of fiduciary duty.
Bishop Selwyn is on record of having told the 1st General Synod (1859);that anybody who did agree with the Doctrine as definded in the Constitution, was free to leave and find a Church with which they were happy.
Glken, are you by any chance an ecclesiastical lawyer? If so, you would do well to remember how Jesus constantly challenged the Scribes and Pharisees - bringing into being a new theology of grace rather than cold and parsimoniou legalism. He said this: "Come to me all you who are heavy burdened, and I will refresh you" The Scribes and Pharisees were accused by Jesus of loading down their people with burdens (Legalism) too hard to bear, not lifting a finger to help with the load.
It is easier to lay down the law (upon others) than to fulfil its exigencies.
Father Ron, the argument is not mine, but that of the Law Lords (HT Glen). As you must have guessed, the Law Lords in 1913, although farsighted, were not influenced by my understanding of *sin* in 2017. Their holding is salient here only as one that purportedly presupposes a judge with general knowledge of what a religion is, but not the beliefs of any particular religion. It might apply no less to a corporation for conserving a body of aboriginal ritual that is being sued for enacting colonial religion as well.
BW
Peter, Glen, Bryden-- In no era has *Anglican diversity* ever been an end in itself, least of all the founding one. Were the bishops that served the Tudors and the Stuarts happy to disagree as much as they did? And each wave of English churchmanship has found something heartily detestable in the ones that preceded and followed it. Were the reformers fond of monasticism? Did the high church divines not temper the biblicism of many with a rather Augustinian Thomism? Were the latitudinarians who reduced the 42 Articles to 39 Articles preaching the received gospel of double predestination? When evangelicals were young did they not find their elders a bit torpid? Did the first anglo-catholics not find the evangelicalism of their youth spiritually and imaginatively stultifying? Did the sort of liberalism that emerged from their conflict not deplore the blindness of each party to the importance of the rather few things that were agreed? Good Christians are zealous, but zealous Anglicans seldom agree or like each other. And yet they have stayed.
Our conventional body of practise has made the creeds, BCP, and 39A, although inadequate to the enforcement of clear and precise boundaries, or to the magisterial arbitration of disputes, a centripetal force stronger than the weaker centrifugal forces exerted from time to time by the malcontented, the idiosyncratic, and the damned. There is more than one recognised orthodoxy, but we are more deeply unified for it. Heterodoxy has a margin for creativity, but that is all that it is, and all that we need for it to be. Heretics have happened from time to time, as they do everywhere, but they have never became heresiarchs. Who now follows TEC's Bishop Pike into the dessert to conjure the dead? Our disgreements have been so innocuous over time, not because any person saved by *pistis* is helped by confusion in his church, but because the centre has had the sheer gravitational power to draw all things into orbits around itself, at a lesser or greater distance.
In the Anglican settlement, *diversity* is recognised as an obvious evil; from time to time, doctrinal commissions have been appointed to reduce it or make it less noxious. But it is an evil that our robust practise has constrained so well that some are actually fond of it for its own sake, decadent as that is. Such lovers of diversity ought rather to be lovers of the solar centre that by spacing the planets and bending their paths enables them to rush through space without serious collision.
The mass of this centre should not surprise us. Anglicans emerged from the Reformation with much of the Spirit-given tradition of the first millennium intact. Less lucky Protestants have churches emerged from narrower conflicts with weaker centres that are defended by casemate walls built of stone and geometry, but so brittle to modern artillery that the wall is breached and the enemy rushes in. Anglicans do not have an exclusive claim to the superior way-- Chemnitz and Ursinus came as close to articulating it as Hooker-- but the Spirit bloweth where it listeth and they clearly do have it.
Thus their felicitous if often misrepresented history has presented Anglicans with what we may well call Sykes's Dilemma: (a) if fidgeting with the central body of practise weakens its gravitation, whatever we think of the rationale for doing so, then innocuous disagreements can become dangerous ones; (b) but if the central practise can never be faithfully adapted at all, then it could become less intelligible and attractive with time, becoming too weak to tame the daimons that from time to time beset us. If Sykes was broadly right about *The Integrity of Anglicanism*, then we should answer Peter's questions *can we be just a little bit more diverse?* and *is this little bit of diversity any worse than a similar little bit of diversity?* with an honest estimate of what any given change does to the attractive force at the centre.
Bowman Walton
Hi Bowman
I hope this is a response which follows from what you are saying - Sykes seems slightly complex to me :). Anyway:
my reading of what is going on here in ACANZP is that the core of the proposal before us: >no change to doctrine of marriage, permission to perform SSB< will not shake the centre of our church though it may lead to disturbance on the circumference (where "centre" means the body of people who do not make much identification theologically other than the identification "Anglican" and "circumference" means the various groups of Anglicans who do make something of an identification such as "conservative", "progressive,", "evangelical"; and neither term is intended to be taken as pejorative).
Ron,
Nope,I am not a ecclesiastical lawyer: I actually qualified as a bush lawyer in the Waitakere Ranges and was admitted to the bar at the Henderson Hotel. Proud to say,I have won a case; from memory I think it was Shiraz.
But you well to speak of the Jesus Mission. From memory He said,"I came not to change the law but to fulfill the prophesies". His mission certainly did usher in a theology of Grace; but sadly,as Bonhoeffer writes, a very "Costly Grace"; costly because it cost Him, His life and the necessity of taking our Sin upon Himself. However, certain theologies offer a cheap grace.It is cheap grace because it comes at no cost; it is cheap because we bestow it upon ourselves.It is the grace which justifies sin as well as the sinner.Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness with requiring repentance. Cheap grace is radial inclusion of everyone at any cost.
Bonhoeffer reminds us that,that "when Christ calls a man, He calls him to come and die". The death of the "old rebellious man" is never easy.We have to allow the Divine Surgeon to remove all those Adamic Archetypal images out of our spirits.
Dear Glen, you are sounding like a born-again charismatic - a bit like self-styled Bishop Brian Tamaki, who thinks he has all the answers, but hasn't really heard the questions. If that sounds s little judgemental - when I myself ask people to be slow in judging - it is only because thirty years ago I went through the charismatic experience, and grew from it. What experience did for me was to flesh out my sparse theology of the Holy Spirit. It did also warn me about the possibility of believing that I had all the answers (an occupational hazard of all would-be teachers).
My immersion in the Franiscsan Order and then as a parish priest has taught me that there is much more to the Christian life that 'the rules'. Grace is a gift and cannot be purchased - even with the best of intentions. It comes, mainly, through a life of prayer and service - not necessarily from the inside of books - wonderful though they may be. Engagement with the marginalised and the outcast is a pretty good test of faith (which I later learned in a college-based prison ministry) - something not normally gained from even the most enthusiastic congregational worship but in the crucible of in-depth experience of human relationships.
It is for such people - on the margins - that Jesus died. Not for those who thought they already had it made and judged other people accordingly. This was the mistake made byu the Scribes and Phairsees - who were always on the lookout for scandal and transgressions of the Law. Jesus took great pains to correct that emphasis. We are all sinners needing Christ's redemption. This cost Jesus his life - at the hands of the legalists, who insisted on their propriety, rather than their charity to others.
After all, Jesus said: "They'll know you're my disciples by your Love" - not by your perfectionism! It has been said that 'Love covers a multitude of sins!"
Thanks Bowman for concluding with Stephen Sykes. I have had immense respect for him ever since I met him in 1986 at the Barth Centennial Conference which I was fortunate enough to stumble upon. Since then I have read a good deal of his material. So, yes; the gravitational analogy is powerful - puns intended. My concern is twofold in this light.
1. Our contemporary fixation on pluralism is a new and different phenomenon, I sense, to Anglicanism’s traditional embrace of “comprehension” (your list of varying poles). It is rather like an entire plethora objects from among the asteroid belt suddenly becoming loosed from their orbits, to infiltrate other planetary orbits, threatening their respective surfaces - and more. The odd meteor or two has indeed disrupted life on our own planet (read: the history of the CoE and its children). Here and now, pluralism however is like a continuous shower of really large and significant cosmic objects coming our way.
2. One of Sykes’ more significant books is The Identity of Christianity: Theologians and the Essence of Christianity from Schleiermacher to Barth (SPCK, 1984). I refer to him because he makes a good case for the inevitably contested nature of Christianity’s identity. There are multiple reasons for this, as well as false conclusions - and correct ones! - to be drawn. Another angle would highlight “the unity and diversity in the New Testament” (JDG Dunn) canon itself. To lay people I say myself, “the NT has Four Gospels within it, not only one - even if it does not have twenty four”, which tries to suggest a similar thing. For even if the very nature of the Christian Faith necessitates debate surrounding its “essence”, there will also be boundaries and/or parameters to that very debate - although what they are and where they lie will also be something of a feature of the debate itself. As Sykes says, both methodological questions and matters of substance go hand in hand. The Church will always embody forms of debate, as differing perspectives engage with the Faith - but not inevitably ad infinitum! And here lies the (contemporary) rub: pluralism would seek to have a continuous asteroid shower not only disrupting the surface but also tugging at the very orbit of the host planet.
So, Peter; you seem to think the present debate will only affect the periphery and not the centre. I seriously beg to differ. This present incessant shower of asteroids (read: diversity run amok; the toleration of multiple “reader-responses”) upon that centre strikes at its very core (read: its very gravitational engine), which is to say its authority base, the Scriptures. We simply may not avoid such a view. True; certain hermeneutical exercises have tried to exorcize the ‘sin’ of homoerotic behaviour (read: the latest asteroid) from the pages of Holy Writ. I’m all too familiar with the arguments ... But that only flouts, via that all too familiar subjective ‘reading’ premise of multiple voices, what the Lord of the economy has given his Church as its Lode Star, a firm celestial fixed point by means of which to navigate. BUT throw the planet off kilter, and even that set point starts to spin. I think Peter we are about to join Miss Piggy lost in space ...
Ron,
The thing that is so entertaining with your blogs is that while they constantly preach a gospel of love they are also critical of anybody who does accept your views on human nature. Many of us have had to wrestle out a living in the world, where the rubber hits the road; rubbing shoulders with the marginalised and outcasts on a daily basis. If we break the law, we are required to answer for it.You do know who I am or what my life experiences are but you jump to all sorts of assumptions about me and then say you are slow to judge.
Your blogs speak disparagingly about GAFCON, the Confessing Anglicans, the West Hamilton Community Church, Destiny Church and their leaders.If they were to read your blogs,would they know that you are His disciple by the love that you show them? Or is the love only for the marginalised and outcasts.
Lawyer Glen and Father Ron, thank you for your evocations of Bonhoeffer and St Francis. Both were sound; they would probably disagree less than we do.
Your comments are a bit closer to the lived life in Christ than most are. I wish that I had been reading more comments like them over the past decade.
As a Lutheran Protestant, Bonhoeffer starts from the supposition that after one has given one's allegiance to Christ, right action is a whole-hearted, thinking response of gratitude to that gift. One is grateful to be no longer acting under the threat of rejection and so able to take responsibility for one's life; one's gratitude aligns one's will with that of God, so that one becomes what Luther called "a little christ" and what Genesis calls "the image and likeness" of God. Both of these are thoroughly transformative, albeit over time and in the Holy Spirit. St Francis was a nearly perfect exemplar for his time of what that looks like, and Bonhoeffer knew it.
Bonhoeffer is opposing the preaching that relieves guilt and fear without also inducing the transformative gratitude and the responsibility and benevolence that come of it. In Lutheran parlance, he is insisting on the law-gospel dialectic: every preaching of an ideal from the law must be wedded to the gospel's restoration of freedom, and every preaching of God's reconciliation with sinners must unveil the life for them that this freedom makes possible.
Here, a subtlety. The scriptures are obviously the source of all of this. And their presentation of God's will reliably informs the whole-hearted, thinking responses of one assisted by the Holy Spirit in Christ. But at least in the Lutheran view-- I think in St Paul's view-- it is an abuse of the scriptures to so evoke God's will as to push justified sinners back from responsible freedom into the fearful paralysis from whence they came. That is the sort of preaching that Satan does. When law and gospel are well correlated, apparent slackers are not defeated with the law, but are emboldened with the gospel to do what the law shows to be God's will.
In its abstract and Protestant form, That Topic is: how does one preach *today* to reconciled sinners who cannot pull themselves together *today* into a configuration that the scriptures suggest that those in Christ should have? This happens, and not only with respect to sex. Insisting on the doing of works of the law for their own sake not only misses the problem but also does Satan's work for him. Yet many fear that just reaffirming God's gracious reconciliation could be taken as a grant of consolation without transformation-- cheap grace-- and not only to the stricken brother before us but also to a host of watching bystanders who are merely conventionally religious. Some disparage the testimony of the scriptures on sex to evade the voice of accusation-- hence the attacks on those who cite scripture-- but this only invites the Accuser and sets souls adrift. Others just shrug, preach the exegetically indicated word, and let the mystery of predestination work itself out with an indifference that God himself seems not to have.
More can be said about what you both say, but I wanted to set up the problem that you raise before essaying it. Again, my thanks to you both for this morning's comments.
Bowman Walton
Thanks, Peter.
Critics of >no change to doctrine of marriage, permission to perform SSB< see it as a Trojan horse: once you have have made the latter change of practise, it will matter even less than it already does what the former paper doctrine is. On one hand, marrying gay couples just because they are couples will institutionalise Coupleism for all who hear that Joe and Jeff got married (their Anglican church for some reason calls it "blessed"); on the other hand, not many people in most places will call their local bishop for an update on what their synod has voted to allow them to do in bed and with whom. So what will be the effect of Coupleism triumphant on the Anglican centre?
Unless things are different on the blessed isles, there is a surprisingly robust agreement among conservatives and liberals that (a) Coupleism is popular with those you designate Anglicans and even many on the periphery who oppose SSB, but (b) enshrining it in SSM or SSB will do to the biblical procreation/celibacy/purity what Calvin's revision did to biblical usury/debt/poverty-- bulldoze it off a cliff. And for many straight Anglicans that is the whole point of the long debate about gay Anglicans: they want to enjoy their sex as guiltlessly as they now enjoy their money. Feminist Anglicans have a more earnest hope that re-founding sex on relationships rather than biology will at last make men think about it in the superior way of women.
Most of this will make what remains of the centre a bit easier for Christians who practise *sin-management* (cf Dallas Willard) to like. But it undercuts every more transformative practise of the faith that I know. It does so partly by bracketing much biblical content for being too strange for the casual practitioner to understand, and partly by very significantly increasing the doctrinal power of synods far above their actual credibility. (Glen thinks of the Wee Frees, but I think more of the Gorham case.) Creative minorities need to be able to use that bracketed content, and also to cite inspiringly virtuous practise rather than institutionally expedient voting as authoritative for life in Christ. My guess is that in making the exit of a few less likely, it will make ACANZP less hospitable to converts and visionaries essential to whatever future the church has. From what you say elsewhere, it would be prudent to pass on >no change to doctrine of marriage, permission to perform SSB< until an option without that bad trade-off appears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cornelius_Gorham
Bowman Walton
Thanks Bryden. My grandmother first made me read Augustine's De Trinitate, and then Sykes's Integrity of Anglicanism.
Perhaps a more ACANZPian metaphor-- and one more appealing to a sheep man?-- is this one adapted from the writings of design theorist Christopher Alexander.
All traditional cultures seem to weave textiles from local materials. The designs are improvisations that both follow and adapt patterns passed on for generations, even centuries. The results can be startlingly beautiful, and artistic formalism in our own culture took much inspiration from them from the C19 on.
Imagine then the dismay that set in about 60 years ago when aboriginal weaving in many places on earth began to be ugly. Weavers weaving from necessity saw no reason to pass up cheap industrial fibers and dyes from overseas, but neither their methods nor their sensibility enabled them to use these well. Plastic threads do not coexist well with wool, cotton, flax, or silk ones, but these weavers did not yet know that. Generations of precedent had shown them how to use a palette of dyes from local materials, but they had no such guidance to show them how to use the myriad dyes manufactured by chemical companies. They were overwhelmed by the choice, and the resulting colour chords were often spoiled by some cheap but jarring hue. And there was a disconcerting contrast between the permanence of knotted fabrics meant to last centuries and dyes that faded within a few years.
.
Whether the weavers themselves thought that their work was as ugly as the collectors thought it was, they did know that their work was not classic in the way that the old work was. Weaving out of quotidian necessity, not to inspire faraway artists and collectors, they were just pragmatically carrying on. But when traditional fibers and dyes were made available to them at the same low cost, they quickly returned to them.
They knew something else. No matter how they tried, nothing that they made was like the clothes that came from factories. The machines made clothes of blended fibers impossible to duplicate on a hand loom. On these clothes, the chemical dyes were combined in ways that were somehow stylish rather than garish. But although relatively expensive, these clothes were not very durable.
Those who have eyes; let them see.
Bowman Walton
OK: so Bowman and Bryden are in agreement against my sense that the centre of our church will hold!
Two points:
(a) our church is not actually engaged much in your dialogue but is focused on a synodical process which is already committed to approving - in some form or other, to some degree or another, in some way or another - SSB. I remain of the view - notwithstanding the implications of the asteroid and the weaving loom!!! - that we are in a situation where we must make the best of what is before us. I think the interim proposal (with improvements) is that best.
(b) we already have same sex couples in our church, contributing in various ways, sometimes through licensed ministry. We may argue - if we choose - that their actions and presence are in some way debilitating to the centre if not to the circumference. My argument here, more or less amounts to this: some recognition through SSB will not make much difference to what constitutes the life of our church. It will make more difference - of course - if elements of our church on the circumference either leave or protest in distracting ways (e.g. through litigation or through continuing to push from SSB towards SSM).
Actually, I have a third point:
(c) neither of you have shown a viable way to me for this issue to go away if we somehow held the line and kept the canonical status quo. What practical steps do either of you offer for ACANZP - in our specific situation - we are not some generalised Anglican church of anywhere - to shut the issue down for a decent period of time by sticking with the status quo?
What seems to have been misremembered by Glen, Bryden and Bowman on this thread is the undisputable FACT, that Christ has only SINNERS to preach the Gospel. Jesus said he did not come to save the 'Righteous' - who may not need salvation. Jesus came to save Sinners from the due punishment for their SINS. I was once told that in every act of loving; God is present.
"Where charity and love are - there is God" (Easter Antiphon).
Christ has either redeemed us from the consequences of SIN - or HE HAS NOT.
What the Church - the Body of Christ - is now responsible for, is to encourage the poor, the outcast, the homeless, the vilified, the sick, and the dying of this world to realise that the powerful of this world do not have the final word on the availability of grace to make up for the shortfall in human goodness and mercy which are born of God.
The Church is not here to judge the world, but to proclaim the love of God at work in Jesus Christ who has already Redeemed the world! Christ is more powerfully seen in the poor and neglected. This is why the Church has a duty to the marginalised - not to those who think they have the power to judge the world - that is a power that God arrogates to God's-self, for very good reasons. "Judge not, that ye be not judged yourselves" - is a very powerful antidote to those whose prime preoccupation seems to lie in lording it over others. This its Tamaki Country, not the province of Thinking Anglicans.
Thank you, Peter, for injecting a little Christian charity and plain common sense into this voluminous dialogue. The Body of Christ contains a lot of cripples and sinners - for whom Christ died. "The great love of God is revealed in the Son!" Deo Gratias!
Hi Peter,
You ask Bryden and Bowman to put up a "viable way" for this issue to go away.I believe that that you answer your own question;"-in our specific situation-we are not some generalised Anglican Church of anywhere-". @ 9.37 AM.
"Our Church is certainly following a synodical process which is already committed to approving ...........". They just now have to find a way to circumvent the legalities and spirit of the Constitution 1857. Why do you think that many of us won't budge an inch on the issue? It is simply because we don't trust Episcopal leadership to fulfill their Ordination Vows,nor many of the Clergy not to use their positions and the pulpit to espouse false doctrine,nor do we trust General Synod to manage the Church in a Godly way.
This whole debacle was a set up from the start. The Ma Whea Commission was purportedly established by the Standing Committee of the ACANZP, to report to it on questions surrounding human sexuality,the ordination of people living in same sex relationships and the blessing/marriage of these relationships. Unfortunately the Commission's Terms of Reference did not require the Commission to take cognizance of the Constitution 1857, in either their deliberation or their summary.So from the start, how could the Commission serve any useful purpose to the ACANZP. Unless the Commission traveled around NZ at their own expense and donated all their time free, they were bound by submission to General Synod (Constitution 1857 -Part C para 15). Nor have I ever been to discover the "Enabling Powers" by which the Commission was established.
However,St Matthews in the City (Auckland),spilt the beans on the fact that the outcome had already been decided, when they announced in their pew sheet (Sunday 7th Oct 2012);"the primary task of the Commission is, given the differences on these issues in the Church, how those of a liberal and conservative convictions remain part of the same organisation". I understand that the Commission spent 5 hours at that Church hearing submissions but only gave the conservatives, half an hour at the airport.
This makes it appear that the liberal conviction has a Constitutional legitimacy of it own and that the conservatives have to learn to live with it.
So, if this is how, General Synod conducts it's Synodical Processes,
and foists these determinations onto the general laity; the process will never end.The demands will keep coming. How do we help the issue go away;
practice TRUTH with GRACE. Walk boldly in honesty. Uphold the Constitution 1857 with dignity.Let the Church live by Godly Ordained Episcopal leadership and discipline.Put on the Armour of God and stand against the the world and it's values.
Thanks Bowman; a good Aussie friend of mine has journeyed into the hinterlands of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia for many years for the sole purpose of collecting/rescuing traditionally woven clothes. He now stewards a stunningly original and beautiful legacy. I get your analogy, sheep breeder that I am - even if we naturally use diesel to plough our winter feed!
Peter; I shall ponder you closing question ...
As long as I have commented here, Peter, I have advised against hold-the-line strategies and for counterplans that address the concerns behind SSB in a way with more value to those affected and less scandal to others. That Topic cannot be shut down, and alas, I do not think that it should be.
Meanwhile, the centre is not held in changing times with the politics of comfort. Tell me how you plan to make ACANZP take an inspiring stance on Christian identity, merge with Methodists and Presbyterians, make some fresh contribution to society, and achieve a 7% annual growth rate in new demographics, and I will tell you how the Anglican centre can help you to do it. I'll also forward your name to the Crown Nomination Commission when York opens up.
BW
My reply is missing.
BW
Which reply, Bowman? You seem to have so many answers, but so little that is helpful to us in ACANZP. There is little place for the U.K.-type dogmatic religious 'Reform' politics here in N.Z. We just want to get on with the pastoring of our people, with hope for the future and the fewest candidates for depression and suicide as possible in our communities.
We are not like the U.S.A., where 'good ol' boy' Republican quasi-religious got The Trump into governing the country through Tweets-Celeb-rule-by-fiat from the White House now has the country in its deadly thrall. We have a democratic tradition, that gives each generation the government it wants and deserves - that rarely intervenes with spiritual matters but maintains public order - not with household weapons, but with the public's greater good in mind.
Same-sex Marriage is a reality in our society. The clock canno9t now be turned back and the Church has to either live with it or become a sectarian organisation with less and less relevance to citizens we are meant to serve. We have learned live with
This is one reason why the Church cannot dictate to the people on the one hand. Neither does the government interfere with the life of private religious belief.
Government by religious dictat can be dangerous, as we see in other countries.
Dear Ron,
So now we have got the "good ol' boy" Republican quasi-religious on the growing list of those who can read your blogs and see that you are a disciple because of the LOVE YOU SHOW.
If the "Government does not interfere with the life of private religious belief"; of what concern is it to me, that they have legalized SSM.
My answer, Glen , to your last question is: None at all. You do not have to comply with the Law that has now been brought into use for those who want to make a public declaration of a faithful, monogamous relationship. It is not your business. Nor should it be. We are not a theocratic state - like Iraq, for instance.
Hi Glen
I am aware of stories of various commissions/working groups giving unfair time to this but not that group within our church and I am sure our bishops are the last among us to think they are perfect in the discharge of their duties as they are pulled this way and that.
My concern re our church and SSB is whether we are acting in a pastorally responsible way in respect of a section of our membership. I am sure that is your concern too. But are you and I able to live with and within a church which has differing responses pastorally speaking?
In the end these matters are not primarily about bishops and constitutions but about people and the depths of their personal beings. As a heterosexual I do not really know what it is like to be homosexual, least of all what it is like to grow up as such in an overwhelmingly heterosexual world ... and even more so church.
My general experience of bishops in our church is that they are very sensitive to the situations of those in our church who find themselves on the margins of it.
Hi Bowman
(Have I got all your recent comments up?)
A robust response which I would love to meet without thought of elevation to York (nice though that would be because I would then get to work with a cherished former colleague!)
Yes, you have argued as per your first paragraph in the comment above. Yes, I could take a cue from that - and may yet do so - though I fear it is too late re the "present time" of our church.
Dear Glen, Bowman, Bryden, et al; - all who think of separating out from ACANZP, on the basis of G.S. providing a form of Blessing for S/S legally-married XN. couples - considering the FACT that our Church has lived with the Blessing - even Marriage - 0f Divorcees (at one time anathema to the Church); I see no reason to make a special plea for schismatic severance on the matter of Blessings of legally-married Anglican couples who happen to be S/S -oriented.
The point is that in both situations, with a moral equivalence, no priest is OBLIGED to perform the Blessing of either couple.
A priest who on grounds of private conscience does not want to be involved has not been, nor will be, subject to discipline by either Church or State. Your private conscience will thus not be compromised - as it has not been compromised hitherto -
It should be remembered that General Synod is the arbiter of our provincial Church discipline. This is not the prerogative of private intepretation. Nor should it be
Hi Peter,
I have two fundamental concerns in this issue:
Firstly, like you, I would dearly love to see "BEST PRACTICE PASTORAL CARE" provided by the ACANZP to those, not only in the Church; but also to the wider community. Is this, not what Bonhoeffer called making "straight the way". He saw this as both the function of the Church and Caesar; with the Church having the additional Mission of proclaiming the Gospel. We,(the Church nor the State) are here to SAVE or CONVICT anyone[in a spiritual sense] ;but to make straight the way for the Holy Spirit.
The basic flaw, in the propositions being put forward, by the advocates of SSM/SSB; lies in how they view mankind. They base their definitions on Darwinistic theory. In my latest reading, I find it interesting that the Neo-Darwinists are trying to claim, Gregor Mendel as their authority, when in fact,his laws discount Darwin's theory completely.
Genuine SCIENCE can not find the true source of what drives man to their Glory or their demise; because it lies in something completely beyond their ken, "Man's spirit".
After thirty years of studying botanical science and Twenty years of experience in rehabilitation of mental health disorders, including drug addiction;I am of the opinion that mankind's problem do not arise in his mind but in his SPIRIT.Which is exactly what Moses,Solomon, Jesus and Paul say. Our problem lies in the death of the Godly Archetype in Adam and our inheriting of the Adamic archetype into our spirits; (Article 9). Peter,it does not matter what our particular penchant for rebellion against God's Commandments are, you can bet your last dollar on the fact that it is there. This Adamic Archetype enters our spirit at conception,but may be activated by experiences that we have both in the womb and after birth.
The GOOD NEWS, which the Church can take to broken man is that he can be liberated from being bonded to the false powers of the Adamic Archetype through the LOVE THAT GOD SHOWED THE WORLD IN HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
Hi Peter,
Cont. I am not able to live in a Church which has different pastoral responses, simply upon the basis, that one is best practice and one is not; there can not be two truths in existence at the same time. One being that Christ can heal the homosexual person of their same sex desires or He can't. In which case, He was leading us astray when He said "That He who made them in the beginning ...."; when Darwinists tell us there is a whole range of GENDERS. Peter, you have to simply decide whether you accept the CREEDS or accept the propositions put forward by these Darwinists?
Peter, the simple question to be answered by any person who has answered to the submission to General Synod is that:"DO THEY BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST,IS WHO THE DOCTRINE, AS DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION 1857 or not. If Not,then ......
Careful Ron re your latest:
1. You have no idea what I'm thinking of doing or not doing;
2. In addition, part of the proposals of the working group is to in fact remove certain powers from General Synod.
Hi Glen
Differing pastoral practices already exist in our church.
Some priests will not take (say) a third wedding for someone with a spouse or spouses living from a previous marriage(s) [most are willing to take a second wedding!] but likely a priest somewhere else will do so.
We have already seen this year our bishops offering different responses to the possibility of legal euthanasia - responses, that is, that are theological (at this stage) but driven by pastoral concern for those who are in extreme pain near the end of life.
Confirmation is a pastoral rite which is promoted variously (or not all) across different parishes.
I am not sure, myself, how Darwinism comes into the matter of SSB (I can see it coming into the matter of SSM because that presumes gender indifference which in turn presumes theories of gender which are at odds with Scripture). What I do see is faithful Anglican Christians, who know more about the Bible than me, and understand all the theological arguments brought forward in a thread such as this, quietly asserting (1) they are unchangeably homosexual; (2) they have met someone they would like to share the rest of their life with; (3) might the church see its way to praying for them?
I wish you hadn't mentioned differing views on euthanasia Peter. The particular bishop you refer to has offered merely classic situational ethics reheated - or should that be warmed up! Once again you are allowing supposed experience to dominate the argument, When as we all know since the likes of Wittgenstein experience for humans comes necessarily prepackaged with pre-understanding. And so the task before us - as Christians - is to evaluate that understanding of our experience.
Hi Peter,
Are you saying that there are people, who's homosexuality is beyond the POWER of Christ and the Holy Spirit, to CHANGE????
Hi Bryden
My question, related to your reference to experience etc, is: are we or are we not a church which on various issues fails Glen's aspiration for a univocal voice and unified practice?
Hi Glen
Yes, I am saying that.
The power of Christ to heal is wonderful and manifold but it is notably absent in changing certain conditions of life.
I have never heard, for instance, of a person born with Down's Syndrome having that condition of life changed; nor of a person who is absent a limb (whether by accident or surgical intention or malfunction in the womb) having a new limb made present to their body.
As best I understand homosexuality - working mostly on personal testimony and not getting tangled up in never ending arguments about DNA, genes, etc - some people are born homosexual (and no amount of therapeutic work, prayer, etc changes that) while others (it seems) are made homosexual (and, arguably, therapeutic work, prayer, etc has led to a change in sexual orientation).
Again, to refer to an unnamed friend or two: their experience has to count for something; and when they say they have tried and tried and prayed and prayed to not be homosexual and that has failed, am I to say "try harder" or "Christ's power is just around the corner"?
I also think it worth heterosexuals reflecting on the circumstances under which our orientation might change to homosexuality. I find it hard to imagine myself, so ingrained is it ... and, as I best understand myself and my feelings, from birth ...
Thinking back to a number of comments made that our proposed changes are unconstitutional (or not): would it not be possible for the church to seek a declarative judgment on the matter?
"A robust response which I would love to meet..."
I think you could meet at least some of it, if anybody could, but the blog might suffer.
"I fear it is too late re the 'present time' of our church."
Or it was too early before, and now is right on time? Good decisions, like all good thinking, require both focus and openness, and decisions on That Topic have been poor because minds and options were frozen too much early. When there is already a parade in progress, the most helpful comments are not the ones that rush up to to the head of a parade in progress to lead it, nor the ones that lie down in the street to stop it, but the ones that show that there are hazards along the way and that precautions, including other routes, remain open.
" I do see... faithful Anglican Christians... asserting (1) they are unchangeably homosexual; (2) they have met someone they would like to share the rest of their life with; (3) might the church see its way to praying for them?"
Of course it can; Brendan and Rosemary already do it. Or do the faithful Anglican Christians have something else in mind? Has the proposal on the table changed?
For a long time, it really seemed as though proponents were saying that personal or congregational prayer was not good enough, that there had to be at least an attempt at *ceremonial magick* or *creative anachronism* for them to be satisfied. And to their shame, it seemed as though some opponents were insisting that even prayers were too much, as though God, not always a reliable conservative, could not be trusted to decide how to answer them.
An offering of prayers for a new couple that has and that claims no relationship to the rite of solemnisation in the BCP is actually a new proposal, indeed a *counterplan* to the old one. In one way it makes sense: it cannot possibly affect the meaning of the received rite, and these prayers can entrust the goods of relationship to God in a way that the received rite did not do. At this "present time," is your church open to this?
BW
Re that aspiration for a univocal voice and unified practice:
Well; to start with I trust something like this might be more Catholic and less akin to a contemporary ribald Pluralism.
That said, I'd offer yet again those three vital questions I've posted on ADU and forwarded as part of my response to WG Interim Report. In brief:
1. How on earth did we finish up here over the decades, centuries, with two completely opposing, mutually exclusive views? Until we've got our heads around that question I suggest, we shouldn't move very far or fast.
2. What kind of integrity might an organization which seeks to espouse such opposing, conflicting views on such a vital issue under its single roof actually have?
3. How do we human beings becomegenuinely mistaken? And hear the stress is emphatically on the historical process of that, both individually and collectively. Not just are genuinely mistaken, but become so.
It's all in our evaluating the understanding of our experience Peter.
PS: re your example of Downs Syndrome: well I'm happy to say I have. It occurred with a child in WA a few years ago. And his miraculous cure has been medically certified
"Darwinists tell us there is a whole range of GENDERS."
Hi Glen,
I am sure that you would consider me to be a Darwinist. Evolutionary biology was among my fields of study at Harvard, and I follow new developments in the field, especially those related to its mathematical expression (eg Robert May, Martin Nowak), with interest.
Who claims to have demonstrated, on the basis of the theory of evolution, that there is "a whole range of genders?" The world is a big place and people say all sorts of things, but I am far more familiar with claims that human behaviour is very close to that of other two-sexed primates generally (eg Geoffrey Miller). And the reason for that is simple: sex is a molecular-level reality, but gender is a cultural construct, and it is hard to make an evidence-supported inference from a theory of the former to a phenomenon of the latter.
Bowman Walton
Hi Bryden
I stand corrected!
Hi Jonathan
A declarative judgement sounds like a great idea!
If talking to your Dunedin GS reps (who are due to meet as "IDC" on Sat 11 November in Wellington) please mention it to them; and I will add it to things to say then ...
"Glen Young said...
Hi Peter,
Are you saying that there are people, who's homosexuality is beyond the POWER of Christ and the Holy Spirit, to CHANGE????
October 30, 2017 at 7:48 AM"
Glen, you are presuming here to pontificate on a subject you have no experience of 'from the inside'. Please do not emulate the likes of so-called Bishop Brian Tamaki, who shames us all with the statement that the latest natural disasters are all attributable to the incidence and practice of homosexuality.
You need to speak to an intrinsically homosexual person who has lived with the reality of their innate sexual identity before you state claiming to 'know the mind of Christ' on this particular wide-spread condition of a class of human beings. I find your claim here to be abusive of all those people who have learned to live with their God-given sexual identity - among them Clergy and Religious in the Church of God. Please do not cause more people to reject the Church on account of your false assumptions.
You're welcome Peter! And the human agent through whom the miraculous sign occurred is known to me reasonably well. He has had a beautiful healing ministry for many many years. The crux of course (sic) is "What if there is no healing?" Just so that wee article I've emailed to you by way of outlining a living, theologically robust answer.
Hi Bowman
My sense of time running out is that time is running out. BUT: there is a significant meeting coming up on 11 November when the GS reps of the seven NZ Dioceses (= Tikanga Pakeha) meet to discuss the interim proposal. We shall see what is said there.
Yes, we all pray but my talk of prayers for a couple are in line with your para:
"An offering of prayers for a new couple that has and that claims no relationship to the rite of solemnisation in the BCP is actually a new proposal, indeed a *counterplan* to the old one. In one way it makes sense: it cannot possibly affect the meaning of the received rite, and these prayers can entrust the goods of relationship to God in a way that the received rite did not do. At this "present time," is your church open to this?"
As I understand the proposal before us, if nothing changed and it was agreed to, then some bishops might authorise a service which looked extremely like the marriage rite for a man and a woman, some bishops might refrain from authorising anything, and some bishops might follow your para.
Dear Glen and Ron
Ron: I am not particularly happy with your latest comment - there is no need to invoke +Brian T as some kind of comparison to Glen who has never made that connection between sexuality and disaster. Nor is there need to impugn Glen's quite reasonable question re the power of Christ as having any intention other than quest for the truth.
Glen: I am publishing Ron's comment which in my view is unfair to the content of your comment on the grounds that it nevertheless gives insight into how some ideas/thoughts/questions, otherwise well intended, can be received by those whose life experience is different from the one making comment.
If something is too ineffable and private for a public to understand from common knowledge, then how can it be the basis of an obligation of that public?
BW
Hi Bowman
Sorry, must be a bit thick today, but your latest comment needs some exposition for me to make sense of it!
Hi Peter,
I am completely okay with that.Have received worse sledging on the pitch; from memory, my parent's marriage was brought into question. But as a
fellow cricket nut,you would well know about those "gentlemanly chats.
Dear Father Ron and I are never going to agree on a few matters; because we start our conversations from different foundations. Emotions and experience are difficult bed mates with reason; particuarly, if you trying to get them to sleep.
The problem with accepting the proposition that some people are born homosexual and some are not; is, without the wisdom of Solomon,who says which is which.
"Glen, you are presuming here to pontificate on a subject you have no experience of 'from the inside'...You need to speak to an intrinsically homosexual person who has lived with the reality of their innate sexual identity before you state claiming to 'know the mind of Christ' on this particular wide-spread condition of a class of human beings."
"If something is too ineffable and private for a public to understand from common knowledge, then how can it be the basis of an obligation of that public?"
Peter, Father Ron's 10:28 raised a fascinating and practical question that my 10:49 restates in a more general form.
It is one thing not to contradict another person's self-understandings as a matter of politesse; it is something else to be obliged to believe and act on them on the basis of inaccessible evidence that contradicts accessible evidence. If Glen should reply that honesty obliges him to speak only from what he can know (eg the scriptures) and not from what he can never know (eg homosexuality "from the inside"), then how might Ron reply?
Many readers, evangelical or catholic, will already have met a cognate question in other religious contexts: *supposing that a visionary reports an unique unmediated vision of God, the BVM, etc, what weight should the Church give to that report as support for an *obligatory* practise or belief?*
BW
"...some bishops might authorise a service which looked extremely like the marriage rite for a man and a woman, some bishops might refrain from authorising anything, and some bishops might follow your para..."
Peter, is this typology based on your construal of the text or your knowledge of the bishops?
BW
Thanks Bowman.
I see through the glass more clearly!
My point - more or less above - then is that while heterosexuals might have no experience of homosexuality by which to understand it experientially, we should be able to do a bit of analogous thinking.
If Man falls in love with Woman and vice versa, it analogously could be understood when Man 1 falls in love with Man 2 and vice versa.
Hi Bowman (at 2.55 pm)
I cannot possibly comment :)
Seriously: it is a construal of the text because the interim proposal gives considerable flexibility to the bishops; but it also takes account of the likelihood that some bishops will recall that at our last GS, an earlier (and rejected proposal) offered a draft service of blessing which some critics marked down as too much like our rites of marriage; and the likelihood that in some dioceses of mixed viewpoints, it is reasonable to think that a smart bishop will take care to authorise a service which in significant ways looks not like a marriage rite.
But if your question is, "Am I aware of what bishops are prospectively thinking?" the answer is, No.
Peter, I see much daylight streaming between your 2:59 and Father Ron's 10:28. Two interesting approaches...
Your typology at 10:35 and 3:06 may frame a comparative discussion that is more worthwhile than the collision of ideals with which you are understandably impatient.
BW
Dear Peter. I am retiring from this conversation, realising that some people will never understand the difficulties faced by LGBTI Christians whose faith enables them to believe that their inner sexual difference is a gift from God. It is a gift with responsibilities attached which does not, however, merit mere speculation from those intent on advising how to become what they see as 'normal' - in other words, to be the same as them. God's Creation is more wonderfully varied than some can understand - from the viewpoint of a mediaeval and out-dated biological (and. maybe, spiritual) perspective.
Hi Peter,
I have no wish to appear obstinate on this issue but the claim of "innate Homosexuality", in the sense that God created man that way from the beginning; runs (as Bowman blogs) contrary to everything that I KNOW, ie have a relationship with.I have a brother who is gay and have had many chats with him (and his friends), about it. But their testimony contradicts the only feasible way, in which, I can see the Creation working. If God did not create Adam as being bi-sexual,where did this desire spring from.He gave him Eve, with whom he could fulfill the commandment to populate the earth.Adam was created perfect, so the claim of him bearing the innate homosexual desire, prior to the fall appears to as a nonsense.Or else, if it is a genuine part of man; the Scriptures should tell us so;but they don't.
If they were not present in Adam and Eve at the time of their being made in the "image and likeness of God"; then it must have been at the time of the "fall".That being so, how does one claim that this sexual difference is "a gift from GOD". It is simply part of "broken man". This is what I have referred to as the "Adamic Archetype images in in our Spirits.
This is what the "healing POWER of Christ and the Holy Spirit is about". Sometimes they remove the issue completely, and sometimes for reasons best known to only them, they partially remove it or they leave us with it;(Paul"'s Thorn in his side). Our son said he use to pray that the
hospital toilet pan would not be full of blood,when he went; then he would sing " He has the whole wide world in His Hands".The Doctors wanted to do horrific surgery on him but he refused.He truly believed Christ had healed him; but that it was not going to be instant.So now with Belief in Christ,medication,strict diet and exercise,he is back on top of it.
So,what do you base your belief in the testimony of your gay friends on? I do not say this lightly; but,sadly,perhaps it is the cross that they must carry.
Hi Glen
Accepting that God's intended will for creation is for heterosexuality, that is, that men will be attracted to women and women to men, with the not inestimable advantage that this leads to the continuation of the human race, then homosexuality is a consequence of the Fall. So is promiscuity, prostitution and pornography; as well as divorce.
Consequently, humanity has found it useful to have various laws, customs and rules of etiquette to somehow regulate sexual desire which always threatens to run rampant in an unhelpful, unhealthy and (often) unhappy direction. All such regulatory effort is intended to mitigate the Fall but has no power to reverse it.
Some regulatory intentions are non-controversial (e.g. we have tended across humanity to prefer that prostitution is conducted as discreetly as possible which often means in certain zones of a city and not others) and others not so (should The Last Tango in Paris be categorised as R18 or R20? Under what circumstances might civil law and canonical law provide for remarriage after divorce ... still being argued in some churches!)
In the case of the consequences of the Fall re sexuality, the Christian tradition has been very keen on marriage for those who feel unsuited to singleness. Not just "better to marry than to burn" but also better to marry than to resort to promiscuity, pornography or sex with prostitutes. For those thus able to marry, marriage is both the living out of the creation ideal AND the working out of the reality of sexual desire.
Whether or not we subscribe to a view that homosexuality is a gift from God, surely we must subscribe to a reasonable and just approach to supporting people who have the same strength of desire as "red blooded" heterosexuals yet who are unable to marry a member of the opposite sex?
If the answer to that question were that we make some provision in the life of the church for SSB I do not see that that necessarily involves any denial of the Fall etc.
It is also possible that the answer to that question is that singleness is necessary and the burden of so living is a cross to be borne.
A question out church is asking of itself is whether we might be hospitable to Anglicans holding such different views.
Hi Peter,
"OUR Church" just happens by both the SCRIPTURES and Her Constitution to belong to our LORD JESUS CHRIST, perhaps we should ask what He thinks: He may reply that "We are not a amused".
Douglas Campbell explains the basics. And he's fun to watch--
https://tinyurl.com/yab8tsj6
https://tinyurl.com/y8td6dkm
BW
Hi Peter,
A splendid clip on youtube: Ravi Zacharias on Christians and homosexuality; is worth a watch.
Dear Glen, don't you think that Jesus might rather be moved to say: "We are not a museum - but a Word in process" ?
Glen, did you have any particular clip in mind? Ravi Zacharias has many on homosexuality.
Bowman
Hi Glen
Jesus may well not be amused.
I am sure he is not amused that we play fast and loose with Scripture re ethics (since he did not do that himself).
I am sure he is not amused that his followers are making so much of an issue he never directly addressed, involving people we can be sure he would have been very merciful to if we had stories of such encounters.
(I am not saying, by the way, to head off possible criticism at the pass, that individuals reading here and/or commenting here are not being merciful as individuals. I am saying that across Anglican and other churches we are giving the matters such recurring attention that the question is raised, to my mind, whether we are collectively being merciful.)
Hi Peter, Then perhaps the Church Fathers should have walked away and let Arius take the day. It would seem that he has won out in the long run. So are you suggesting that Christ does not want us to "contend" for His Holy Writ; against heretical views. At least with the West Hamilton Community Church, one knows what they believe; but with the ACANZP, it simply depends upon which way the wind blows. I respectfully suggest that it might be prudent for you to read the "seven letters to the seven Churches again.
Hi Glen
I do not equate Arianism with kindness to gays and lesbians.
We should contend against heretical views.
That is why the Catholic church is in turmoil over the question of giving communion to remarried divorcees. Some Catholics see such action as supporting heresy.
However one Catholic's heresy does not seem to be another Anglican's heresy: we seem quite happy to distribute communion inclusively!
I am quite happy to be viewed dimly by yourself when I show my hesitation at making any sexual relationship the fulcrum on which we bend the church towards schism.
Glen. All the best at West Hamilton. May y'all be very happy together. Blessings.
In the meantime, may we celebrate with all the Saints - living and departed.
Post a Comment