On Wednesday a meeting was held in our Diocese, involving senior Diocesan staff, Archdeacons, and vicars and wardens of four parishes in which votes have been hold and overwhelming majorities for disaffiliation from ACANZP have been secured. These votes have been prompted by GSTHW 2018's decision re permission for blessing of same-sex partnerships to take place.
Following that meeting we have been able as a Diocese to communicate the fact of these votes and the outline of what will now happen. That communication can be found here.
I was a part of that meeting as one of the Archdeacons. Two of the four parishes are in my archdeaconry.
I cite the opening and penultimate paragraphs from the communication for your convenience:
"On Wednesday 27 June Archbishop Philip, with senior leadership of the Diocese, met with representatives and clergy from four parishes within the Christchurch Diocese. The meeting was to discuss how members of the four congregations could disaffiliate from the Diocese in a respectful manner while maintaining good communication and leaving doors open.
Archbishop Philip opened the meeting recognizing the time, energy and cooperation from both sides in seeking to find a way forward together up until this point, and hoping that this spirit will continue now that members of four congregations had voted to disaffiliate. “This is a broken and painful place to be. But we need to find a way to walk through this uncharted land that is gracious, hospitable and realistic.” The meeting finished with an agreement to seek to work together on the way forward and in a time of prayer."
"The four groups were led by the Reverends Jay Behan from St Stephen’s Shirley; James De Costobadie from St John’s Latimer Square; Dave Clancey and Chris Spark from St Saviour’s and St Nicholas’, South Christchurch; and Steve McNabb from St John’s Woolston.
It was discussed that a resignation or exit process allowing three months for logistics to be sensitively managed was appropriate and that these three months will be used cooperatively to ensure the disaffiliation happens in good faith.
It was agreed by all present the way forward needed to be respectful, orderly and should allow people time to make appropriate decisions. In some cases it was acknowledged that although the majority of the people attending these churches intended to leave, some might remain. And the Diocese is committed to care for those remaining as well as enabling as smooth as possible exit for those choosing to leave.It was agreed that clergy and lay representatives who are disaffiliating would voluntarily not take part in the upcoming Electoral College. Furthermore, it was agreed in principle that there was a desire from both parties to part on good terms and to communicate with and about each other respectfully."
This announcement means we now enter a period of careful and respectful conversations about these disaffiliations, as planning and arrangements take place over the next several months.
Consequently, and in the spirit of a request within the meeting for care in use of social media, I am going to do the following:
(1) Accept NO comments in response to this post. (By all means send me a comment to tell me what you think. But I am not going to post it.)
(2) Publish no posts for the time being which relate in some close degree to our local situation.
(3) Reserve the right to post on the international Anglican situation, providing it relates to our local situation only in some distant degree (or not at all).
Pages
▼
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Friday, June 29, 2018
Momentum towards reinstatement
News just out re the Christ Church Cathedral steps towards reinstatement, here.
I am delighted that Justin Murray will be chair of the joint venture - I have had the privilege of working with him in governance.
I am delighted that Justin Murray will be chair of the joint venture - I have had the privilege of working with him in governance.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Dark days for ACANZP ... a new denomination is being birthed?
[Rewritten from original posting]
Yesterday I was sent a link to an article (i.e. "statement") on the FCANZ website, here. Since then the linked article has been withdrawn and the link now takes you to an "About" page for the FCANZ site. I am keeping my post below as it was written, including citations from the article I saw, on the basis that what I read, even if now not an official FCANZ webpage, nevertheless reflects sentiments swirling about our church through these days. Nothing cited below is out of keeping with things being said or written in some of our parishes at this time in respect of this being a difficult period, there is deep disagreement with the decision of GSTHW 2018 re permission for same-sex blessings to take place and there are moves afoot to form a new network of churches.
[Remainder of original post]
This period is described as "dark days" and ACANZP is spoken of in these terms,
It is helpful that this is out in the open.
Funnily enough, this is very close to what I myself think, slightly plagiarising:
My goal is to ensure Bible-believing Anglicans work together, with all denominations, wholeheartedly committed to reaching our nation for Christ.
Who are Bible-believing Anglicans? All of us Anglicans - I have never met an Anglican who doesn't believe the Bible, who does not read and hear the Bible Sunday by Sunday. We are (to pick up a phrase elsewhere in the statement) a "Bible-based Anglican church" (noting this post today).
I would like to remind readers that General Synod's decision means that every Anglican contemplating leaving ACANZP could stay, continue to believe, teach and practice what they have always believed, taught and practiced, including teaching that the authority of the Bible means this and not that.
The only reason for departure is not that ACANZP has abandoned the authority of Scripture etc but that it has dared to permit faithful Anglicans, on one matter, to teach, believe and (if their local bishop authorises) practice differently. This exercise of conscience, of interpreting Scripture differently is beyond FCANZ's pale.
Anglicans do not have to stay together and if the exercise of conscience and of interpreting Scripture differently is too much, if it means "dark days" have come, then there is not much to be done except to generously converse with each other about the process of separation.
I will do my best to contribute to that generous conversation but it is not easy when things are said about ACANZP which ... well, what can I say?!
LATER: Wise words from George Sumner about the global Anglican situation post GAFCON with specific reference to ACNA/TEC/ACCan.
Yesterday I was sent a link to an article (i.e. "statement") on the FCANZ website, here. Since then the linked article has been withdrawn and the link now takes you to an "About" page for the FCANZ site. I am keeping my post below as it was written, including citations from the article I saw, on the basis that what I read, even if now not an official FCANZ webpage, nevertheless reflects sentiments swirling about our church through these days. Nothing cited below is out of keeping with things being said or written in some of our parishes at this time in respect of this being a difficult period, there is deep disagreement with the decision of GSTHW 2018 re permission for same-sex blessings to take place and there are moves afoot to form a new network of churches.
[Remainder of original post]
This period is described as "dark days" and ACANZP is spoken of in these terms,
"our General Synod has abandoned the authority of Scripture and distorted the saving gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."I commend the statement for one piece of illumination: that a new denomination is going to be formed.
"Our goal is to ensure Bible-believing Anglicans work together, as part of a new denomination, wholeheartedly committed to reaching our nation for Christ."
It is helpful that this is out in the open.
Funnily enough, this is very close to what I myself think, slightly plagiarising:
My goal is to ensure Bible-believing Anglicans work together, with all denominations, wholeheartedly committed to reaching our nation for Christ.
Who are Bible-believing Anglicans? All of us Anglicans - I have never met an Anglican who doesn't believe the Bible, who does not read and hear the Bible Sunday by Sunday. We are (to pick up a phrase elsewhere in the statement) a "Bible-based Anglican church" (noting this post today).
I would like to remind readers that General Synod's decision means that every Anglican contemplating leaving ACANZP could stay, continue to believe, teach and practice what they have always believed, taught and practiced, including teaching that the authority of the Bible means this and not that.
The only reason for departure is not that ACANZP has abandoned the authority of Scripture etc but that it has dared to permit faithful Anglicans, on one matter, to teach, believe and (if their local bishop authorises) practice differently. This exercise of conscience, of interpreting Scripture differently is beyond FCANZ's pale.
Anglicans do not have to stay together and if the exercise of conscience and of interpreting Scripture differently is too much, if it means "dark days" have come, then there is not much to be done except to generously converse with each other about the process of separation.
I will do my best to contribute to that generous conversation but it is not easy when things are said about ACANZP which ... well, what can I say?!
LATER: Wise words from George Sumner about the global Anglican situation post GAFCON with specific reference to ACNA/TEC/ACCan.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
GAFCON and (or "versus"?) LAMBETH reflections
The GAFCON III Conference is over and below I give a link to the Final Communique and make some comments.
But before getting to that, a couple of posts on the question of whether the Anglican Communion/conferences is about GAFCON or Lambeth [which is bishops only] or is there room for both?
On the Lambeth Conference, whether it was or is or could be a "synod", or otherwise lead?
Also Archbishop Moon Hing - a man I have met and admire tremendously - speaks up on the value of the Lambeth Conference.
And Kenyan Archbishop Sapit makes some subtle but important distinctions and commitments. I like what he says!
On GAFCON and the Anglican Communion New Service: fake news? fun and (stealth) games? (Though I note that ACNS has not yet linked to the Final Communique, 2 pm Saturday 23 June, as I write.)
GAFCON III Final Communique: Letter to the Churches.
Eternity (Australia) has a news report here.
Via Twitter I made the following three comments last night:
We who were not at GAFCON must reflect deeply on what it means to be in mission as Anglicans, to evangelise as Anglicans, to envision a renewed Anglican Communion. How might we work with GAFCON, in what ways has GAFCON made working with GAFCON difficult, if not impossible (e.g. for TEC, SEC, even ACANZP)? Surely no one reading here thinks belonging to some kind of remnant Communion is a good thing? How do we form and inform ourselves with mainstream Anglicanism in the 21st century?
Nevertheless, a caveat: what does GAFCON working within the Communion ("we are not leaving") and against the Communion (disinvite these provinces, welcome ACNA, exclusion not inclusion, either/or rather than both/and) mean? Are we at a late 18th century moment when one form of Anglicanism (= Methodism) and another form (established Church of England) parted ways? Or are we at a Catholic renewal moment when (say) the Franciscans work mightily for renewal within the Catholic church?
But before getting to that, a couple of posts on the question of whether the Anglican Communion/conferences is about GAFCON or Lambeth [which is bishops only] or is there room for both?
On the Lambeth Conference, whether it was or is or could be a "synod", or otherwise lead?
Also Archbishop Moon Hing - a man I have met and admire tremendously - speaks up on the value of the Lambeth Conference.
And Kenyan Archbishop Sapit makes some subtle but important distinctions and commitments. I like what he says!
On GAFCON and the Anglican Communion New Service: fake news? fun and (stealth) games? (Though I note that ACNS has not yet linked to the Final Communique, 2 pm Saturday 23 June, as I write.)
GAFCON III Final Communique: Letter to the Churches.
Eternity (Australia) has a news report here.
Via Twitter I made the following three comments last night:
GAFCON https://t.co/XPSdTTadHA response 1/3: this is energetic, outreaching Anglicanism which cannot be ignored, sidelined or overlooked. GAFCON is now solid, large and undeterred in its mission, both of evangelism and of renewing the AC from within.— Peter Carrell ن (@petercarrell) June 22, 2018
We who were not at GAFCON must reflect deeply on what it means to be in mission as Anglicans, to evangelise as Anglicans, to envision a renewed Anglican Communion. How might we work with GAFCON, in what ways has GAFCON made working with GAFCON difficult, if not impossible (e.g. for TEC, SEC, even ACANZP)? Surely no one reading here thinks belonging to some kind of remnant Communion is a good thing? How do we form and inform ourselves with mainstream Anglicanism in the 21st century?
Nevertheless, a caveat: what does GAFCON working within the Communion ("we are not leaving") and against the Communion (disinvite these provinces, welcome ACNA, exclusion not inclusion, either/or rather than both/and) mean? Are we at a late 18th century moment when one form of Anglicanism (= Methodism) and another form (established Church of England) parted ways? Or are we at a Catholic renewal moment when (say) the Franciscans work mightily for renewal within the Catholic church?
GAFCON https://t.co/XPSdTTadHA response 2/3: this is uncompromising Anglicanism which does not seem to understand that Anglicanism works by hanging together (compromisngly!) rather than by exclusions and threats, so it is a divisive renewal not a re-uniting renewal.— Peter Carrell ن (@petercarrell) June 22, 2018
It is all very well for GAFCON to say it is not leaving the Communion and that it is working for its renewal but that staying effectively asks others to leave unless they repent. What if they want to stay also? There is no sense from GAFCON of an inclusive Anglicanism, of a willingness to live with profound disagreement, of an openness to the actual state of global Anglicanism which is that more than one view of homosexuality exists among us. GAFCON is absolutely assured that there is only the GAFCON view, that that is the genuine Anglican view, and there is no place for dissent from this view. There is an unfortunate totalitarianism in this approach to difference which seeks to exclude those holding different views. (I use the word "totalitarian" advisedly. As I have followed GAFCON this past week I have been struck by the strength of the party line on homosexuality and the lack of any sense of critique and debate about it. It is quite extraordinary in this day and age of theological enquiry that no sign has emerged from GAFCON of a responsible critical consideration of matters here, including an ecclesiology which seeks to exclude on the basis of difference of view).
GAFCON https://t.co/XPSdTTadHA response 3/3: by refusing to acknowledge the importance of listening to homosexuals' experience (1998 1.10 requires this), it loses moral ground and builds no bridges to GLBT Anglicans when it critiques provinces it says have failed to observe 1.10.— Peter Carrell ن (@petercarrell) June 22, 2018
Following on from the comment above, the Communique offers no sense of how same sex couples might exist in the renewed Communion unless repentance occurs and I can only assume this means the break up of such relationships. Nor is there any sense that "pastoral care" for homosexuals means listening to their experience. The sense rather is that homsexuals will be told what is good for them. Perhaps that is right and proper but that is out of step with what many Anglicans around the world, not only in the West, think and feel about these matters.
In the end, where will this all end? I am not sure. I am not going to make a prediction. I am hopeful! I am glad about staying and not leaving: that creates shared space for conversation, that keeps alive possible futures which are not as divisive as the present, that offers time to reflect.
In the meantime, the organisers of Lambeth 2020 will have their work cut out: to ensure maximal attendance possible and to ensure that the event does not become a pale shadow of the colourful, energetic reality of GAFCON III. (Spoiler alert: ACNA bishops, don't bother packing your bags on the basis that TEC and SEC will not be invited).
Your thoughts?
Friday, June 22, 2018
What does it mean for Christians to be in the world but not of the world?
On the theme of living within the culture of our world but also not being subsumed by that culture, two posts of recent days are worth a read:
Tim Keller, speaking to British parliamentarians, here. Tim's major point is that post-Christian culture is much, much more Christian than most post-Christians realise. In explaining the difference Christians made to ancient Rome/Greek "shame-honour" culture, he offers insight into how we might make a difference today.
Ian Paul, writing about women speaking/being silent in church, here, makes a great point about a so-called "historic" reading of Scripture (in this case 1 Timothy 2). It may not be an historic reading. It may, in fact, be a modern, innovative reading, driven by a cultural bias in the way we think Christians ought to live today. If we do not actually want to read 1 Timothy 2 in an "historic"manner (and Ian gives some citations from that reading which, surely, no reader here would want to subscribe to), in what manner will we read it so that we are "in the world but not of the world"?
Tim Keller, speaking to British parliamentarians, here. Tim's major point is that post-Christian culture is much, much more Christian than most post-Christians realise. In explaining the difference Christians made to ancient Rome/Greek "shame-honour" culture, he offers insight into how we might make a difference today.
Ian Paul, writing about women speaking/being silent in church, here, makes a great point about a so-called "historic" reading of Scripture (in this case 1 Timothy 2). It may not be an historic reading. It may, in fact, be a modern, innovative reading, driven by a cultural bias in the way we think Christians ought to live today. If we do not actually want to read 1 Timothy 2 in an "historic"manner (and Ian gives some citations from that reading which, surely, no reader here would want to subscribe to), in what manner will we read it so that we are "in the world but not of the world"?
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Engagement key to remarriage?
Previously I have noted an important survey of NZ attitudes to faith and today the NZ Herald makes a report, here.
I see no need to extensively comment on the report - it has engaged some key NZ thinkers and shakers on these matters and I commend their comments to you. You may wish to comment further here. In a time of crisis, all ideas welcome!
Two comments from me:
1. We were once a society in which, metaphorically, church and society were married, joined together. Through evangelism Maori became extensively Christian in the 19th century. Through intentional settlement in the mid 19th century Otago was a Presbyterian settlement and Canterbury an Anglican settlement. Churches old (Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Baptist) and new (Brethren, Associated Churches of Christ, and, in the 20th century, Pentecostal) were planted through our islands, in city and in rural areas. Census stats showed a highly Christianised country. Now we are moving through phases of separation, even into divorce (cf. news this week re a court challenge to the teaching of Bible in Schools). Within the article Chris Clarke talks about the need to "re-engage" with society, but in different ways to former times. Others cited effectively say "Amen" to new engagement. That engagement is the key to any possibility of remarriage.
2. In a week when a significant number of lay and clerical Kiwi Anglicans have travelled to Jerusalem for GAFCON 2018, a conference which deep down is driven, among other things, by opposition to Anglican acceptance of same-sex couples, we are reminded again in the article of sobering statistics:
That is, internally, we Anglicans are engaged in a debate about the theology of homosexuality (what does the Bible say, how do we understand it, what does the constitution of our church permit, etc) but externally, should we not be debating, How do we engage Kiwis with the gospel of God's love, forgiveness and welcome? And, How do we Kiwis find the language (not only words but ideas, images, actions) which communicate the Gospel over the hurdle of the 47% who will not listen because of "teaching on homosexuality"?
Among conservative Protestants, including among fellow conservative Anglicans, could we find words which at least say what Cardinal John Dew says? These are his words, relevant to the external challenge (my bold):
[I won't publish comments which re-run our churches' "internal" debates and arguments. I am happy to publish comments which reflect on the external challenge we face as churches re the society we live in, the nature of the gospel and how we communicate it to 47% who are unwilling to listen.]
I see no need to extensively comment on the report - it has engaged some key NZ thinkers and shakers on these matters and I commend their comments to you. You may wish to comment further here. In a time of crisis, all ideas welcome!
Two comments from me:
1. We were once a society in which, metaphorically, church and society were married, joined together. Through evangelism Maori became extensively Christian in the 19th century. Through intentional settlement in the mid 19th century Otago was a Presbyterian settlement and Canterbury an Anglican settlement. Churches old (Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Baptist) and new (Brethren, Associated Churches of Christ, and, in the 20th century, Pentecostal) were planted through our islands, in city and in rural areas. Census stats showed a highly Christianised country. Now we are moving through phases of separation, even into divorce (cf. news this week re a court challenge to the teaching of Bible in Schools). Within the article Chris Clarke talks about the need to "re-engage" with society, but in different ways to former times. Others cited effectively say "Amen" to new engagement. That engagement is the key to any possibility of remarriage.
2. In a week when a significant number of lay and clerical Kiwi Anglicans have travelled to Jerusalem for GAFCON 2018, a conference which deep down is driven, among other things, by opposition to Anglican acceptance of same-sex couples, we are reminded again in the article of sobering statistics:
"Most New Zealanders positively connect Jesus with love. Perceptions towards Jesus are often quite positive; non-Christians suggest he is relatable, approachable and gracious.But there are major hurdles.Church "teaching on homosexuality" is the biggest blocker to engaging with Christianity, cited by 47 per cent. Almost as many are influenced by the idea that a loving God would allow people to go to hell (45 per cent)."
That is, internally, we Anglicans are engaged in a debate about the theology of homosexuality (what does the Bible say, how do we understand it, what does the constitution of our church permit, etc) but externally, should we not be debating, How do we engage Kiwis with the gospel of God's love, forgiveness and welcome? And, How do we Kiwis find the language (not only words but ideas, images, actions) which communicate the Gospel over the hurdle of the 47% who will not listen because of "teaching on homosexuality"?
Among conservative Protestants, including among fellow conservative Anglicans, could we find words which at least say what Cardinal John Dew says? These are his words, relevant to the external challenge (my bold):
"Cardinal John Dew, the Catholic Archbishop of Wellington and vice-president of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference (NZCBC), said the Catholic Church and its counterparts were mindful of the challenge posed by declining attendance."However, the study also points to opportunities for faith communities, with recognition among both non-Christians and Christians that the Church is involved in areas of social good and that faith too has a role in contributing to the wellbeing of our society."Dew said the members of the NZCBC, which co-ordinates the national activities and ministries of the Catholic Church, "humbly acknowledge our shortcomings, especially with regards to particular groups in society, such as the LGBT community who have felt a very real sense of rejection through the Church, or perhaps in falling short in fully meeting the needs of our recent migrant communities"."We hear, too, the call of those who want to see our actions speak louder than our words, by living out the values that Jesus represents."The findings from this survey speak to Pope Francis' latest exhortation, in which he says 'we are all called to be holy by living our lives with love and by bearing witness in everything we do, wherever we find ourselves'.""
[I won't publish comments which re-run our churches' "internal" debates and arguments. I am happy to publish comments which reflect on the external challenge we face as churches re the society we live in, the nature of the gospel and how we communicate it to 47% who are unwilling to listen.]
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Lest it be said
... that ADU makes no mention of GAFCON 2018, let's mention it!
David Ould muses on his blog whether the Anglican Communion News Service will get around to acknowledging that the largest Anglican gathering for 50 years is taking place this week in Jerusalem.
I cannot speak for the ACNS but I can speak on this blog. GAFCON is happening. And ACNS should recognise that it is happening. GAFCON is the major global movement of Anglicans today. I cannot imagine any other part of the Communion announcing a conference and getting 2000 people to gather from the four corners of the earth. (Later: ACNS has a story!)
And I am doing my bit - leading services in a parish while its priest is at GAFCON!
GAFCON news can be followed on Twitter (@gafconference ); also via the Twitter hashtag #gafcon2018
For a feel for what GAFCON generally and GAFCON 2018 is about, read Archbishop Glenn Davies here.
Quite rightly ++Glenn states what is the sole driving force for GAFCON's existence as a separated set of Anglicans who, nevertheless, wish to remain at the heart of the Anglican Communion. It is all to do with this, the first sentence in his article:
"This year marks the 20th anniversary of the momentous resolution concerning human sexuality adopted by the 1998 Lambeth Conference of bishops from around the Anglican Communion."
It is difficult to imagine that GAFCON would exist without the motivating force of difference in the Communion over sexuality.
Nevertheless ++Glenn argues otherwise when he writes near the end of his article,
"They [the 1100 who met at the first GAFCON Conference in 2008] believed the gospel had been compromised by the renunciation of the doctrine of Christ, and specifically Resolution I.10, plainly seen in the consecration of Gene Robinson as the first bishop living openly in a same-sex relationship.
Yet the movement did not form solely for this reason. It is mission focused."
I agree that GAFCON is mission focused; that once it had come into being as a movement, it has readily embraced a mission focus rather than a sexuality focus. Though the sexuality issue is not far away: not agreeing with change in Western Anglican churches is becoming a significant identity marker for many Anglicans, both in the West and not in the West; and energy for a different form of Anglicanism - it seems to me - is being derived from the conflict over sexuality.
I suggest that if, generally, an Anglican conference on "mission" was announced, and if there were no conflicts among us, then there would not be 2000 Anglicans motivated to travel across the world to conference over mission.
So GAFCON represents Anglican rumblings, it is a sign of godly discontent about the state of the Anglican church around the globe, or perhaps it is only discontent about the state of the Western church.
That at least is one reason why ACNS should be reporting on GAFCON 2018: the conference represents not just a very large number of Anglicans, it also represents a future direction for global Anglicanism. That this direction is not (so to speak) under the control of the ABC, the ACC, or the Primates makes it more newsworthy rather than less!
From an historic perspective this direction is fascinating. We know that early Reformational and post-Reformational Anglicanism involved tension between Puritan tendencies, (in the language of the day) Papist tendencies, and the Hookerian vision of a Church of England which was neither. Largely the Hookerian approach has driven Anglicanism so many Anglican provinces have successfully incorporated, in more recent terminology, evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism, to say nothing of moderate as well as progressive Anglicanism.
GAFCON, it strikes me, noting the drivers of both sexuality and mission, is a fusion of both Puritan and evangelical tendencies, as well as a strongly missional Anglo-Catholicism, with the latter closer to Roman conservatism on sexuality than its modern counterpart, liberal Anglo-Catholicism.
To the extent that the Anglican Communion remains committed to a Hookerian vision of Anglicanism as a grand coalition, it has its work cut out (e.g. in the run up to Lambeth 2020) to gather all members of the coalition in one place.
Conversely, it is reasonably clear that GAFCON is not committed to that Hookerian vision. GAFCON has willingly fostered and supported Anglicans breaking away from (so to speak) Hookerian-vision Anglican provinces. Thus GAFCON represents an evolution or development in what it means to be Anglican.
What fellow Anglicans must eschew is any talk of "unAnglicanism" in respect of this development. Hooker's writings as the Elizabethan settlement settled during the late 16th century were themselves a development of the stringency of the Edwardian Reformation. Laudianism was another development. Anglicanism is a history of such developments and only history determines which developments survive (e.g. by becoming, as evangelicalism, Anglo-Catholicism, and liberalism have done, embedded in the mainstream of Anglican life).
GAFCONism and (so to speak) non-GAFCONism will jostle along through the next decades. The future of Anglicanism may not be a new Hookerian holding together of the two directions. The future of Anglicanism may be what might have happened in the 16th and 17th centuries: the Puritans and the Papists dividing and heading in quite different directions.
UPDATE: important reflection on GAFCON in the Communion here.
David Ould muses on his blog whether the Anglican Communion News Service will get around to acknowledging that the largest Anglican gathering for 50 years is taking place this week in Jerusalem.
I cannot speak for the ACNS but I can speak on this blog. GAFCON is happening. And ACNS should recognise that it is happening. GAFCON is the major global movement of Anglicans today. I cannot imagine any other part of the Communion announcing a conference and getting 2000 people to gather from the four corners of the earth. (Later: ACNS has a story!)
And I am doing my bit - leading services in a parish while its priest is at GAFCON!
GAFCON news can be followed on Twitter (@gafconference ); also via the Twitter hashtag #gafcon2018
For a feel for what GAFCON generally and GAFCON 2018 is about, read Archbishop Glenn Davies here.
Quite rightly ++Glenn states what is the sole driving force for GAFCON's existence as a separated set of Anglicans who, nevertheless, wish to remain at the heart of the Anglican Communion. It is all to do with this, the first sentence in his article:
"This year marks the 20th anniversary of the momentous resolution concerning human sexuality adopted by the 1998 Lambeth Conference of bishops from around the Anglican Communion."
It is difficult to imagine that GAFCON would exist without the motivating force of difference in the Communion over sexuality.
Nevertheless ++Glenn argues otherwise when he writes near the end of his article,
"They [the 1100 who met at the first GAFCON Conference in 2008] believed the gospel had been compromised by the renunciation of the doctrine of Christ, and specifically Resolution I.10, plainly seen in the consecration of Gene Robinson as the first bishop living openly in a same-sex relationship.
Yet the movement did not form solely for this reason. It is mission focused."
I agree that GAFCON is mission focused; that once it had come into being as a movement, it has readily embraced a mission focus rather than a sexuality focus. Though the sexuality issue is not far away: not agreeing with change in Western Anglican churches is becoming a significant identity marker for many Anglicans, both in the West and not in the West; and energy for a different form of Anglicanism - it seems to me - is being derived from the conflict over sexuality.
I suggest that if, generally, an Anglican conference on "mission" was announced, and if there were no conflicts among us, then there would not be 2000 Anglicans motivated to travel across the world to conference over mission.
So GAFCON represents Anglican rumblings, it is a sign of godly discontent about the state of the Anglican church around the globe, or perhaps it is only discontent about the state of the Western church.
That at least is one reason why ACNS should be reporting on GAFCON 2018: the conference represents not just a very large number of Anglicans, it also represents a future direction for global Anglicanism. That this direction is not (so to speak) under the control of the ABC, the ACC, or the Primates makes it more newsworthy rather than less!
From an historic perspective this direction is fascinating. We know that early Reformational and post-Reformational Anglicanism involved tension between Puritan tendencies, (in the language of the day) Papist tendencies, and the Hookerian vision of a Church of England which was neither. Largely the Hookerian approach has driven Anglicanism so many Anglican provinces have successfully incorporated, in more recent terminology, evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism, to say nothing of moderate as well as progressive Anglicanism.
GAFCON, it strikes me, noting the drivers of both sexuality and mission, is a fusion of both Puritan and evangelical tendencies, as well as a strongly missional Anglo-Catholicism, with the latter closer to Roman conservatism on sexuality than its modern counterpart, liberal Anglo-Catholicism.
To the extent that the Anglican Communion remains committed to a Hookerian vision of Anglicanism as a grand coalition, it has its work cut out (e.g. in the run up to Lambeth 2020) to gather all members of the coalition in one place.
Conversely, it is reasonably clear that GAFCON is not committed to that Hookerian vision. GAFCON has willingly fostered and supported Anglicans breaking away from (so to speak) Hookerian-vision Anglican provinces. Thus GAFCON represents an evolution or development in what it means to be Anglican.
What fellow Anglicans must eschew is any talk of "unAnglicanism" in respect of this development. Hooker's writings as the Elizabethan settlement settled during the late 16th century were themselves a development of the stringency of the Edwardian Reformation. Laudianism was another development. Anglicanism is a history of such developments and only history determines which developments survive (e.g. by becoming, as evangelicalism, Anglo-Catholicism, and liberalism have done, embedded in the mainstream of Anglican life).
GAFCONism and (so to speak) non-GAFCONism will jostle along through the next decades. The future of Anglicanism may not be a new Hookerian holding together of the two directions. The future of Anglicanism may be what might have happened in the 16th and 17th centuries: the Puritans and the Papists dividing and heading in quite different directions.
UPDATE: important reflection on GAFCON in the Communion here.
Saturday, June 16, 2018
I agree
A recent letter to Latimer Fellowship members (available here) raises some intriguing questions about ecclesiology as the (unnamed) author proposes that while the decision of the GS re blessings is a first order issue (and thus one might depart ACANZP because of that magnitude) it is a second order issue whether one chooses to stay or go.
"While the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality and the need for repentance for sexual sin is a matter of first importance (for salvation depends on us repenting of our sin), I would argue that the decision of if and how to leave or stay, is a secondary matter."
Ecclesiologically, this statement begs questions about who decides what is of first and of secondary importance, as well as who decides what sexual sin is. After all, the letter is premised on disputing a decision of the General Synod, so a question of relevant authority is involved here!
On the matter of first and secondary importance I suggest the argument here is an argument we Protestants are happy to make but a Roman Catholic would not necessarily be so sanguine about a first order matter having a discretionary second order response.
There is also a soteriological question to consider along the way: is salvation dependent on our repenting of our sin? And that is a genuine question: we can marshall, say the example of Zacchaeus into discussion, we can consider whether "repentance" becomes a Pelagian style "work" when expressed as a sufficient condition for losing salvation and we can ask whether repentance is something we do in order that we might be saved or whether repentance is something we do as we are being saved.
But back to ecclesiology. The author of the letter writes this re the life of the church and working through secondary importance differences:
"These are brothers and sisters who hold to the Bible, and yet are able to respond in different ways."
I agree.
I would extend the scope of the sentence to include the decision of GS itself. It is precisely a decision about brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to the Bible and yet are able to respond in different ways.
The greatest grief in my heart right now is that decisions are being made about congregations departing ACANZP which are unnecessary.
And they are unnecessary precisely because of the brilliant statement in the letter being overlooked in congregational deliberations:
"These are brothers and sisters who hold to the Bible, and yet are able to respond in different ways."
It is Anglicanism 101 that we believe this, practice it and live together in the one tent.
"While the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality and the need for repentance for sexual sin is a matter of first importance (for salvation depends on us repenting of our sin), I would argue that the decision of if and how to leave or stay, is a secondary matter."
Ecclesiologically, this statement begs questions about who decides what is of first and of secondary importance, as well as who decides what sexual sin is. After all, the letter is premised on disputing a decision of the General Synod, so a question of relevant authority is involved here!
On the matter of first and secondary importance I suggest the argument here is an argument we Protestants are happy to make but a Roman Catholic would not necessarily be so sanguine about a first order matter having a discretionary second order response.
There is also a soteriological question to consider along the way: is salvation dependent on our repenting of our sin? And that is a genuine question: we can marshall, say the example of Zacchaeus into discussion, we can consider whether "repentance" becomes a Pelagian style "work" when expressed as a sufficient condition for losing salvation and we can ask whether repentance is something we do in order that we might be saved or whether repentance is something we do as we are being saved.
But back to ecclesiology. The author of the letter writes this re the life of the church and working through secondary importance differences:
"These are brothers and sisters who hold to the Bible, and yet are able to respond in different ways."
I agree.
I would extend the scope of the sentence to include the decision of GS itself. It is precisely a decision about brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to the Bible and yet are able to respond in different ways.
The greatest grief in my heart right now is that decisions are being made about congregations departing ACANZP which are unnecessary.
And they are unnecessary precisely because of the brilliant statement in the letter being overlooked in congregational deliberations:
"These are brothers and sisters who hold to the Bible, and yet are able to respond in different ways."
It is Anglicanism 101 that we believe this, practice it and live together in the one tent.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Did Jesus speak Greek?
The article linked to below is fascinating around a number of questions which biblical scholars are interested in: including
- did Jesus a Galilean Jew, speak Greek?
- was Josephus an accurate historian of his contemporary world?
- what was life like for Jews under Roman rule in first century Palestine?
The article is here.
- did Jesus a Galilean Jew, speak Greek?
- was Josephus an accurate historian of his contemporary world?
- what was life like for Jews under Roman rule in first century Palestine?
The article is here.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Questions and Answers re ACANZP after Motion 7 (29) at GSTHW, May 2018
The following is a document I have written in response to some questions which a colleague has raised with me. The responses are personal (I am writing as one priest, as one member of General Synod, not on behalf of, e.g. the Diocese of Christchurch). I may be wrong. I am biased, in favour of making what we decided work. I am keen to see parishes engage with Christian Communities (CC) rather than contemplate departure.
A question
of protection for individuals and individual parishes when there is
disagreement with the bishop
In principle, a willingness to live within
this church, under its 2018 constitution and canons, and, for licensed
ministers, under the authority of the local bishop, will first mean a
willingness to live with disagreement generally and secondly be the grounds on
which disagreement with the local bishop is worked out.
Prior to Christian Communities being
formed, and even if a licensed minister did not join a Christian Community
after formation, every minister has “protection” because no minister can be
disciplined (let alone have their licence taken away) for continuing to believe
and to teach what has been consistent with the Doctrine of Christ expressed
through the formularies. A disagreement with the local bishop is a disagreement
but it is not grounds for the bishop to change his or her attitude or approach
to any licensed minister under their authority.
Adequate
protections under CCs now and in the future?
Such a question begs another question,
what is meant by “protections”? Given the general thrust of what has been
decided is to protect (e.g. from discipline) those who teach against (or for)
same sex blessings, the question of protection is likely to be about future
ministry rather than present ministry. Can a parish be guaranteed succession in
ministry so its next vicar or priest-in-charge shares its values and
theological commitments? Where that parish is part of a Christian Community which
itself has such values and theological commitments, that guarantee can be
given. Will a new candidate for ordination from a parish in a Christian
Community be accepted for ordination (all things re call/gifts/experience being
equal)? The legislation does not insist a bishop accept any candidate for
ordination. But we could ask, why would a bishop (or the bishops generally)
starve Christian Communities of ordained ministers? Any such policy would be
self-defeating for the bishops who usually like to see parish vacancies filled
rather remain annoyingly vacant.
How will
individuals and parishes be treated if they decide they are unable to remain
part of ACANZP?
If Anglicans, including licensed ministers
are no longer able to be part of ACANZP, there is general goodwill for the process
of departure to be handled with practical love, grace and generosity. Those
departing, conversely, should understand that the responsibilities of ACANZP
continue to include provision of ministry in ministry unit territories from
which Anglicans are departing, even when departure involves formation of a new
local church.
Is
theological work yet to be done which might address questions such as whether a
service of blessing of a same sex civil marriage is scripturally supported?
(Thus, might we move from such services being excluded canonically from being
consistent with the constitution?)
Yes. Currently there is no specific plan
for this work to be done. But such work would build on a series of
hermeneutical hui and theological hui held in ACANZP within the past 10-12
years. It would likely require a willingness on the part of the church to
acknowledge that such work should be done and would be welcomed with an in
principle willingness to agree to its outcomes. The current situation of not
requiring services of blessing to conform to the constitution is a recognition
of division within our church about the scriptural basis on which such services
might be welcomed.
On the specific question of whether GSTHW
2018 has contradicted Article 20, the answer requires a determination – if one
was formally sought – by the appropriate doctrinal and legal bodies of our
church.
I’m
confused over the comments “no one was happy with motion 29” – yet you also say
that “many clergy and laity believe that blessing same sex relationships accord
with Scripture”
OK, so “no one” might be an exaggeration
(since I am pretty comfortable with it!). The point made at GS along those
lines was that we were not pretending that Motion 7 (29) was a motion which in
all its parts a reasonable number of people were happy with. Few if any are
happy with it as a whole and many are unhappy about specific proposals BUT,
also the point made at General Synod, it is a proposal that a majority were
likely to vote for; and we did.
Yes, at the core of the motion, is an
acceptance that many clergy and laity believe that blessing same sex
relationships accords with Scripture, and thus GS is confident that a majority
vote for the principle at the core of the motion, that permission might be
given for blessings, is a majority representative of our church as a whole.
The
failure in leadership in allowing this informal teaching (i.e. through past
years that loving, faithful, permanent same sex partnerships might be blessed) and
practice (i.e. that in previous times, such partnerships have been blessed) to
continue informally for such a long period of time.
I do not see a failure of leadership
because leadership is an expression of the body of Christ as a whole. It has
been clear for a long time – in my estimation, at least since around 2004, probably
earlier, to the reaction in 1998 against Lambeth 1.10 – that informally in
ACANZP Two Views on same sex partnerships has existed, in some parishes one
view being advanced and in other parishes the other view being advanced. For
bishops to have sought to suppress one view in favour of the other (except in,
say, the Dioceses of Nelson and Polynesia) would have been to invoke a
theological civil war and, as a consequence, even more synodical time being
taken up with discussion of these matters and the appointment of even more working
groups to consider them.
On the matter of “practice”, since the
events of 2003 (the ordination of Gene Robinson as bishop and reaction in the
Communion to that event), there has been a moratorium in ACANZP on blessing of
partnerships and ordination of persons in a same sex partnership. (No doubt
some exceptions can be brought up, but generally this moratorium has held. Partly,
in my view, out of respect for the feeling of the Communion and partly out of
recognition of the need for this church to do work on these matters (which it
has done through hermeneutical hui, theological hui, Ma Whaea Commission and
two working groups).
Why is it
is okay for ACANZP to defy Lambeth?
There is nothing to defy. Lambeth is not
an authoritative body which promulgates rules for Anglican provinces to follow.
A more accurate question would be to ask why ACANZP is now ignoring the
guidance and recommendation of Lambeth resolution 1.10 having hitherto, more or
less, followed it. I don’t think it is for me as one individual to attempt a
definitive answer, since I assume there are multiple aspects to the answer, but
here are my suggestions:
-
Over 20 years questions about general recognition of
same sex partnerships in the life of our church have become stronger; and
certainly have not abated;
-
We are now, in Aotearoa New Zealand, a nation which
has first advanced in civil legislation, civil unions and then civil marriage
for same sex couples, and thus the particular question of what formal,
liturgical response we might make to civil unions/marriages is alive in a way
which was not the case in 1998.
-
We see that across the Communion a variety of
approaches are being taken to changes in civil society and in civil legislation
and that in response the Communion is developing ways of advancing Anglican
relationships which are robust in outlook but which are not about a straightforward
division of the Communion into fragments: this seems to mean that we can
navigate our way through choppy external Anglican waters as we proceed with our
internal agenda re same sex blessings.
The matter
of GSTHW contravening our constitution (if you don’t think it has in law, then
morally/ethically or in spirit?)
I hesitate to say that GSTHW has NOT
contravened our constitution in law because someone might take up a legal case
about this and prove me wrong! What I am happy to say is that constitutional
matters are not only about words in writing, they are also about the will of
the people bound by the constitution. (For instance, the wording of the
American constitution offers no literal justification for the proliferation of
firearms currently seen across American society but the will of the people on
this right to bear arms even when not being part of a militia is so strong that
regular massacres do not empower politicians to make much needed legal changes
re gun ownership and gun use.) The will of the people of ACANZP, as represented
at GSTHW, is for some accommodation to be made between the strict wording of
the constitution, the meaning of the Formularies as documents expressing the
Doctrine of Christ and the desire to offer permission for public blessing of
same sex partners committed to a lifetime of covenanted love for one another.
Has, thereby, the constitution been
contravened in moral/ethical or spiritual terms? That seems to be very much a
matter of whether one thinks blessings are harmonious with the lifegiving
nature of the gospel or not; and that brings us back to Two Views. For myself,
I am somewhat agnostic!
If GSTHW
has allowed two opposite views to be held, where one individual practices the
blessings of same gender relationships whilst another doesn’t because it is leading
others in sin, how are we to understand Jesus in terms of Mt 18:6 (i.e. the
warning not to place stumbling blocks before disciples)?
I suggest we understand Jesus in Matthew
18:6 as asking searching questions of us all in our public words about same sex
partnerships. Are our words creating, for instance, an environment in which
young people feel the church is hostile towards them? Are our words leading
young people into sin? Into responsible, ordered relationships? Are our words
confusing others, inside or outside the church or both? Are our words creating
stumbling blocks to hearing the gospel as good news for all people or (in
perception) only for heterosexuals?
Questions
about the new assent (i.e. declarations required of licensed ministers and
office-holders)
There are limited options for changing the
nature of assent in a church. If (as conservatives argued in submissions to the
working group) it is no longer acceptable to submit to the authority of General
Synod then there remains a need to assent to the constitution and canons of the
church (otherwise one would be saying the rules of the church do not apply) and
to the lawful authority of the diocesan bishop (otherwise there would be no one
able to insist on the keeping of the rules). In short, the new assent is a
minimum requirement for the good order of the church.
Perhaps there are two related questions
here, concerning whether the canons can all be obeyed and whether the bishop
has authority when we disagree with him or her.
Canons: no canonical change decided by the
General Synod requires any licensed minister or office-holder to change their
practice or their teaching and thus no assent to the canons of our church implies
possible disobedience later on; providing, of course, that it is accepted that
changes to the canons offer the possibility of permission for others to do
things differently to previously.
Comments: you are welcome to make comments; and to ask questions of clarity; but I am going to be out of time this coming week re offering responses to points you wish to argue ... but someone else among the commenters may take up the challenge!
Monday, June 4, 2018
On the brink? schism among Anglicans Down Under in 2018
Here in Christchurch, possibly in a couple of other dioceses, we are on the brink of schism as several parishes meet aroundabout now to make decisions whether to stay or to leave ACANZP.
Caveats
1. I speak loosely re timing of decisions as it is not an intention of this post to discuss specific parishes and their decision-making processes; and do not mention any in the comments because such comments will not be published.
2. I also acknowledge that "leaving" is viewed differently from different sides of the matter: some think ACANZP in its majority has left, because of changes made last month at GSTHW 2018; some think the minority of parishes voting to "leave" are the ones who are leaving, even though they can claim to be remaining in terms of the constitution and canons of the church on 1 May 2018. Thus:
3. I will speak of parishes contemplating leaving in this sense of "leaving": leaving the polity of ACANZP as it is governed through June 2018 onwards by decisions made at the May 2018 session of GSTHW.
Is it too late to pull back from the brink? Four questions
As usual I am trying in my own mind - bear of little brain - to make sense of what the thinking is and also wondering, perhaps against hope at this late hour, whether the thinking can be changed. In particular, with the ease of hindsight, I wonder if various conversations and discussions, formal and informal, in recent years have failed to robustly address various matters. Such as:
A. Does God necessarily condemn partners to a same-sex civil marriage or civil union?
B. Is it "false teaching" to consider that the question above has a negative answer?
C. Is the Bible on marriage so clear on the ideal of marriage (one man, one woman, bound together for life, sex only acceptable within marriage and never, ever outside of marriage) that no pragmatic variations can be considered in the life of the church?
D. Must separation occur when false teaching is admitted into the life of the church?
As I seek to understand the thinking which is driving forward parishes towards decisions to leave the polity of ACANZP (June 2018 version) I sense that the answers to the four questions are Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.
My own answers and, by implication, the answers of the majority of GSTHW members are: No, No, No, and No.
Four answers, or reasons for staying in ACANZP (June 2018 version)
A. Does God necessarily condemn partners to a same-sex civil marriage or civil union?
No. I suggest (strongly!) that we simply do not have enough Scriptural evidence to determine that in the light of our modern knowledge of homosexuality (e.g. that it is unchosen and that it rarely changes as a lifelong orientation) we can be sure that God necessarily condemns partners to a same-sex civil marriage or civil union. For a specific consideration of 1 Corinthians on the matter, see now my post at Hermeneutics and Human Dignity.
B. Is it "false teaching" to consider that the question above has a negative answer?
No. With respect to human sexuality, the New Testament is clear that there are two kinds of false teaching, one is that sex/marriage is bad (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:3) and, two, that sexual indulgence/licentiousness is okay (e.g. Galatians 5:19-21).
But, also with respect to human sexuality, the New Testament also clearly demonstrates that certain matters may be discussed and the result of the discussion does not necessarily entail those concluding the discussion differently to others are therefore "false teachers." Thus remarriage after divorce has intriguing variations across Matthew, Mark, Luke (and, also intriguingly, no concern in John) and then 1 Corinthians 7 demonstrates the early church tackling a question which had not been thought of when Jesus was being pressed for an answer. Also in 1 Corinthians, Paul can discuss restraint within marriage without raising the question of "false teaching" while also advancing the merits of celibacy without making marriage into a poor choice in comparison. There is no intrinsic reason, surveying all that the New Testament says about sex, marriage, sexual desire, decisions made by civil authorities, mercy, love and judgment to presume that either Jesus or Paul or any apostle would consider that a church responding to changes in society, changes in understanding the human condition and formulating a proposal that lifelong commitment to the good of another person could be blessed is thereby entertaining "false teaching."
C. Is the Bible on marriage so clear on the ideal of marriage (one man, one woman, bound together for life, sex only acceptable within marriage and never, ever outside of marriage) that no pragmatic variations can be considered in the life of the church?
No. In part, an answer is above in the response to question B. But the Old Testament is a living reminder that even though the God of the whole Bible is, so to speak, a monogamist re marriage, there is pragmatic acceptance through much of the Old Testament, that polygamy is part and parcel of life in certain cultures, through specific periods of human history (part and parcel of "changes in society, changes in understanding the human condition and formulating a proposal that lifelong commitment to the good of another person could be blessed"). In John 4, Jesus, somewhat unaccountably, gives no specific direction to the Samaritan woman at the well to sort out her complicated marital/sexual life. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 acknowledges the power of sexual desire is more than strong enough to upend his commendation of celibacy as the desired state of life.
Further, this being written the day after Mark 2:23-3:6 is the gospel reading for the 9th Ordinary Sunday, the New Testament opens up important questions about the nature of rules and humanity: is humanity made in order to obey rules or are rules made to serve humanity, to enable us to flourish? When we move from certain NT statements to make those statements rules, are we moving in the direction Jesus moves or in the direction the scribes and the Pharisees moved in?
D. Must separation occur when false teaching is admitted into the life of the church?
No. Some of the severest challenges false teaching makes to church life come in the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3. At no point does the command of Jesus to the faithful require them to leave their churches. In fact, is there any point in the New Testament where false teaching is to be met by departure rather than by continued adherence to true teaching?
In conclusion
There is only one body of Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:13 "For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."
We are already a set of separated "bodies" (human versions of the desired "one body"). It is tempting to think that one more separation doesn't matter. It does. The plan of God is for one body. There is ultimately only one body. We are all going to be with the Lord as one body, notwithstanding our differences and disagreements. We witness to that one body when we remain together. We increase the (admittedly slight) chance of unifying the churches when we cease our separations. I do not see in the differences before us the need to separate.
We are on the brink but it is not too late to step back.
Caveats
1. I speak loosely re timing of decisions as it is not an intention of this post to discuss specific parishes and their decision-making processes; and do not mention any in the comments because such comments will not be published.
2. I also acknowledge that "leaving" is viewed differently from different sides of the matter: some think ACANZP in its majority has left, because of changes made last month at GSTHW 2018; some think the minority of parishes voting to "leave" are the ones who are leaving, even though they can claim to be remaining in terms of the constitution and canons of the church on 1 May 2018. Thus:
3. I will speak of parishes contemplating leaving in this sense of "leaving": leaving the polity of ACANZP as it is governed through June 2018 onwards by decisions made at the May 2018 session of GSTHW.
Is it too late to pull back from the brink? Four questions
As usual I am trying in my own mind - bear of little brain - to make sense of what the thinking is and also wondering, perhaps against hope at this late hour, whether the thinking can be changed. In particular, with the ease of hindsight, I wonder if various conversations and discussions, formal and informal, in recent years have failed to robustly address various matters. Such as:
A. Does God necessarily condemn partners to a same-sex civil marriage or civil union?
B. Is it "false teaching" to consider that the question above has a negative answer?
C. Is the Bible on marriage so clear on the ideal of marriage (one man, one woman, bound together for life, sex only acceptable within marriage and never, ever outside of marriage) that no pragmatic variations can be considered in the life of the church?
D. Must separation occur when false teaching is admitted into the life of the church?
As I seek to understand the thinking which is driving forward parishes towards decisions to leave the polity of ACANZP (June 2018 version) I sense that the answers to the four questions are Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.
My own answers and, by implication, the answers of the majority of GSTHW members are: No, No, No, and No.
Four answers, or reasons for staying in ACANZP (June 2018 version)
A. Does God necessarily condemn partners to a same-sex civil marriage or civil union?
No. I suggest (strongly!) that we simply do not have enough Scriptural evidence to determine that in the light of our modern knowledge of homosexuality (e.g. that it is unchosen and that it rarely changes as a lifelong orientation) we can be sure that God necessarily condemns partners to a same-sex civil marriage or civil union. For a specific consideration of 1 Corinthians on the matter, see now my post at Hermeneutics and Human Dignity.
B. Is it "false teaching" to consider that the question above has a negative answer?
No. With respect to human sexuality, the New Testament is clear that there are two kinds of false teaching, one is that sex/marriage is bad (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:3) and, two, that sexual indulgence/licentiousness is okay (e.g. Galatians 5:19-21).
But, also with respect to human sexuality, the New Testament also clearly demonstrates that certain matters may be discussed and the result of the discussion does not necessarily entail those concluding the discussion differently to others are therefore "false teachers." Thus remarriage after divorce has intriguing variations across Matthew, Mark, Luke (and, also intriguingly, no concern in John) and then 1 Corinthians 7 demonstrates the early church tackling a question which had not been thought of when Jesus was being pressed for an answer. Also in 1 Corinthians, Paul can discuss restraint within marriage without raising the question of "false teaching" while also advancing the merits of celibacy without making marriage into a poor choice in comparison. There is no intrinsic reason, surveying all that the New Testament says about sex, marriage, sexual desire, decisions made by civil authorities, mercy, love and judgment to presume that either Jesus or Paul or any apostle would consider that a church responding to changes in society, changes in understanding the human condition and formulating a proposal that lifelong commitment to the good of another person could be blessed is thereby entertaining "false teaching."
C. Is the Bible on marriage so clear on the ideal of marriage (one man, one woman, bound together for life, sex only acceptable within marriage and never, ever outside of marriage) that no pragmatic variations can be considered in the life of the church?
No. In part, an answer is above in the response to question B. But the Old Testament is a living reminder that even though the God of the whole Bible is, so to speak, a monogamist re marriage, there is pragmatic acceptance through much of the Old Testament, that polygamy is part and parcel of life in certain cultures, through specific periods of human history (part and parcel of "changes in society, changes in understanding the human condition and formulating a proposal that lifelong commitment to the good of another person could be blessed"). In John 4, Jesus, somewhat unaccountably, gives no specific direction to the Samaritan woman at the well to sort out her complicated marital/sexual life. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 acknowledges the power of sexual desire is more than strong enough to upend his commendation of celibacy as the desired state of life.
Further, this being written the day after Mark 2:23-3:6 is the gospel reading for the 9th Ordinary Sunday, the New Testament opens up important questions about the nature of rules and humanity: is humanity made in order to obey rules or are rules made to serve humanity, to enable us to flourish? When we move from certain NT statements to make those statements rules, are we moving in the direction Jesus moves or in the direction the scribes and the Pharisees moved in?
D. Must separation occur when false teaching is admitted into the life of the church?
No. Some of the severest challenges false teaching makes to church life come in the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3. At no point does the command of Jesus to the faithful require them to leave their churches. In fact, is there any point in the New Testament where false teaching is to be met by departure rather than by continued adherence to true teaching?
In conclusion
There is only one body of Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:13 "For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."
We are already a set of separated "bodies" (human versions of the desired "one body"). It is tempting to think that one more separation doesn't matter. It does. The plan of God is for one body. There is ultimately only one body. We are all going to be with the Lord as one body, notwithstanding our differences and disagreements. We witness to that one body when we remain together. We increase the (admittedly slight) chance of unifying the churches when we cease our separations. I do not see in the differences before us the need to separate.
We are on the brink but it is not too late to step back.
Friday, June 1, 2018
Dear Commenters, There seems to be a problem ...
Dear Commenters,
Google has changed some things on Blogger (driven by some requirements of the EU?) and since then it seems that I am not getting any notifications re comments and thus have to manually go into the comments section "under the hood" and publish them from there.
(I have just published 8 comments).
We have a holiday weekend coming up so I hope I might see what the problem is and, more importantly, whether I can solve it :)
Also, the comments just posted look interesting so I will read them ... eventually ... time is super precious these days!
Cheers
Peter
Google has changed some things on Blogger (driven by some requirements of the EU?) and since then it seems that I am not getting any notifications re comments and thus have to manually go into the comments section "under the hood" and publish them from there.
(I have just published 8 comments).
We have a holiday weekend coming up so I hope I might see what the problem is and, more importantly, whether I can solve it :)
Also, the comments just posted look interesting so I will read them ... eventually ... time is super precious these days!
Cheers
Peter