I have been following the establishment of the Diocese of the Southern Cross (an entity established in Australia as a "company", with an overseer, Archbishop Glenn Davies, for Anglicans, and others, unhappy with the direction of the Anglican Church of Australia, or, respectively, their denomination such as the Uniting Church).
My interest is slightly greater than it might otherwise be, because the second clergyman to join was the Reverend Peter Judge-Mears, a former colleague in the Diocese of Nelson, who was our youth worker and then, after ordination, curate in the Parish of Blenheim South, when I was Vicar there.
At The Other Cheek, John Sandeman has published a talk Peter recently gave, titled, "Why I left the Brisbane Anglicans to join the Diocese of the Southern Cross."
I appreciate this account because it sets out a much wider theological context for Peter's decision to leave (along with about half his former congregation who have left with him) than what it initially seemed when the news first broke. News more along the lines of, "it's about same sex stuff."
On the one hand, I want to write carefully here because the Brisbane leadership (both diocesan and ministry training) doesn't get their side of things presented, so a rush to judge them is to be avoided.
On the other hand, Peter spent thirteen years in the Diocese of Southern Queensland, so it is quite reasonable that his case for leaving represents an accumulation of evidence, some of which is cited in his talk, and not a sudden decision based on one disagreement. His departure is a departure over difference, and, on the face of it, the differences are striking.
An argument that ethical commands of Scripture are not prescriptive, for example, raises many questions in my mind, as well as Peter's!
At one level, when Peter writes descriptively, he could be describing any Western Anglican context from the 1960s onwards!:
"Both in radio interviews and in print publications, calling for discarding the creeds and rejecting the 39 Articles.
One friend of mine was told in front of the class that if she upheld the 39 Articles, then her God was a different God from the lecturer’s God, and her God was a monster. This is in an Anglican theological college."
At another level, it is one thing to doubt or even deny the validity and relevance of the 39A and another thing to ascribe to a holder of the 39A that the God of the holder is "a monster." Quite a few questions raised, if not alarm bells sounded!
Now there are two things I am not attempting to discuss here:
1. whether all this is reasonable grounds for leaving a diocese;
2. what the overall state of the Diocese of Southern Queensland is.
UPDATE: A veiw from one of the Southern Queensland bishops, Jeremy Greaves, can be found in another post by John Sandeman, here - a post which is itself interesting for its exploration of Anglican "comprehension."
On 1, I can only respect Peter's decision and observe that, presumably, there are others of a similar theological outlook to him who have not come to the same decision (including the half of his congregation that remained).
On 2, I have no idea.
What is worth discussing is a general-Anglican question arising from an intriguing observation at the foot of the talk:
"The rejection of the scriptures: well, we’ve heard about that in terms of the quote from the archbishop, the rejection of the virgin birth, the rejection of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. All of this stuff was acceptable in our diocese. In the Anglican Church of Southern Queensland, those were acceptable deviations. That is an astounding thing when we have a constitution that says they’re not [acceptable deviations]. "
The question that the observation raises, in my mind, is the question of coherency in Anglican contexts - parishes, dioceses, provinces, the Communion or Gafcon.
A diocese in which everyone says the Nicene Creed and means it, has a coherency to it. A diocese in which no one says the Nicene Creed because priests and people no longer believe its statements also has coherency to it. Ditto, parish, province etc.
Of course, most parishes and dioceses and provinces around the Communion have a degree of difference and diversity in beliefs.
The question then can be whether such difference means a high degree of tension between members, e.g. because there is a 50:50 division of views, or because adherents of one set of views are somewhat strident and loud in their support.
Or, whether such difference is manageable, e.g. because a strong majority do agree together, the smaller minority quietly accept the status quo, and the majority do not seek to eject the minority. In the former case, the situation is experienced as incoherent; in the latter case, the situation is experienced as "somewhat" coherent.
Of course, Anglican life is complex. I might live in the Diocese of X where most people say all of the Nicene Creed happily but a few refuse to say the filoque clause and keep bringing motions to synod urging the dropping of the filioques clause [somewhat coherent], however there are other differences which manifest themselves from time to time: recently X's synod could not agree on a motion condemning civic legilsation permitting euthanasia [incoherent] but did agree with great enthusiasm to a motion requiring all churches with pitched rooves to install solar panels [coherent].
At what point in a "mixed ecology" do I find myself unable to continue with a mix of incoherency, coherency, and somewhat coherency?
This might be a sharp question for some CofE members following the conclusion of the very recent session of their General Synod where, as best I can tell from various reports, there is inocherency, coherency and somewhat coherency at play, and on some pretty significant issues (including where parishes fit into the "mixed ecology" approach to ways of doing and being church).
For myself, I cheerfully live as an Anglican in my diocese, ACANZP and the Communion because I am reasonably comfortable with the range of incoherencies and coherencies currently being experienced!
46 comments:
End of last week I was thoroughly disillusioned with Church as institution. Happily I eventually recalled my faith's in Christ, not in any particular church or denomination.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand:
all other ground is sinking sand;
...
in every high and stormy gale,
my anchor holds within the veil.
Glad for your post. I'd read that article and fully respect his decision.
When I was far younger than I am today, I went to a diocesan synod that debated the affairs of the day with great heat and a little light. From all that passion, one could have inferred that these good clergy and people believed fervently in the Lord with whom they were meeting.
But no. We were meeting in a college; colleges have professors; some of these are sociologists of religion; one such circulated a survey to the delegates. Around 10% responded that they believe in God.
Nevertheless there had been matins, table grace, evensong, and eucharist. In none of these was the creed recited with anything less than express conviction.
How was a young believer to understand this?
At the time, such discrepancies were explained thus. From the apostles to the present, recitation of the baptismal formula has never ever been pretending to be a time-traveling eyewitness to the making of heaven and earth and to the birth of the messiah, never mind to the procession of the Spirit from the Father (and maybe the Son too). Only the mystical Body knows the truth of the creeds by nature. Mere individuals participate in that knowledge simply by trusting it and becoming ever more aware of the Persons involved.
Maybe a third of the babies in maternity wards tonight will grow up to be adults who are capable of that trust. Elizabeth I was one such reliabilist--
He was the Word that spake it
That took the bread and brake it
And what that Word did make it
That I believe and take it.
Philosophy does opinion, faith does mystery, and blessed are those who know the difference.
Irritated perhaps are those who do not. Another third of the squawling babes will grow up unable to see that distinction as anything but a flimflam, a trick with cards, an easter bunny pulled out of a bishop's miter, a wound that demands credulity but cannot be touched.
Protestants are not Catholics, Cardinal Newman once lectured, because they do not have faith. True faith believes all that is revealed by its authentic Source, but the former believe only in their own opinions, that which they they believe that they can verify as individuals. About Protestants, Newman was right only if Moravians, Lutherans, and Anabaptists are not among them, but setting that aside, he did recognize a certain attrait that one can find in all churches. What he thought of such an evidentialist as St Thomas he did not in that lecture say.
BW
Peter, you will find the Brisbane /Diocese of soujeth Queensland gets a sy in my part two of Peter Judge-Mears talk. You can finmd that there with a long commentary by Bishop Jeremy Greaves, a regional bishop in that diocese. https://theothercheek.com.au/comprehension-test-can-the-anglicans-accept-both-sides-of-the-same-sex-debate
You might be interestyed in what Bishop Glenn Davies said regarding fellowship between evangelicals who have stayed in and those who have left., that the situation can be compared to a Christ follower in a synagague. Should he head over to the hall of Tyranus where some believers meet, or stay and point the Jewish Community to Jesus. Both answers can be right.
Thanks John
I have updated the post to include the link to your post featuring +Jeremy's response.
Thank you, Peter and John, for the several statements now spinning in my head.
As I read PA and PJM, I liked their voices and understood their macguffins, but found their arguments unpersuasive. Each recognized an irritant-- one that also irritates me-- and then skipped a simple balm for complicated surgery.
If most local people do not go to church because they are not Christians, then denominations cannot influence them with internal policies. If a public does not yet receive new *facts* about sexuality as normal science, then pastors without labs, field stations, and clinics have nothing to say to it yet. If maybe 3% of the general population have unusual constitutions, then pastors-- only-- need tailored solutions for each case, not a new regime for 100%. If a bishop opens a public dialogue with a bad argument, then it is kinder and more elegant to continue it with a better argument than to try to leave the sheer thereness of a city and its Christians for a fiction. If disciples cultivating the faith of the apostles know new facts that may affect their practice, then as they need advice they will accept it from practitioners they admire.
If the point is to follow the Bible, then keep the church it charters and let go the weddings it scarcely mentioned and never required. If one wants to persuade believers in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, then talk to us about each and surprise us with an insight that we had not before seen. If that is not feasible, then one has nothing for believers to hear.
Why the unnecessary escalation on both sides? Just because both PA and PJM are respected and thoughtful, it intrigues me that they are also so unreasonable about a matter with moderate local stakes.
Until a better one appears, my working hypothesis: an exalted but brittle denominationalism on both sides escalated their disagreement and facilitated their separation. Both seem to suppose that members routinely and maybe dutifully outsource their knowledge of faith and the world to agents of the polity (bishops, courts, synods, etc) as a sort of collective bargaining with reality and God. PA wants that pool of central power to accommodate sexual minorities for social progress; PJM wants that same pool to disseminate ideas from the Bible that are uncontaminated by worldly ideology.
But God has all the power. There is no pool of it in churches that can be arbitrarily disposed. (If there is, then what was the royal supremacy?) The angels see actual believers forming their faith around exemplars they meet in their lives, not pronunciamenti they believe because they are obliged to do so. This conflict, as human as that between Cain and Abel, is meaningful only in the confusion that it spreads about what is and is not the presence of the Lord.
The quarrels of German generals in the summer of 1914 show us assumptions about war and the world that unexpectedly shaped the C20 for everyone everywhere. Similarly, some antipodean suppositions like the ones above have so far shaped debate in the Communion that I occasionally wonder if the true spirit of the old Church of England and surely of The Episcopal Church has slipped away to Porvoo.
Cricket is not baseball; FIFA is not the NFL. As cultural differences go, these are just deep enough to induce a search for the unstated *local knowledge* (Clifford Geertz) that enables Peter's readers to make an easy sense of goings on down under that they seldom make to me.
BW
Thanks Bowman
One bit of unstated local knowledge could be the "Moore College" approach which [as I understand it] means a number of things in church life are seen as potentially contaminatory (of adherence to the pure truth) and so to be avoided in case actual contamination occurs.
(I myself have personal experience of this but that is a possible post for another day.)
In turn this can mean that capacity to endure (perceived) dodgy theology (whether actual heresies, hinted at in PJM's talk, or interesting explorations of theology's grey areas) may not be in some places what it is in other places.
An irony, on this side of the Ditch, re the 2018 disaffiliations, is that they occurred in the context of an ACANZP which - in my estimation - is on average more theologically conservative than it has been for many decades!
Finally, I am intrigued by your thought that relatively localised differences Down Under are having undue impact on the Communion as a whole!
"Moore College"
Father Ron Smith so often and so warmly mentioned here what he saw as that institution's malign influence that he must have supported its work with frequent and ardent prayer. I used to hope that someone close to the school who appreciated his intercessions would endow a chair there in his honor. Or at least place a handsome bust in a library windowsill glowering at so much reading below.
A chair in what? No branch of divinity escaped Father Ron's attention; he was sure that all the books that I had read about each of them were worthless. So wide was the range of his disinterest that any of the usual endowments seemed too narrow for him.
Moreover, he insisted to me-- why me?-- and Bryden Black that those with deep experiences of the Lord do not get them from reading books on theology. Of course I knew that he was right. I was trying to read computational genomics when I tasted the veridicality of the resurrection of the Lord.
In his last year or so, Father Ron began editing Francis's daily comments to post here. Reading the polyglot originals myself, I saw that he was actually quite good at distilling or even improving the devotional thrust of the ideas.
So, why not?-- the Father Ronald Smith Professor of the Practice of Devotional Writing, obliged to teach the craft to students at Moore and to organize each year's Bryden Black Lectures on Experience for Anglicans. Everyone will be eager to attend.
I do not see how that could possibly be contaminating.
BW
"undue impact"
Again: Jesus transformed the Body from dwellers unified by land in one place to believers unified by him in every inhabited place. This is creedal, organic with what we see in the scriptures, and the form of unity in Christendom that we have received as the *national church*.
The Reformation was a devolution of power over churches in the north of Europe from Rome to local princes building modern nation-states. The Church of England was one of many churches with a mission to the territory of some ruler (cuius regio, eius religio). It maintained relationships with Continental churches, both as a matter of creedal faith in one church and also to promote alliances for the nation's survival. Although Protestant, all of these churches maintained the local unity of the Body that we see both in the NT and down through the millennium and a half that followed.
Today, the mission of national churches logically entails in England and everywhere the robust ecumenism of the Lambeth Quadrilateral and later inter-church dialogues, the acceptance of such hybrid churches as those in India, communion with other Protestant national churches (eg Porvoo), some vision for how God's love would transform the life of each nation, and a polity as close as can be to a unified "Christian presence in every community."
It makes sense that the global Communion should be multipolar. It would be deeply disappointing if the antipodean churches shared no theological conversation among themselves or had no influence on the wider Communion. But at present, their effects on the defining *national principle* seem to be mixed.
On one hand, ACANZP's careful braiding together of settler and indigenous cultures may be the leading example of such work on the planet. Other Anglican churches also live out complex nationality, but none do more important work than you do. And in an emergent order shaped largely by *middle powers* like those on both sides of the Ditch, it is certainly thinkable that both Anglican churches could inform global yet local consciences in Christ as their nations step further into their coming global influence.
On the other hand, the disintegration of the *national principle* into (a) mere denominationalism, (b) inorganic institutionalism, (c) sectarian pietism, and (d) negative partisanship seems to be an Australian, mostly a Sydney, export. It has done a lot of damage to the Body.
Where churches are influenced to think this way-- or even to argue too much with happy warriors who think this way-- they will be less able to do what the Body does in the C21. They will perpetuate faithless division in local churches; they will not lead with organic authority that believers recognize; they may grow from immigration but not by conversion; they will not be able to do cultural or civilisational work; their theology and spirituality will be too crude for their national callings; they will be the natural prey of demagogues and ideologues. If Christian, not on the Way; if Anglican, in name only.
Personally, I feel, much as Jens did, unimaginably lucky to have been given the times, the places, the teachers, and the sheer grace with which I was blessed. But when I look at the crudeness of the arguments on both sides of That Topic, I wonder how and where God will connect his dots of light.
BW
If I may share (?) ...
Earlier today I found an interesting NZ blog by Christina Baird: "..PhD in social psychology.. graduate diploma in theology.. worked in Christian ministry in NZ for over 14 years in student mission, with a mission agency and currently as a ministry supervisor and coach." [About page]
one post's about churches/disagreement, decision to stay or go, NZers discomfort with conflict, importance of dialogue..
url: https://reflectingonchurch.org/2018/10/30/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go/
also an 8-point essay re lingering Billy Graham influence as she's experienced it in her ministry along with ideas for adjusting for current context..
url: https://reflectingonchurch.org/2018/03/05/i-spent-my-career-fighting-billy-graham/
https://reflectingonchurch.org/2018/10/30/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go/
Not many disciples that I have known well have participated in only one congregation at a time. Even churchgoers of my parents' generation often went to one near their residence, one near their summer place, and one with their parents. Especially in twenties and thirties but even now, I have usually been expected in a few very different places. Today's evangelical church planters are most drawn to start ecosystems of several differentiated congregations (multi-campus or megachurch) where a membership in one opens participation in all.
(It is often said up here, with irony savored, that because these entrepreneurs do not believe in bishops, they are more free to actually be the bishops we need by reinventing the urban diocese for the C21. Do we think that the Holy Spirit will just give up on what we ignore?)
It is hardly wrong to go all-in for just one congregation. When everyone does it properly, parish registers on archival paper with leather bindings are lovely artifacts on wooden shelves. Many clergy prefer to have a flock for much or most of their careers (cf George Herbert, A Priest to the Temple). Everyone deserves to have a true pastor for at least one decade of life.
Nevertheless-- (a) there is no theological reason to sort each person into just one pigeon hole; (b) not everyone needs or tolerates creepy-deepy enmeshment as a spiritual discipline, although some do; (c) direct membership in the diocese where one lives is a more practical and traditional expression of being in the Body; and (d) town is not country, but then country is not town either. We see all four dynamics at work, not just in those new evangelical ecologies, but also in the popularity of Anglican cathedrals in large cities worldwide.
When I say in a matter-of-fact way that we are not *modern* any more, I simply mean that human forces formerly held at bay by modern institutions no longer are. Some things familiar to us from earlier ages are back with a twist, just as bears have returned where forests have overrun abandoned farms. Whether postmoderns or bears are good or bad or mixed depends somewhat on what we do.
And when I criticize *inorganic institutionalism*, I mean that the Body needs institutions that are more legible as the visible Body to serious believers than some that were tolerated in sleepier times. Believers read bishops as former pastors become bureaucrats if they only facilitate canonical processes. But bishops are legible as pastors if they have a vision in Christ for all in their cities.
That vision can make membership in a diocese a building block of personal identity in Christ. "I belong to the diocese that responded to A, B, C in our city by digging deeper into Jesus's words about H, I, J and discovering in synod that our calling *here* was to be L, M, N to our fellow citizens. Participating in that, I discovered that H, I, J also meant that I needed to do X, Y, Z in my own life." Dioceses are in a good position to raise common concerns to a public with a spectrum of religious affiliations and opinions. Will dioceses or parishes be more public-facing in fifty years?
Finally, Mark's evaluative use of *vital* leads me to spread out five areas of well-being to which pastors and people should attend to avoid being deadly-- God and Spirituality, Family and Relationships, Financial Stability, Calling and Work, and Emotion and Discipline. These are as traditionally Anglican as the Book of Homilies, but as no one pastor can excel at all of this it is easiest to imagine several ministries.
Putting the four thoughts together, what I have been arguing here week by week is that in some places I know up this way-- and perhaps some that you know down there?-- a fresh ressourcement of the traditional diocese would solve problems-- financial, pastoral, evangelistic, missional, ecumenical, cultural, civic-- now being solved badly or not at all in a framework that treats parishes doing family chaplaincy as bedrock and detaches dioceses so far from human identity that some are actually placeless.
https://reflectingonchurch.org/2018/03/05/i-spent-my-career-fighting-billy-graham/
Billy Graham? Better to read Lesslie Newbegin and Tim Keller about ministry for the present and future :-)
BW
Dear +Peter, I wasn't looking for more commentary on the Australian issue but quite by chance I came across this Sept-22 article by Andrew Judd in The Melbourne Anglican and found it interesting.. if others might too please share.. thanks.
url: https://tma.melbourneanglican.org.au/2022/09/our-differences-of-interpretation-reveal-a-deeper-gulf/
https://tma.melbourneanglican.org.au/2022/09/our-differences-of-interpretation-reveal-a-deeper-gulf/
No. Through years of online squabble on That Topic in three parts of the world I have not seen any significant difference between the texts that the two sides construe or the way in which they do it. The similarity is stunning.
The actual difference is systematic, not biblical, and about divine law per se, not homosexuality etc. Each side believes a soteriology that implies a view of divine law, and each side projects that view onto the usual Six Texts and the scriptures generally.
And how, humanly speaking, could it do otherwise? How does one bracket the view of law on which one's own salvation depends to take up another view of law to opine about somebody else's salvation? The thought is thinkable to few.
So, when each side accuses the other of holding an opposing view of say *biblical authority* or *the ministry of Jesus*, each side is in fact correct. Which is to say, however, that those who tolerate SSB also have a theory of biblical authority, but one that understands divine law differently. Conversely, those who do not tolerate SSB really do know about Jesus, love, equality, etc but they are trying to make sense of those things within the constraints of their own different understanding of law.
Why is it so hard to come to common terms about this? See paragraph three. And bear in mind that systematics (eg three uses of the law, natural law, law/gospel dialectic, etc) are even less well understood than the poorly read scriptures. People are far out on the limbs of trees whose roots they do not know or imagine.
+ Peter is absolutely correct to say as he occasionally does that this same standoff has been a perennial feature of "Anglican" church life from the time Martin Bucer suggested that Edward VI might legalize divorce in England. C20 disciplinary canons on re-marriage in say TEC were notoriously interpreted in subtly different ways by bishops who read the underlying biblical texts differently.
Only four things have changed. Some still give weight to scientific facts that others more easily dispute or ignore. Some are less comfortable, a few even hysterical, praying alongside those with another old variant. Where the old Anglican balance of participative (BCP) and forensic (39A) soteriologies has been lost, those tilting to the former have a baldly catholic ecclesiology and those tilting to the latter are well outside the great tradition. Where worldly political polarization colors religious thinking, fanatics on both sides disrespect the independence given to pastors by Jesus Christ.
Some fight because they want to fight. Those who instead wish to be peaceable disciples of Jesus Christ in authentically Anglican churches can do so by finding the center where the old variants have long coexisted. They can most surely and enjoyably do that by knowing the great tree, not from twigs to trunk but from from roots to branches.
BW
I'm enjoying reading and learning from what you've shared in these responses Bowman, and the imagery you've used is lovely. Thank you..very much!!
Bowman is mistaken, again. Although he claims to stand on an Olympian height and Zeus-like to look down on the darkling plain where ignorant armies clash by night, and to see what the poor bloody infantrymen with PhDs can't see, arguments about homosexuality are indeed about the interpretation of Scripture, the authority of Scripture, indeed the nature of Scripture.
First, the liberal view (in principle) is really quite clear. For the liberal, Scripture is not the Word of God but more like the ore containing the precious metal - or in humbler NZ terms, the bauxite containing alumin(i)um, which theological electrolysis will release. Thus Scripture is not the Word of God simpliciter but rather a cracked earthen vessel that "contains" that elusive treasure.
Hence the now familiar strategies of revisionism since c. 1960:
1. "The texts don't mean what traditional interpretation claims."
2. "Paul never knew about consensual same-sex loving relationships."
3. "This is Paul's view, not Jesus's."
4. "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality."
5. "Modern science has disproved old biblical ideas about human nature."
And after 60 years of squabbles, we can add the following:
6. "Actually, the texts DO mean what traditional interpretation claims, consensual homosexual relationships were well-known in the first century Greco-Roman world, and it is very unlikely that Jesus dissented from the Jewish rejection of homosexuality. Nevertheless, the texts are WRONG because they impose an intolerable burden of loneliness and tension on innocent people."
This is the position of liberal Catholic scholar Luke T. Johnson and, if I am not mistaken, is the "pastoral" conclusion that Peter C. has come to. Please correct me if I am wrong on your view, Peter.
It really amounts to saying: "The message of Jesus is really about abstract principles of love, not our actual embodiment as males and females. The 'real me' is my desires, not my body with its given biological structures." Hence the Neo-Gnosticism of present liberal culture and its hatred of Natural Law. And hence we have arrived at the Transgender (Trans-sexual) Moment where merely thinking (and a bit of lipstick and 1960s clothes) can turn a man into a woman - or so say Hollywood, Anheuser-Busch and the Leader of the Free World.
The Catholic - and evangelical- understanding of the nature and authority of the New Testament as the inspired and binding Word of God is entirely different from the liberal Protestant view sketched above.
I may proffer some thoughts on divine law when I have digested what I think Bowman is saying above. I did set the ball rolling here last year (I think) with my comments on Natural Law that perplexed folk here and Bowman promised to weigh in with his thoughts on Natural Law, but so far he has said nothing on that subject. For the present, I would encourage Bowman and others to look at J. Budzsizweski's recent study of Aquinas's Treatise on Divine Law.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
I find Bowman’s thought about participative [he cites the BCP, scarcely a liberal Protestant document] v forensic [he cites the 39A] Anglicanism more fruitful to ponder than your approach in the comment above, trying to draw me and others into a slippery slope of this and that. This does not always lead to that!
On Bowman’s analysis, your approach is “forensic”.
As it happens, prior to your comment, I was contemplating posting a comment in response to Bowman, raising the question whether the great debate going on in the Catholic world currently is also a participative v forensic debate, with Francis seeking a more participatory Catholicism (albeit, I do understand that “participative” in Bowman’s comment is primarily about our relationship with God. But such relationship has a useful spill into human relationships, so the new Franciscan emphasis on synodality offers a participative church which flows from a participative understanding of God and humanity’s communion. Francis is not a forensic Catholic. Perhaps the next Pope will be. Though you will be aware that Francis is mostly appointing “Franciscan” cardinals these days!
Peter, I don't know what "forensic" is supposed to mean in this context but evidently it is not a Good Thing. Of course I know what 'forensic' means as a legal term. I also know what it means in discussions of Justification and Romans. Maybe you can explain the Bowmanese sense of this word as he has apparently taken a Trappist vow towards me.
I also know what "participation" or 'union with Christ' means and I cannot see how the two ideas exclude each other: we are sinners forgiven through the blood of Christ and adopted as God's children. Pretty basic stuff, and one I entirely agree with.
As for the BCP, I cannot find a single statement or theme in it that supports same-sex relations. It is a (largely) 16th century liturgical work that embodies Reformed teaching on Justification and the sacraments. Jim Packer often said this, and that is why he and Roger Beckwith were such stalwart defenders of the BCP.
I think the word Bowman is looking for is actually 'voluntarism' (as the alternative to Thomism). If I understand Bowman correctly, he seems to think God has created some people with same-sex desires, so it would be OK for them to form a partnership with others with SSA - but Bowman doesn't want to call this marriage but rather some tertium quid.
Have I understood you correctly, Bowman? Please tell me if this what you think.
As for your approach, Peter, I am fairly sure I have correctly characterised your understanding of the NT teaching on sexual behaviour (no sexual relations outside of man-woman marriage) - that for some people with SSA this imposes an intolerable burden of loneliness and frustration, and so it is cruel to insist upon it. I believe you have said so pretty much not long ago in this blog, but if I am wrong, please correct me (rather than punting the question).
Anyway, Bowman, I am glad you are now thinking about Natural Law. Do read Lewis, 'The Abolition of Man' as an appetiser - his debt to Aristotle is fairly clear (things have purposes or ends) - and then move on to Budzwisweski.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
"Where worldly political polarization colors religious thinking, fanatics on both sides disrespect the independence given to pastors by Jesus Christ."
Would someone please confirm for me...
Is BW referring to the keys of the kingdom of heaven as per Matt 16:19 ?
Hi William
While Bowman’s use of forensic is for him to say further, if he chooses, I see “forensic,” in the context of Anglican, conservative evangelical, and Catholic arguments at this time, highlighting tendencies to make Scripture (and Tradition) a source of rules which never bend with the times (so, e.g., in some arguments, no women in any form of leadership, secular or ecclesiastical), never shift with changing social questions, even though shifts are detectible within Scripture itself (so, divorce/remarriage from Mark to Matthew to 1 Cor 7)*, and which, when used as a source of rules, may not be properly appreciated as a set of documents of varying genre.
Obviously a lot more to say re forensic/participative/etc (cf. e.g. all works of NT Wright), but the danger with leaning into a forensic account of Scripture is that the NT becomes a a law book instead of a book of grace.
*You can say what you like about you think is my position on this or thought, I continue to ask the question, Where does the NT discuss the situation of the modern world, where state legislatures recognise SSM, where congregations respect SSA couples in their midst, where heterosexual church leaders often fail? Are we sure that Jesus would agree with you William? That he would be as severe as you are on lonely individuals etc? When the NT adjusted its position on divorce/remarriage, on what basis are we so confident that the NT may be used against SSB? You cite the well-known-ness of same sex couples in the world of the NT. Yet the NT never tells us about them, never discusses their questions and issues.
Hi Liz
You are familiar, of course, with a presentation of the gospel attributed to St Paul: God has laws, people break them, they can't escape punishment, Jesus acquits them. The acquittal is called *justification*, and because it is itself a judicial act, readers of books about the letters have called this reading of them "forensic." Although there are hints of this in some early fathers, reading the letters this way to form a system began in the West after the turn of the first millennium. Some excellent scholars who read them in that system today today are Thomas Schreiner and Douglas Moo.
But there is another one: humanity needs unity in itself and intimacy with God, it is estranged from itself and from him by default, Jesus has drawn a representation of humanity back into wholeness and holiness, persons transit from estrangement to this fellowship as they participate in that Body. As you found in your investigations of Galatians iii 28 and Romans v-viii the letters can also be read to suggest that this "participative" reading is the gospel that St Paul taught.
This was the reading of most fathers in the first millennium, and it remains uncontested in the East to this day. In critical scholarship with a systematic horizon, it was reintroduced to the West by Albert Schweitzer about a century ago, and at least influences all serious reading of St Paul today. Readers here will have heard of N T "Tom" Wright and maybe Douglas Campbell, but even Schreiner and Moo engage this with care.
Kindly note that we are not talking about oil and water. The Bibliotheque Nationale de France has in manuscript a late Byzantine series of homilies for feasts of the Theotokos that expound what amounts to a theory of justification based on the Protoevangelium of St James. Returning to the post-medieval West, even thinkers like Luther and Calvin who built provocative systems on the forensic reading nevertheless also say enlightening things about participation. Both mindsets have undeniable places in the reforming documents of the Church of England. And whatever scholars or churches say, preachers preach the letters, so that it takes a certain malevolent ingenuity to altogether avoid either reading in spiritually engaged work.
So, bibles open, the mature question is not "which reading is right?", but how are the two integrated on some down-to-earth path on the Way? Often that invites further questions: what weight in our personal and ecclesial lives is each reading-- or some system built on it-- bearing? Obviously, in so asking we are far past rudimentary rules of reading texts and well on the way to theology proper.
At least in the West, That Topic seems to polarize those who hold either view exclusively against those who hold the other just as exclusively. Purely forensic readers find it hard or impossible to accommodate gay Christians in their understanding of what makes at least some law divine. Purely participative readers are perplexed that anyone would object to equitable inclusion of any serious disciple of the Lord.
When discussion of That Topic in the scriptures has value-- St Paul would have us weigh that carefully-- it will be clearer when it is also balanced. It should take up not only texts that seem law-like under a forensic lens, but also texts about the Way as the participation of all creatures in God. This is easiest for those who understand that others are not failed attempts to be themselves. And if one comes to a somewhat nuanced view of this that does not wholly exclude either grand view, then one is, in that way, like the vast majority of the faith's fathers and doctors through the ages.
BW
Further, William
1. I endorse what Bowman has just contributed above.
2. It is good to see supportive thinking from the newly-appointed leading Catholic theologian in the Curia, https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/07/in-new-interview-fernandez-says-bible.html .
Peter,
1. Bowman takes a very long time dancing lightly through church history (but not actually engaging with the texts or Augustine or Aquinas) to admit what I stated at the beginning, that the "forensic" and "participative" sides of the Gospel have been taught together from the beginning. I appreciate that Bowman is not a biblical scholar or a systematic theologian, but some close engagement with Augustine at least would keep him from falling into false dichotomies. Playing one off against the other is a false move, but one that Douglas Campbell attempts at interminable length in his crusade against "Justification Theory" - a theory about Romans which is highly improbable, to say the least.
2. We can only "participate" in Christ (share his divine life) because we are already forgiven through his sacrifice on the Cross. There is no participation in Christ without repentance and faith.
3. Bowman is mistaken in his "straw man" talk of "purely forensic" and "purely participative readers". Nobody thinks that way - except universalists (I think a lot of liberal Anglican and Episcopal bishops are universalists).
4. Bowman has still studiously avoided answering my questions: Are homosexual relations part of God's will for some Christians? A simple yes/no/don't know would really aid understanding of what you are saying. Bowman, you can answer through Liz if you prefer not to address me.
5. Bowman, your Episcopal Church marries people of the same sex. Is it right, Christianly speaking, to do this? A simple yes/no/don't know would clear the air.
6. Peter, what is your view on questions 4 and 5? Yes/No/Don't know?
7. Bowman, you began above to talk about conflicting understandings of "divine law" as lying behind conflicts over homosexuality. I am not sure that liberals do think much about divine law, but have you engaged with Lewis on Natural Law?
8. Peter, your assertion that "the NT adjusted its position on divorce/remarriage" is nonsense. But that is for another day.
9. Peter asks pointedly: Do you think "Jesus would be as severe as you are on lonely individuals"? I am a positive libertine (or indifferent) toward sin compared to Jesus! Our Lord tells us to pluck out the eye that causes us to sin or cut off the hand or foot that leads us into wrong. No surprise there - Jesus always surpasses his followers in understanding holiness and the actual meaning of God's love.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
One 1 and 2 above, my understanding of what Bowman, and myself, in this thread, are talking about is what could be called "downstream effects" - of course, theologically, soteriologically, forensic and participative go together, two sides of the coin etc. But that doesn't mean that mere human church leaders, preachers, pundits and social media commentators do not err on the side of one or the other, or even of one over the other. So, a lot of conservative evangelicals seem, when it comes to certain issues of the day, to be very keen on what the rules are, and less so on what reasonable adaptations to context might be made. Ditto, as I see it, in the Catholic world, at least "online"!
On 4 and 5: I don't know whether homosexuality is or isn't "God's will" (there are a lot of questions involved in such a question let alone answer). I do know that God is merciful and kind, and seeks to lift the weight of burdens rather than to push them harder upon people. I also know that it is not God's will for us to be alone.
Peter, thank you for responding: it clears the air a little to know that you (unlike, say, US Presiding Bishop Michael Currie or Stephen Cottrell, "the Archbishop of York) are uncertain whether homosexuality is God's will for some people (although if you endorse a service of "blessing" for such a union, surely that denotes a belief in its divine approval). You say "there are a lot of questions invloved in such a question", but the key ones are not difficult to state:
1. Did God create (whether directly or indirectly, through genetic, epigenetic and psychosexual development) some people to develop same-sex attraction? (Ron Smith seemed to believe this was true of himself and others.) Or is homosexual desire (however it arises) actually contrary to God's will for His creatures?
2. If you answer yes to #1, is it not right to express that desire in a relationship; and how is such a relationship different from Christian marriage?
3. If you are genuinely uncertain about the ethical status of same-sex desire, should you not refuse to innovate until you know you have the mind of Christ?
Bowman, please feel free to answer on the ethical nature of same-sex desire and same-sex marriage for Christians as well- it is very far from clear what you believe.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi William
It seems pretty clear to me that the creation of humanity has resulted in variations to human sexuality. Is it not clear to you?
The question then is whether, nevertheless, God forbids some people from expressing their desires for intimacy, even if able to form a just and loving relationship with another human being.
I suspect I know your answer to that question.
My question is whether, in the context of openness to considering that homosexuality is not “a result of the fall” (but of evolution), and on the context of civic change in societal attitudes and in legal standing, Jesus today would agree with (e.g.) you, the CCC and its intrinsically disordered approach, to say nothing of GAFCON etc?
[PS about to travel so may not be so quick to respond to further comments]
Here's a story from The Plains, Va., (headline delivered into my inbox this morning), which I found pretty startling given our current ADU discussion. Might others here perhaps find this interesting too? Anyway, this is a gift link, you don't need to be a Washington Post subscriber to read it.. I think it stays 'free' for a couple of weeks:
https://wapo.st/3OiherC
"..the conservative Christian couple moved their financial firm right next door to the restaurant, which flies a gay Pride flag."
[...]
“Part of what makes our community special are long-standing social networks and special traditions built on trust,” the Rev. E. Weston Mathews, rector of Grace Episcopal Church in The Plains, said in a statement to The Washington Post.
“But like so many places in our country, our community is not immune to dangerous conspiracy theories, extremism and tribalism,” Mathews continued. “In my view, what began as a difficult dispute between two neighboring businesses has become something much greater, is accelerating through social media and is damaging our sense of trust in each other as neighbors in a close-knit village.”
Hello All,
Thanks Bowman for your exposition of participatory and forensic outlooks, and William for emphasising the point that they both belong as a whole. The latter because my mind was going, yep I agree with that and yep I agree with that and yep I hold both perspectives so how does that work?
This all reminds me of the verse, “..those who worship must worship in spirit and in truth”… it as though the spirit of the law of life and the truth of God’s work must co-exist for worship to be genuine.
In an effort to put aside the emotionally laden ‘topic’ I noticed in the original article your cited in the post +Peter that one of the acceptable ‘deviations’ in the Queensland Diocese was not believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. There was a woman minister who still may be ministering in Auckland who held that position within her leadership of a congregation. Ethically I found that difficult. I recognise all our faith walks are different, some people come to church for years before they believe, some hold various takes on particular aspects of faith that they may hold for a length of time before they are convicted otherwise, so in this respect I see it as God’s work in his people over-time (sanctification). It appears my particular crunch point comes when say a belief I think is contrary to scripture such as that Christ did not rise from the dead is held and taught by a Minister/Vicar/Pastor. This both due to the influence teachers have on others and also the responsibility they have towards others to be true to the teachings of Christ.
In respect to the hot topic:
I also stand in the “don’t know” position in regards to the topic of the moment like +Peter yet err towards Williams suggestion of waiting to ‘innovate’ until a clearer understanding is gained. There are civil ways for people who desire a same sex relationship to form a partnership or get married whilst I get recognition by the church may be desirable to some people in this situation and that waiting for it is a hard position albeit that is no longer the case in the Anglican Church in NZ. I think continuing theological discussions regarding sexuality and scripture are of importance and think all people whatsoever their thinking are to be made welcome in churches. This does not mean having to agree with what they think or teaching what they will agree with. I mean when I was young I had no idea an older parishioner who had faithfully attended church for his whole life had actually adhered to Buddhism until he passed away!
When sexuality debates first appeared on the radar my concern was the can of worms that would be opened both within society at large and the church if all the viewpoints surrounding the topic were fully endorsed without thought to wider implications. I now encounter young people who are unsure whether they are homosexual or heterosexual as they think it’s a choice they have to make, friends who hold a wide acceptance of people from all walks of life but are considering home-schooling their pre-school children because they aren’t comfortable with the new primary school curriculum teaching on gender, and I wonder what the emotional impact down the track will be for children of same sex parents when they are of an age to grapple with having been conceived with the help of a sperm donor or a surrogate mother. Of course the latter concern is not limited to children of same sex couples alone and there are just as many ethical dilemma’s with other social issues of our time.
Thanks Liz, I will have a gander at the article you link too…. In all these matters it reminds me of reading Dallas Willard’s books/writings as I think he adds some clarity for me when attempting to understand our moral/ethical standings in our present day context.
Here is an exert from one of his speeches about truth: (https://dwillard.org/articles/truth-can-we-do-without-it)
Truth is also the only basis of tolerance. And now we come to a really difficult area in contemporary discussions. I say truth is the only basis for tolerance. Some months ago at the outset of a course I explained what truth is. I had a young man then walked up to me and say, “It was all quite convincing; but of course I couldn’t accept it because I’m a liberal.” I thought about that. This was a perfectly spontaneous comment. He was completely sincere, but he had accepted the idea that only if truth is relative, can you not be oppressive. And of course, he didn’t want to be oppressive. Who does? He certainly didn’t want to be. So he thought that the consequences of accepting truth as I am very simply presenting it here, was that he could no longer be a nice person. So he wasn’t going to do it. No matter how convincing I was.
That’s a very strange conception when you stop to think about it. We have a long tradition of political and religious tolerance in our country. It’s true that perhaps it has not always been lived up to, but we have that tradition. But that idea of tolerance was based upon the idea that tolerance is good. It was based upon the idea that there is moral truth, that there is a right and wrong way to treat other people; and in the absence of that, tolerance itself is without foundation. The only basis of tolerance is truth. Tolerance has suffered a great deal recently in our religious and political and educational areas. And tolerance, because truth has been pulled away from it, has slipped over into the idea that everything is equally right. No longer is tolerance a matter of saying, “I disagree with you and I believe you’re wrong, but I accept you and I extend to you the right to be wrong.” That’s not enough. We’re now in a situation where everyone must be equally right, where you cannot say that people are wrong and still claim to love them. We used to say humorously, “Love me, love my dog.” Now we in effect say, and entirely without humor, “Love me, love my opinions—love my views.” And this is humanly disastrous.
"so unreasonable"--BW (13 Jul, 7:41)
BW, from my NZ-evangelical background, 'Compromise' with the 'world' is anathema. You're called to stand your ground, stand for righteousness/ truth/ gospel/ Christ. "Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the cross.." --sung enthusiastically yrs ago.
~also came to mind: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,.." 2 Cor 6:17
Consider these quotes I've copied from Gafcon blog pieces (Peter Jensen):
Nov 2016: "It is tragic to see once orthodox churches compromise with the world at this crucial point and become activists for a worldly morality."
Aug 2017: "You may not yourself agree to prayers for same sex unions, but the mere fact that you make no protest, enter no caveat, run up no flag, means that you are accepting a revolutionary change in your church in the name of moderation. But this is not moderation -- it is capitulation. Ultimately, it makes it impossible to retain the authority of the Bible and the integrity of the gospel.
"Be careful of the Mythical Middle -- it is in fact a Misleading Muddle!
* [to save space I've not given links but can provide if requested] Also...
++Phillip Aspinall, June 2022 Brisbane Synod address, related how in 2020 a NZ bishop (post SSB in NZ) was phoned by the then Sydney Archbishop and asked not to attend the Aussie National Bishops meeting (this being customary) because if he attended some of the Aussie bishops would withdraw. The NZ bishop didn't wish to cause division and chose not to go.
Hi Liz
That bishop was not actually asked not to attend.
That bishop was given opportunity to consider the consequences of his attending.
The last sentence of your comment is completely accurate!
It was surprising that the best way some Aussie bishops could think of to express their disagreement with that bishop (who had approved an SSB according to our 2018 General Synod decision) was to boycott the event of their own house of bishops’ national meeting.
Some of us prefer arguments to boycotts.
But, as you note above, for some Christians the slightest compromise is the beginning of a slippery slope to perdition.
Hi +Peter .. Ah-ha! Wow.
Error is 100% MY Bad.. darn! Apologies and thanks for correction.
The original [pdf, on pg 18-19] ...
https://acl.asn.au/pdf/Aspinall_Brisbane_synod_charge_2022.pdf
No worries, Liz!
Liz, those who believe in the Son "in whom all things hold together" scrupulously apply Jesus's teaching, command, and example of reconciliation. Participation in polarization is ignorance, unbelief or disobedience with which disciples have nothing whatever to do
This is not at all to deny that just living in Christ in the calling he has given us personally does occasionally place one *against the world for the sake of the world *. But in these cases believers are living in a deeper peace that by YHWH's action will become universal. Those who do not know the Son may want to fight about tha-- the unregenerate fight a lot-- but those in the Son we see them as confused or estranged, sometimes dangerous but not enemies.
So when a fight breaks out, we first ask, does this have anything to do with my calling from the Lord? If not, it is more faithful to the Son to ignore the distraction and get back to our own assigned work.
Maybe 3% of the general population belongs to some sexual minority.They and their pastors are called to settle any dilemmas that arise from being as they are yet also being in Christ. Others should be wary of being drawn into recreational combat, a vice similar to pornography.
But if some squabble actually does bear concretely on one's calling, then the question is: how will my Lord make his reconciling peace in this situation? Because the agent of true reconciliation is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we who believe do not expect this peace from human power struggles or the victory of one benighted faction over another benighted faction.
Only regeneration by the Holy Spirit enables us to think and live in his peace. Those who love the Lord but cannot stop fighting should pray for this grace.
BW
BW, thanks! My mind's in a whirl, thinking about +Peter's "mixed ecology".. "mix of incoherency, coherency, and somewhat coherency".. and "tension" and what you've said about forensic/participative, balance and nuance.
A range of views/experiences is good yet there'll inevitably be tensions between some groups, and also power imbalances. A recent post of +Peter's drew attention to humility, and if leaders and members leaned into that it'd sure help a lot! But we're all flawed, especially with failing to really listen, misunderstandings, impatience, losing our cool, etc and so a spirit of forgiveness is essential too.
But if one group's convinced they're 100% right (everyone else should repent!) and maybe they agree with Mr Jensen that the 'Mythical Middle' is a 'Misleading Muddle' (lol), where then is the space for a process of reconciliation? Failing that, from watching what's happening, it seems to be a case of take-over or schism :(
Bewildering, especially as they're from the same kind of tribe I'm from!
"Only regeneration by the Holy Spirit enables us to think and live in his peace." ~inspiring! (Pretty sure) you've previously lamented a general lack of knowledge/understanding with respect to the Holy Spirit.
"I wonder how and where God will connect his dots of light."
At least there are dots of light! :)
So what are you saying, Bowman?
Are you saying that Christians with same-sex attraction may, with God's approval (aka "blessing') enter into a sexual relationship with another Christian of the same sex?
I have asked you this simple question many times but for some reason you cannot bring yourself to say 'Yes', 'No', or 'Don't Know'.
I did ask Peter this question and he did at least say 'I don't know'.
I am sure you have thought about this because you belong to a church with numerous clergy, including bishops, in same-sex marriages. Are thry pleasing God or displeasing Him?
So please tell readers clearly what you, Bowman Walton, think is the mind of Christ for his Church on this question. (You can answer through Liz if you prefer.)
Participation in prevarication is unbelief or disobedience with which disciples have nothing whatever to do.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
"mind's in a whirl"
When we consider how different all our starting points are, it is not surprising that we travel different paths toward the convergence that the Lord is accomplishing. Nobody is God's failed attempt to make someone else.
"tensions between some groups"
Tautologically, this is true in society at large, and false in the Body of those who find their solidarity in-- and only in-- the reconciling Son.
Those who experience an absence of reconciliation are experiencing absence from the Body (eg Galatians iii 28).
"and also power imbalances"
Churches are powerless insofar as the sheer abundance of the Creator's grace overwhelms any attempt to organize the Body around scarcity. This is the great insight of medieval heterodoxy and modern evangelism.
Nevertheless every local church has its human finitude. Some will experience that as scarcity and backslide into worldly power dynamics. Others will experience this as an occasion for practical reconciliation without which it would not be a visible sign to the world. The latter have faith in what Jesus started in Galilee.
*
There is a postmodern wrinkle. The Body we see in the apostles and fathers had no organization at all but was unified by the mutual recognition of believers from Spain to China. The Body's affairs in time were managed by a consecrated order distinct from bishops and presbyters-- deacons-- that distributed available provisions and just so came to be seen-- improperly (cf Nicaea) as powerful. But nobody identified the Body with the diaconal order.
In contrast, modern denominations are institutions unified by ordinary and secular legal processes. The work they do is diaconal and the ancient order of deacons is today largely ceremonial as a consequence. But moderns came to completely identify the Body with those institutions in a way that the apostles and fathers would have found odd once they understood what a corporation is.
Postmoderns, whether populist or spiritualist, find this institutionalism superstitious. And the Holy Spirit is obviously chipping away at the denominations, either to reduce them to gravel or to carve something new/old. Until the Body is again unified by recognition, we will continue to see fuzzy-minded rebellions against the remaining institutions.
"one group's convinced it's 100% right"
There is no such thing. Even walking the streets of the New Jerusalem we will be changed from glory into glory. The question is: why do people who seem serious about believing not understand this?
"where then is the space for a process of reconciliation"
Well, bishops are figures of unity. Every diocese has one. National churches have whole houses of them. Lambeth Conferences gather more of them about every ten years. So in principle, the Anglican space for reconciliation is not just generous but professionalized.
On That Topic, it hasn't worked. For that failure, there were three root causes. Those bishops who have pitted a forensic reading of St Paul against his and St John's participative language did not have the faith that enables koinonia and reconciliation. A neglect of theology among bishops allowed synods and tribes to preempt their intrinsic authority to be "space for reconciliation." When bishops began to act in the territory of other nations there was no international authority to excommunicate and depose them. The first may have solved itself; the second and third are untenable for global postmodern churches.
That said, I often think back to dialogue here and there with "forensic" Anglicans and others who had never heard a Protestant scriptural exposition of participative theology, and had mistakenly assumed that the reforming Church of England's ecclesiology was just otiose medievalism or dilute papalism. Most, without conceding anything about sex, were intrigued to hear that there was some spiritual use for what they had always been told was denominational claptrap. Out is Out and In is In, but a dialogue between Out and In need not be unproductive.
BW
"You can answer through Liz if you prefer."
William, last time you said this to Bowman I ignored it. Now that you've said it again, I respectfully ask you not to state this in further comments. I respect BW and I don't mind his replies to me carrying a message for other readers, after all it's a public blog. But please don't say this any more as I'm unhappy with it and I don't like it. Thank you.
Hi William
1. Please note Liz’s request. (I won’t publish any comments which disregard it).
2. Bowman can speak for himself, if he chooses to.
3. For me “I don’t know” involves being unsure what the mind of Christ is on challenging matters. SSB is not the only one around. Should a priest work pastorally with someone who self-declares they are choosing “assisted dying”? I don’t know the mind of Christ on this, and, as a church, we are working this one out. I do know that any priest in my Diocese exercising their conscience on the matter has my full support. Should a priest accept an invitation or reject it when asked to take the wedding of two people both previously divorced … see my last sentence …? I think you can see where I am going with this. What I appreciate about what Bowman is saying clearly and without equivocation is that there are questions best sorted out by means other than synods/pronouncements/attempted certainties as to what the mind of Christ is.
4. I say again, while we Anglicans look somewhat terrible with our uncertainties when viewed from the platform of the Catholic Catechism, it is noticeable the turmoil now going on among Catholic prelates and bishops and the faithful as the rubber of 21st century reality hits the road of doctrine.
Hi Bowman and +Peter, anyone else who might be interested......
This podcast between TEC Bishop Rob Wright (host) and ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach (12 Aug, 2022) is a good one!
A refreshingly frank discussion that came about after these two were invited to the same lunch table to participate in planning for a celebration of Archbishop Tutu.
They cover much ground in a lively yet respectful dialogue including personal background, women's ordination, and the homosexual issue. I noted a few phrases.. elasticity, gracious space, rigorous fellowship, staying close to scripture, "straight talk" :D
"Bishop Wright asked Beach to be on this episode ... to honor the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu's peace-making ministry."
https://forpeople.buzzsprout.com/952672/11122609-a-conversation-with-archbishop-foley-beach
from my Inbox this morning
"There’s a reason that, worldwide, both the Anglican Communion and the Pentecostal movement are growing. Anglicanism at its best conveys Christianity with a connectedness to the generations before and a reverence and awe of God in worship. Pentecostalism at its best shakes up dead, lifeless nominalism with joy and a fresh expectation of what the Spirit can do.
"The church needs both of these—and a world devoid of Good News needs both too.
~Russell Moore in Moore To The Point
https://christianitytoday.activehosted.com/index.php?action=social&chash=52ff52aa56d10a1287274ecf02dccb5f.13777&s=9d94179db67708d54b232783c225fae5
BW, I keep re-reading what you've shared, all v.helpful. Including..
... those who believe in the Son "in whom all things hold together" scrupulously apply Jesus's teaching, command, and example of reconciliation. Participation in polarization is ignorance, unbelief or disobedience with which disciples have nothing whatever to do
... the question is: how will my Lord make his reconciling peace in this situation? Because the agent of true reconciliation is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we who believe do not expect this peace from human power struggles or the victory of one benighted faction over another benighted faction.
... Only regeneration by the Holy Spirit enables us to think and live in his peace. Those who love the Lord but cannot stop fighting should pray for this grace.
+Peter's 16-July post ... through the Spirit of God working within us, we can change -- but we need to work with God on this, consistently saying Yes to the prompts of the Spirit to live godly lives, and consistently saying No to the prompts of our sin-tending natures.
~Thank you~
"believe in the Son... "
Busy week, even for me, but there may be minutes for a quick complex note on 3:49 and 6:34.
Westerners have inherited a Christianity in which ethical judgemente most important, or for some only, practice. Other religious practices are treated as arbitrary or dispensable much as we may like them.
A purely forensic reading of the Pauline letters does not challenge this. Some indeed argue that it caused this.
But any participative reading mixed with that begins to demand more and to help more. Less modernity, more Christianity.
BW
Well, Peter, I posted a reply several hours ago quoting the NZ Prayer Book on bishops and you haven't published it - while publishing two other comments posted later. What gives?
Or a long piece I wrote a couple of days ago, referencing natural law, reproduction and the BBC news anchor Hugh Edwards. Again, what gives? What was "offensive" in tbem?
Useful debate come from listening to differing piints of view.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Bowman, I cannot follow the syntax (missing verb in para 2?) or the meaning of what you are saying in your post of July 22 at 4.43 am.
What exactly are you saying? So illustrative examples would help.
Pax et bonum.
William Greenhalgh
Hi William. I cannot find those submitted comments. Sorry! No refusal to publish on my part. Just cannot find them.
Post a Comment