tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2172991577372174138..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Change is coming and it won't be longPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76847159483771086672015-07-23T06:47:55.689+12:002015-07-23T06:47:55.689+12:00
Duly corrected Bosco : )<br />Duly corrected Bosco : )Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26804002407850228482015-07-22T20:50:53.521+12:002015-07-22T20:50:53.521+12:00Jean, above, talked about "the difffering vie...Jean, above, talked about "the difffering views of the teaching of the sacramental act of communion between churches - the Catholic belief of the wine and bread being the literal body, and blood of Christ and the protestant view of them being metaphorical representations of the body and blood of Christ"<br /><br />This is an unhelpful oversimplification of understandings of communion.<br /><br />"literal blood of Christ" would mean the red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets of Jesus suspended in plasma, and "literal body" would mean bone, organs, etc. That is an unhelpful misrepresentation (read "gross" in both its senses) of the Catholic understanding of Christ's risen presence in the form of bread and wine.<br /><br />As for protestants being united on anything, let alone their understanding of communion, that has not been the case from the start as evidenced from the Marburg Colloquy.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Bosco<br />liturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1326816524724803512015-07-03T00:20:52.473+12:002015-07-03T00:20:52.473+12:00The problem is that " hearing what the Spirit...The problem is that " hearing what the Spirit is saying to the Church " has now turned into an American (of course) Anglican privilege. It is reported on Creedal Christian that a TEC Bishop claimed that God had given TEC a new revelation not shared with "our forefathers". Peter's comment on the site ridicules the presumptuous claim. I think we need a new feast day and a Saint even. <br /><br />NickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45869171968274060022015-07-02T08:45:37.536+12:002015-07-02T08:45:37.536+12:00Hi Mike
I thought you might have appreciated the ...Hi Mike<br /><br />I thought you might have appreciated the gentle irony in my humble attempt to clarify the ambiguity attached to the word 'pretend'.<br /><br />The blessing of same sex relationships is the ‘civil union’ of the Anglican Church. It mirrors the incremental change that resulted in the ratification of gay marriage in popular culture, and if not resisted will eventually result in the same outcome for the Church. <br /><br />We should not pretend otherwise.<br /><br />We are new to the Anglican Church, we appreciate the authenticity and orthodoxy of the teaching, the joy in worship, the mix of liturgy and informality. We have been warmly welcomed, given opportunities for service, and feel loved and very much at home.<br /><br />I'm engaging in this conversation because it seems to me that this welcome form of Christian expression is a model worth preserving and further reproducing as a vehical of blessing for those within the body of Christ, and those who are not yet. <br /><br />Reading the words of Jesus to the Churches in Revelations chapter 2 and 3, he begins by commending them, and then moves on to say ' Nevertheless, I have a few things against you'. They included 'forsaking their first love, sexual immorality x 2, being 'dead' and being lukewarm.'<br /><br />I cannot help but reflect on the message Jesus would give to the Anglican Church today. There is much to commend, but would he rebuke us in the same way as he did the Churches in Pergamum and Thyatira for condoning sexual immorality?<br /><br />May we hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church in these days.<br /><br />Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17408336178905426092015-07-01T20:50:23.182+12:002015-07-01T20:50:23.182+12:00Hi Mike and Brendan
Before we get to a point where...Hi Mike and Brendan<br />Before we get to a point where my moderation skills or lack of them are called into question, let me make sure we are talking about the same Motion 30!<br /><br />Yes, Motion 30 has passed (Mike)<br /><br />Yes, Motion 30 sets in train a number of things which could yet be affirmed and could yet pass and thus could yet change the formal statements of our doctrine in canon and in liturgy and thus engenders plenty of debate (Brendan).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45374583688606119862015-07-01T20:10:25.651+12:002015-07-01T20:10:25.651+12:00Sorry, Brendan, we were talking in English not Lat...Sorry, Brendan, we were talking in English not Latin. Peter, our gracious host, understood that as I did. You risk being seen as employing casuistry to be right at all costs - rather than being open to dialogue and the Truth. <br /><br />As to your second paragraph - you missunderstand Motion 30. It has already passed. <br /><br />Are you suggesting the Reformation in England was a mistake? Against God's will? If so, why are you worshipping in an Anglican church, when the Church of Rome holds your position, and Anglicanism has passed Motion 30?<br /><br />Finally, if you actually read Motion 30 which was passed, you will notice it explicitly allows for parishes, clergy, and individuals to hold differing positions and to have different practices. <br /><br />As for your wondering what other new ‘human rights’ discovered by these architects of change: divorce & remarriage is of God, usury is fine, slavery is wrong, apartheid is wrong, contraception (including automatic abortive-producing: pill, IUD,...) is good, war can be just and pacifism is not on,...<br /><br />But I think any further comment by me will have little impact, as I predicted at the start, with one who redefines words. We clearly approach discussion differently...<br /><br />MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80606912448485280752015-07-01T09:50:41.240+12:002015-07-01T09:50:41.240+12:00Hi Brendan
Your "larger question" is, in...Hi Brendan<br />Your "larger question" is, indeed, one of the central questions of the moment!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49266160273659039752015-07-01T09:26:49.385+12:002015-07-01T09:26:49.385+12:00Hi Peter
My desire is not to shield my grandchild...Hi Peter<br /><br />My desire is not to shield my grandchildren from life’s daily realities, or the need to explain homosexual relationships to them. Rather it is to avoid giving any appearance that as Christians we believe God is pleased to both endorse and bless same sex unions.<br /><br />I’m not responsible for ‘holiday surprises’ but I am at least partially responsible for what happens in my faith community.<br /><br />The larger question for those of us who take an orthodox view of Scripture, is can we really be ‘in communion’ with a denominational movement that embraces the ‘right’ to same sex blessings by gay and lesbian couples in the church?<br /><br />One wonders what other new ‘human rights’ are waiting to be discovered by these architects of change, hither to unimagined, hidden in Scripture.<br />Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46295134338723832022015-07-01T09:02:58.427+12:002015-07-01T09:02:58.427+12:00Hi Brendan
Taking up one point of your comment at ...Hi Brendan<br />Taking up one point of your comment at 8.42am, your hypothetical experience with your grandchildren could take place when you least expect it (e.g. you are on holiday and attending a church (of any particular denomination) you think is 'safe' on that score, only to find that such an announcement takes place ...).<br /><br />Further, your wish to avoid such experience is already generally provided for in Anglican polity: if you do not wish to be in an Anglican church in which anthems are sung to Mary then I advise avoiding the following parishes .... I would be ABSOLUTELY surprised if our church as currently constituted insisted that each and every parish support blessings of same sex partnerships.<br /><br />(Of course if all conservatives on these matters leave the church then it will no longer be 'as currently constituted' and I would be quite surprised if a more insistent policy was not then instituted!)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8979305920313722542015-07-01T08:42:04.506+12:002015-07-01T08:42:04.506+12:00Hi Mike
My use of the word ‘pretend’ was not to i...Hi Mike<br /><br />My use of the word ‘pretend’ was not to imply a lack of integrity on the part of those advocating same sex blessings. The word ‘pretend’ equally means ‘claim’, i.e. ‘to claim otherwise’. Check out the Latin. ☺<br /><br />As to your implied suggestion that we in the church should simply ‘live and let live’ when it comes to same sex blessings, I just cannot see how that is possible. This is a ‘bright line’ issue for so many Christians that an affirmation of Motion 30 will certainly be the most divisive action undertaken by the Anglican Church since King Henry.<br /><br />I try to picture myself sitting next to my teenage grandchildren as the minister announces plans for the blessing of Bill and Andrew’s committed and loving relationship next Sunday. For me, that just isn’t going to happen and I suspect that will be equally true for a significant proportion of the Anglican community in New Zealand.<br /><br />Therefore, the weight of responsibility upon those who are promoting Motion 30 is very significant indeed. Are they so confident that the Biblical narrative endorses same sex relationships that they are willing to inflict such division upon the Anglican community? Even if they were confident that Scripture endorses this ‘right’, would it not be better to suffer in silence, rather than divide the body of Christ?<br /><br />Did we not give up our ‘rights’ at the foot of the cross?<br /> <br />‘Love does not insist on its own way’ 1 Cor 13:4Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66226999856662255742015-07-01T06:35:24.345+12:002015-07-01T06:35:24.345+12:00Fristly, Brendan: what Tim said!
Secondly - yes s...Fristly, Brendan: what Tim said!<br /><br />Secondly - yes some people competent in Greek have, in the last seven decades, translated the 1 Cor text to include "homosexuals". Others, equally competent, dispute that recent translation. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to 1946!!!<br /><br />In your reply you appear well aware of the issues in each of the six clobber texts. So I am still hopeful of your withdrawal of your "petence" aspersion. People who hold to biblical inspiration, in good conscience hold to differing, sometimes opposing positions. Honesty requires us to acknowledge this. Claiming that the texts are unambiguous, when they are demonstrably not, is disingenuous and counterproductive. <br /><br />To now seek to proceed (without even acknowledging the error of the previous contention) not from the ambiguous texts, but from a second-level interpretation, is a whole other process altogether - and more fraught than in the dealing with an unambiguous biblical teaching. <br /><br />To be sure: competent theologians have addressed all this endlessly. I think, therefore, as I said, that there is little value in debating this further. Rather than Scripture being unambiguous about homosexual practice, it is patently inconclusive about committed gay relationships. It would take a good deal of intellectual gymnastics to pretend otherwise. <br /><br />Best we can do: if you don't agree with a committed same-sex relationship, don't have one. Don't demand everone bless it. Allow those who agree to bless it to do so. <br /><br />MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36089182017006632392015-06-30T21:57:39.144+12:002015-06-30T21:57:39.144+12:00Hi Nick
I was thinking of an NZ parish which resto...Hi Nick<br />I was thinking of an NZ parish which restored Mary after a Vat2 leaning priest left and was replaced by a conservative priest!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-11430034498769609612015-06-30T21:55:12.996+12:002015-06-30T21:55:12.996+12:00Hi Peter, I suppose Boswell is either an authority...Hi Peter, I suppose Boswell is either an authority or just another revisionist depending on where you sit. I don't have a view yet. As for Mary, I assumed you were making a protestant joke, but no! Down amongst net articles on the manifold evils of Vatican 2 and warnings that Catholics breach the second commandment, I see that some keen followers of Vatican 2 thought they had to remove statues of the saints including Mary from churches. It seems to have been a zealous misunderstanding from the one US reference to it that I could find, but, if true, some statues ended up in a lake. All a bit odd, but it shouldn't put Anglicans off making a decision.<br /><br />Nick Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52326639171900122102015-06-30T12:44:54.093+12:002015-06-30T12:44:54.093+12:00Hi Nick
I agree that the tradition has been pretty...Hi Nick<br />I agree that the tradition has been pretty tight regarding homosexuality though was it Boswell who drew attention to a kind of mini-tradition of brotherly covenanted relationships in the Middle Ages ...<br />Vatican 2 differences have not only been those which led to secession! In some cases it just led to statues of Mary being taken out of churches, later to be brought back in!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-20988347208546358692015-06-30T12:00:02.975+12:002015-06-30T12:00:02.975+12:00Hi Peter, I agree that the Orthodox have ecclesias...Hi Peter, I agree that the Orthodox have ecclesiastical divorce. My reference to 1000 years' Church tradition is probably an understatement, however, with regard to same-sex relationships. Monogamous and promiscuous homosexuality both appear in Latin texts, so the difference will have been likely understood by the Apostles in the Roman world, at least. For example Juvenal's second satire viciously ridicules a same sex marriage because no drug will produce any children and Petronius depicts Giton's bisexual promiscuity in The Satyricon. As for Vatican 2 on decisions, I suppose it caused a schism with SSPX and the sede vacante communities. I would not recommend schism to evangelical Anglicans, but it is obviously an option that you will want to explore, even if just to reject it on a rational basis.<br /><br />Nick Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82342501810706799062015-06-30T09:45:28.100+12:002015-06-30T09:45:28.100+12:00Peter and Brendan:
My point is simply that when b...Peter and Brendan:<br /><br />My point is simply that when biblical scholars ask the question 'What exactly was the lending of money at interest in Old Testament times, how did it function, and how was it similar or different to/from modern venture capitalism?' no one accuses them of revisionism, but simply responsible biblical scholarship (despite the fact that for much of Christian history the consensus was that the practice was forbidden to Christians - which is why medieval Christendom turned to Jewish moneylenders, not Christians, when they needed a loan).<br /><br />Assuming that when the biblical writers talked about 'a man lying with a man as with a woman' they were describing a committed monogamous relationship such as modern-day gay Christians want to have with each other seems to me to be just as suspect as assuming that loan sharks in the Old Testament period were exactly the same as business investors today. Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. And surely the very use of a phrase such as 'God condemns homosexuality' is anachronistic. Even if you believe that having sex with someone of your own gender is wrong, to say 'God condemns homosexuality' is rather like saying 'God condemns alcoholism'. No he doesn't - he condemns drunkenness. They aren't the same, and the distinction is important, as any AA member will tell you.<br /><br />Brendan, you don't know me, but Peter and other long-time commenters here will know that I'm not arguing this case because I want to see the church change its traditional teaching about marriage; I don't. I do, however, have a daughter in a same-sex marriage, and her Christian faith is important to her, so I naturally see things a little differently.<br /><br />Tim Chesterton<br />Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-19788482578360761122015-06-30T09:22:39.381+12:002015-06-30T09:22:39.381+12:00Hi Nick:
Observation (1): despite the steadiness...Hi Nick: <br /><br />Observation (1): despite the steadiness of the patriarchs re homosexuality, there has been an interesting divergence between two churches deeply rooted in patristic theology, between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman churches re divorce/remarriage.<br /><br />Observation (2): on making decisions. Vatican 2 made some decisions ... and the next forty odd years have seen some powerful prelates attempt to walk those decisions back!<br /><br />Hi Tim: It is quite fair to make the point about the church largely disregarding former teaching on usury, but the slight difference (I suggest) is that no one is asking the church to bless usury or to pretend that no more issues arise because we work with rather than against usury. Further, it is okay to get up in a Synod and denounce capitalism and all those who rely on it!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62639037871983439282015-06-30T08:29:15.523+12:002015-06-30T08:29:15.523+12:00Hi Tim
There is a well established theology regar...Hi Tim<br /><br />There is a well established theology regarding the present day applicability of Levitical Laws including consumption of shell fish, the gathering of sticks, lending at interest, homosexual practice and loving your neighbour as yourself. Some are repeated and thereby reinforced in the New Testament, while others simply find their fulfillment in Christ ‘who is the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe’. Rom10:4<br /><br />Hi Nick<br /><br />Thank you for the reference regarding Peter’s post, I will look it up. I’m new to the debate in the Anglican Church, but I cannot help but think your observations regarding the failure of the Patriarch’s to discover these sexual rights over the last 1,000 years of church history is apt. <br />Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30883070522606473352015-06-30T02:13:52.613+12:002015-06-30T02:13:52.613+12:00Brendan: Scripture also unambiguously condemns len...Brendan: Scripture also unambiguously condemns lending money at interest. How's your pension fund? Any bankers in your church?<br /><br />Tim Chesterton<br />Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82308703786526396122015-06-29T23:07:27.871+12:002015-06-29T23:07:27.871+12:00Hi Brendan, if you haven't seen them already, ...Hi Brendan, if you haven't seen them already, you might want to look at Peter's quick survey of the biblical texts in the blog archive under February 25th 2015. I find Leviticus 18:22 particularly salutary, despite the shellfish objections which, to my mind (and not wanting to mix metaphors) are red herrings. I do not accept that the pro same-sex arguments, if so meritorious, would have been missed by all the Church fathers, every Saint, every Pope, every Patriarch and almost every Archbishop of Canterbury. Although it is my view only, I think that there is a time to stop the excruciatingly endless dialogue and make a decision. So, when you ask what the Church should do, I think it should affirm 1000 years of unambiguous tradition. I don't see much need to seek the Holy Spirit; He has already spoken. I agree with you that the Church is not a democracy, nor should it, in my view, be obsessed with putative sexual rights unknown to the Bible.<br /><br />Nick<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72681415061771120592015-06-29T22:34:26.145+12:002015-06-29T22:34:26.145+12:00Hi Mike,
For the sake of context and brevity, I ...Hi Mike, <br /><br />For the sake of context and brevity, I quoted one of six commonly referenced texts that explicitly condemn homosexuality. Yes, the word ‘homosexuals’ is a ‘modern’ word, but theologians with a better grasp of Greek than myself were responsible for choosing the word as the best fit to use in modern translations. <br /><br />Other translations suggest, the text could mean “abusers of themselves with mankind” In the Greek, it is “arsenokoites,” “arsen” meaning “male,” and “koites” meaning “bed,” generally with a sexual connotation.<br /><br />As to whether my choice of that reference in the overall context of my dialogue ‘demonstrates the complete falseness of my assertion’ regarding the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality, others can be the judge.<br /><br />I appreciate this is an emotive issue, and we are all keen to understand the truth of the matter. If the examination of the original Greek text allows for greater insight then I’m very much in favour of presenting it.<br /><br />The primary purpose of my particular post to which you refer was to point out the implicit condemnation of homosexuality contained within the first few chapters of Genesis. It does not rely upon any of the six commonly referenced explicit texts including 1Cor 6:10. <br /><br />Do you have any insights to share regarding that thesis?<br />Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-47193829688475039712015-06-29T21:29:11.549+12:002015-06-29T21:29:11.549+12:00What is particularly exasperating, Brendan, is tha...What is particularly exasperating, Brendan, is that you have no sooner claimed that Scripture is unambiguous about homosexual practice and that It would take a good deal of intellectual gymnastics to pretend otherwise, than you proceed to demonstrate the complete falseness of your assertion by claiming homosexuality to be listed in 1Cor:6:9-10. A few minutes researching should have helped you to discover that your assertion is in no way unambiguously in the inspired original. <br /><br />MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-71959109182226106512015-06-29T17:32:15.884+12:002015-06-29T17:32:15.884+12:00Hi Nick
Thanks for the input. I had only been gi...Hi Nick<br /><br />Thanks for the input. I had only been given the brief 'you can't receive communion in a Catholic Church unless you are a Catholic' whisper. If I am correct then it relates more to the difffering views of the teaching of the sacramental act of communion between churches - the Catholic belief of the wine and bread being the literal body, and blood of Christ and the protestant view of them being metaphorical representations of the body and blood of Christ? And the mortal sin part is interesting - so that is the big problem with divorcees receiving communion if divorce is seen as a mortal sin.<br /><br />Have a good day,Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-40045315520566263742015-06-29T15:01:13.393+12:002015-06-29T15:01:13.393+12:00Hi Nick
In the light of profound difference, what...Hi Nick<br /><br />In the light of profound difference, what does the Church do?<br /><br />Hopefully we continue to treat each other as fellow human beings, with love, respect and mutual understanding. Hopefully we can agree that when it comes to the expression of our Christian faith, Scripture is authoritave in all matters pertaining to faith and practice. Hopefully we can engage in the question of same sex attraction from a pastoral perspective, in the light of Scripture, the grace of God and the example of those who have gone before. <br /><br />We have seen that culture trumps politics; the question for the Church is does culture trump 2,000 years of Biblical orthodoxy?<br /><br />You claim to hold the majority view and even if that were true, is our faith simply a product of democratic process? <br /><br />This question goes to the core of our being, and cannot be nuanced away by an extended political process. I am hopeful that over time as we are exposed to both sides of this debate, the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. <br />Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23139874676063485662015-06-29T13:32:00.565+12:002015-06-29T13:32:00.565+12:00And therein lies the problem, Brendan. Despite the...And therein lies the problem, Brendan. Despite the careful and erudite work of people like Tobias Heller (and I accept that there are plenty of others who write just as coherently and persuasively), I (for example)simply don't buy it and I do not doubt that I am in the majority view worldwide. I first read the arguments around 30 years ago and they are no more convincing now than they were then. They have been rehearsed on this site by international authorities in both camps. There will be no agreement; hence the question, what does the Church do. I am not an Anglican, so I will answer the question in my own patch.<br /><br />Nick<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com