tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2623675681068361440..comments2024-03-29T13:30:56.758+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Kiwi episcopal yearnings: an internal or external solution? A follow up to Saturday 7 April 2018Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82624949705596879452018-04-23T11:17:23.081+12:002018-04-23T11:17:23.081+12:00Dear Peter, re your response to my comment, @ 9.30...Dear Peter, re your response to my comment, @ 9.30am; if Malcolm's remark that I quoted is the definitive reason for the possibility of a break-up in ACANZP then, like ACANA and AMIE; the result would simply give birth to just one more 'One-Issue Issue Church' - hardly calculated to enhance the ecumenical idea of the Body of Christ, which is inclusive, universal, and composed of Sinners as well as Saints. As I have often said: The Body of Christ is composed of only sinners showing other sinners where to find Bread - the Bread of Life.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65263307598401828202018-04-23T09:36:37.898+12:002018-04-23T09:36:37.898+12:00Hi Anonymous
Please give at least your first name!...Hi Anonymous<br />Please give at least your first name!<br />I argue that marriage and remarriage after divorce is not a "red herring" on the following grounds:<br />1. there is no discernible concerted effort by Protestants to revert to a purely gospel/Pauline set of (two) exceptions;<br />2. that lack of effort is a recognition that marriage and reasons for its breakdown are more complicated in many situations than the gospels and Paul allow for;<br />3. and, since within Protestantism, there is generally a willingness not only to acknowledge exceptions plural but also to offer remarriage after divorce, even when not strictly provided for by Scripture, remarriage after divorce constitutes an example of the church engaging in the messy realities of human sexuality failing to conform to God's ideal. Thus, <br />4. it is possible that the same church might also look at exceptions re same-sex relationships, especially, indeed only the "exception" where two people seek blessing for a lifelong committed monogamous relationship.<br /><br />Now (4) is not required by (1-3) but I think it can be considered in relation to the way the church goes about (1-3). Thus, in my view, not a red herring ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52304072897528082602018-04-23T09:30:18.870+12:002018-04-23T09:30:18.870+12:00Hi Ron
I don't think Malcolm's remark is i...Hi Ron<br />I don't think Malcolm's remark is inflammatory.<br />His point is that, within a church in which members are asking is their church faithful to Scripture and tradition, respectful of various understandings of the gospel, there is always a potential point at which certain things cross a line into unfaithfulness; and, Motion 29 is likely to be that point for some at least.<br /><br />If you have time to listen to Jay Behan's talk on the FCANZ site - link on a recent post here on ADU - you will find him talking about how some are likely to go though some of a roughly similar mindset may stay.<br /><br />Thus I suggest Malcolm's comment is descriptive rather than prescriptive.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8213529765456844992018-04-23T08:14:09.279+12:002018-04-23T08:14:09.279+12:00Hi Peter,
I see the claim regarding, the remarria...<br />Hi Peter,<br /><br />I see the claim regarding, the remarriage of divorced heterosexuals as a "red herring"; which has no parallel to the question in hand.Christ himself,put the "EXCEPTION" in there. If the permittence is being abused,then it should be corrected;not used as justification for the present issue,which the Scriptures do give any "EXCEPT FOR" clause to.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-11370417809403705392018-04-22T22:53:58.369+12:002018-04-22T22:53:58.369+12:00"So forgive me if I continue toi think that b..."So forgive me if I continue toi think that believe that this will be the move (Motion 29?) that will break the Church" - Malcom Falloon -<br /><br />May I be forgiven if I find this statement rather inflammatory? Espically in view of the fact that suppositions made by Mr. Falloon appear to be somewhat questionable.<br /><br />This is the sort of statement that can precipitate schism. Entirely unhelpful. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58167398774197112752018-04-22T15:35:20.197+12:002018-04-22T15:35:20.197+12:00Hi Bosco
I suggest the remark re General Synod aut...Hi Bosco<br />I suggest the remark re General Synod authorising a non-formulary service is true in this sense: General Synod has authorised that a non-formulary service may be authorised by due authority.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60104787640928543152018-04-22T14:58:29.409+12:002018-04-22T14:58:29.409+12:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11931946224142718747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-28799304770814359622018-04-22T13:28:04.429+12:002018-04-22T13:28:04.429+12:00'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but ...'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts” - Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Alternative facts need to be challenged on the internet, where false information spreads up to six times faster than the truth.<br /><br />I am perfectly comfortable to be shown to be in error, but until that happens, I assert that the following information in this thread is false:<br /><br />That there was a legal challenge to the canon allowing marriage of divorcees (asserted in this thread April 19, 2018 at 11:13 AM). NZ Anglicanism held to the lifelong nature of marriage (along with Anglicanism internationally, and within the Christian tradition of marriage and divorce). Its teaching (formularies) on this is unchanged. NZ Anglicanism simply passed a canon that limited the effect of that teaching/formularies so that anyone officiating at a marriage of a divorcee, or such a couple, is not disciplined for this breach of the church’s teaching. Asserting that there was a legal challenge to this change creates a new narrative of supposed consistency. This newly-minted narrative suggests that people fought as strongly about the “lifelong” dimension of our marriage teaching as they currently fight about the “man and woman” dimension, that they fought for practice in relationships always to follow our church’s teaching – whatever the pastoral complexities, and that they treated the majority (heterosexuals) according to the letter of the law in the same manner as they would now treat the minority (LGBTI+). I await evidence of this legal challenge, and until then – snopes.com style – declare the assertion that there was a legal challenge FALSE.<br /><br />Secondly, there is, in this thread that “General Synod is … authorising a non-formulary service” (April 19, 2018 at 11:13 AM). There is no intention for GSTHW to authorise a non-formulary service. Again, quite the opposite. This is FALSE. Less than a year ago, the process concluded to alter the Constitution to allow bishops to authorise services. Everyone, knowing where it looked like it would lead, had a chance to participate in this discussion, and had a year to appeal when it passed with the required significant majorities in all houses and tikanga in 2016.<br /><br />Talk of “conservatives” in this thread (and elsewhere, and now “temperamental conservatives”) is too loose. It is better and more honest to simply write about those who are in favour of blessing Committed Same-Sex Couples and those who are not. To indicate that those who are against blessing Committed Same-Sex Couples have integrity when they are signing their declarations (and that this is what is at stake), when many of them in their practice regularly and overtly breach those declarations, again appears to be attempting to develop a new narrative that does not correspond to the facts.<br /><br />The reality (the facts) is that, in our church, there are different perspectives on marriage, on divorce, and on Committed Same-Sex Couples. The majority is in favour of allowing people to follow their conscience on these. Christians have been wrong about Jews. Christians have been wrong about slavery. Christians have been wrong about women. Christians have been wrong about banking. We have managed to change our practice on divorce for the majority (heterosexuals), applying a generosity against our own teaching. We need to seriously ask ourselves what is at work, when so much else requires our attention, that inordinate heat is generated by this particular discussion about applying generosity to the small minority who, in good conscience, seek a blessing on their commitment.<br /><br />Easter Season Blessings<br /><br />BoscoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83679707937325162462018-04-21T23:18:14.612+12:002018-04-21T23:18:14.612+12:00Hi Bowman
Yes and yes.Hi Bowman<br />Yes and yes.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-11745450748853734622018-04-21T21:35:06.254+12:002018-04-21T21:35:06.254+12:00The characteristics of a legal corporation and of ...The characteristics of a legal corporation and of the Body of Christ are not necessarily the same.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75652536125539629022018-04-21T21:14:33.393+12:002018-04-21T21:14:33.393+12:00Or, Peter--
(5) Acknowledge that the dream of a c...Or, Peter--<br /><br />(5) Acknowledge that the dream of a community in Christ that includes sexual minorities *as such* is so new that the views of all sides-- and the divisions between them-- are likely only transitional to some future pattern of living.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83328146922624544732018-04-21T16:04:25.923+12:002018-04-21T16:04:25.923+12:00Hi Bowman
Thank you for the Jordan Hylken link!Hi Bowman<br />Thank you for the Jordan Hylken link!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27773248971596984202018-04-21T16:03:53.872+12:002018-04-21T16:03:53.872+12:00Hi Glen
Our Lord became incarnate in the world and...Hi Glen<br />Our Lord became incarnate in the world and engaged with the world as it was around him, not as he may have liked it to have been.<br />Accordingly I do not think our Lord, physically alive in the world today, would be approaching these matters via talk of constitution and canons.<br />We need to find a way, not only to accommodate a variety of views within the church but also to demonstrate the church as a community which does not automatically exclude gay and lesbian people.<br />Unfortunately your appeal to the constitution, legally impeccable as it no doubt is, fuels a notion that we are such an exclusive community.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39585382546533521972018-04-21T14:14:50.516+12:002018-04-21T14:14:50.516+12:00https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2otwm44m466az4/NyetoTEC...https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2otwm44m466az4/NyetoTEC.pdf?<br /><br />BW<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16030500484459547832018-04-21T13:57:04.717+12:002018-04-21T13:57:04.717+12:00Our Lord was not anti-Semitic.
BWOur Lord was not anti-Semitic.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81862413681546860782018-04-21T12:42:55.317+12:002018-04-21T12:42:55.317+12:00Peter, I was reminded this morning, when sorting o...Peter, I was reminded this morning, when sorting out the videos on faith issues available on the internet, of the amazing felicity of our former Christchurch Dean Linda Patterson's sermons. Linda's sad departure left a big hole in the Inclusive integrity of our diocese. Here is one such 5-minute reflection on our values today:<br /><br />https://youtu.be/irCtTc-QnRUFather Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46124401318044963422018-04-20T19:10:09.138+12:002018-04-20T19:10:09.138+12:00Peter, I for one, am happy with your explanation o...Peter, I for one, am happy with your explanation of what the word 'generosity' might mean in the context of Motion 29, and the conflict involved. I guess this would have described the attitude of conservatives whose own families have been involved in the issue of divorce and remarriage. As with all such issues, one's sympathies can be affected by familial involvement. Homosexuality is just one more such issue.<br /><br />In Jesus' own day, the Scribes and Pharisees were often criticised by him for their legalistic attitude toward those they saw as transgressing the law (constitutions?) without any regard to the pastoral difficulties of the conditions that might have provoked what they determined to be the transgression of a law based on local cultural suppositions (e.g. women only being liable for punishmnent of adultery - what about the men?).<br /><br />Jesus recognised our common human weaknesses - taking care to prioritise only those which offended against both God and the good of the community. Self-righteousness and the judgement of others were often the object of Jesus' strongest condemnation: as witness in the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee - "Which one went away JUSTIFIED?" However, with the matter of human sexuality, little was known at that time of the biological aspects of same-sex relationships. If it had been, Jesus might have been more accepting of the true nature of such than today's legalistic conservatives. I'm sure the reason more Jewish Leaders did not join the early Christian community was because they found him too liberal on matter of their Law.<br />In fact, they had Jesus crucified.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86814970434015838252018-04-20T16:43:51.694+12:002018-04-20T16:43:51.694+12:00Hi Peter,
We have been asked to accept "same...<br />Hi Peter,<br /><br />We have been asked to accept "same sex" marriage at a civil level. The Govt. has destroyed the meaning of Holy Matrimony at a civil level. You are now asking us to give up the Mission and Purpose of the One,Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,{as proclaimed by Christ,the Apostles and the Church Fathers]<br />so that what the legal Doctrine of the ACANZP defines as sin,can be blessed.<br />God does not "bless us" so that our hopes and and desires are furthered; but so we can we further His Kingdom.Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73964073746351868292018-04-20T16:10:40.073+12:002018-04-20T16:10:40.073+12:00Hi Glen
I think we can be more generous than your ...Hi Glen<br />I think we can be more generous than your comment provides for.<br />We can frame this as two integrities or we can work on this in one integrity of love.<br />Michael Jones' comments in the past 24 hours about the Israel Folau controversy spring to my mind.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45207437792700837922018-04-20T16:06:47.463+12:002018-04-20T16:06:47.463+12:00Hi Malcolm
I think we could think of generous here...Hi Malcolm<br />I think we could think of generous here as:<br />- acknowledging that some church members want what we do not think they should have but giving them freedom to have what they want; a generosity of space;<br />- acknowledging that there might be something in arguments we are sure are wrong which we may have missed and allowing for those arguments to hold sway in some quarters of our church;<br />- trusting various members of our church, including our bishops, to act in good faith, in accordance with the framework set out by M29;<br />- continuing to receive the gift which M29 provides, which is that those who disagree with SSB and SSM are free to teach against them and for traditional marriage and sexual morality;<br />- applauding the forbearance of this church which has listened to conservatives through previous GSynods and sought to find a way forward which accommodates conservatives when a simple majority push through, in, say, 2016 would have led to a quite different outcome.<br /><br />But, generally, I mean by generous, a generous disposition to those in the tiny minority who are homosexual and who would like their relationships blessed by those willing to do so.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60624065445466972422018-04-20T15:55:00.606+12:002018-04-20T15:55:00.606+12:00Hi Peter,
I have refrained from any comment on th...<br />Hi Peter,<br /><br />I have refrained from any comment on this post until I read your response at 11.53 AM. "I ask my fellow conservatives to consider whether we might find it in our hearts to go with suggestion (3)".<br /><br />Malcolm is totally correct in that the Constitution 1857 is the FOUNDING DOCUMENT of the ACANZP. If we find it "in our hearts to go along with suggestion (3)";and "suggestion (3)" is simply, nothing more than a circumvention of the SPIRIT of the LEGAL FOUNDING DOCUMENT of the Church; and at variance with the DOCTRINE of ACANZP,as defined in the Fundamental Clauses of that Constitution (which can not be amended]; BY WHAT MORAL RIGHT DO WE ENTER INTO CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND BREAK THE CIVIL LAW OF NZ? The Constitution 1857' legally defined the the relationship of the ACANZP to the Civil Law of NZ. What would happen if the NZ Govt. stated tomorrow that it did not recognise the Church and confiscated it's property. I bet my last dollar that the ACANZP would be claiming constitutional rights. If you want constitutional rights,then you must abide by that CONSTITUTION 1857.Did not Jesus say:"Render unto Caesar what is Caesars" and in this case it is obedience to the legal Constitution.<br /><br />If G.S. goes ahead with either Motion 29 or 30,it is not a Church with "Two Integrates" but a Church with "no Integrity".Glen Youngnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59565677178349841842018-04-20T14:39:30.659+12:002018-04-20T14:39:30.659+12:00Peter,
Your third suggestion uses the concept of ...Peter,<br /><br />Your third suggestion uses the concept of generosity, which I suspect differs little from the usual cry for us to be more "loving". In which case it might just be another version of the "sit down and shut up" argument. That will not take us very far. <br /><br />So, if you are wanting to build a case for your fellow conservatives to hold on to, you will need to explain more fully what generosity means in this context. What does generosity look like for office-holders when they pick up a pen to sign their declarations? What does it mean for their conscience to be generous in such circumstances? <br /><br />In my experience, people are more likely to be thinking of integrity rather than generosity at that point. Maybe you can define a generous integrity, I don't know. But I do know that people usually set a high price on their conscience.<br /><br />MalcolmMalcolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00673750364562577262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35118768386568367642018-04-20T11:53:27.531+12:002018-04-20T11:53:27.531+12:00Hi Malcolm and Bosco
I wonder if we can take a sli...Hi Malcolm and Bosco<br />I wonder if we can take a slightly different route in this conversation which does not leave any of us feeling that either (i) we have been "stupid" or (ii) we are being thought of as "stupid" in others' eyes.<br /><br />I want to start a response by lifting a sentence, Malcolm, from your most recent comment above:<br /><br />"The constitution's very function should be to limit such an exercise in power and to protect minority voices."<br /><br />This is true in respect of the general purpose of the constitution: that (to take an extreme hypothetical case) if I am Athanasius and the rest of the church is being carried away on an Arian tangent towards heretical canons, formularies and what have you, I as One Faithful versus Many Errants, know that I have the constitution on my side.<br /><br />But we are in a situation which is not about a creedal matter and which does not involve a change to a formulary and yet it is about how we might provide for <br />(a) a minority (gay and lesbian Anglicans who seek blessing of relationships) when <br />(b) we have a majority* who are keen for provision for the minority while <br />(c) also seeking to protect a group who do not agree the constitution provides for such blessings (arguably a sizeable minority rather than a tiny minority) as well as protecting a group (arguably a small-ish minority) who do think such blessings are compatible with the constitution. <br />Across (a), (b), (c) there seems to be agreement that we <br />(d) do not have the energy to change the constitution as the constitution, but we <br />(e) think we could agree to modify the effect of the constitution (so, pp. 20 and 21 of the M29 proposal) so that minorities in connection with (a), (b) and (c) are protected.<br />[*I suggest that 2 or 3 tikanga indicating they do not object to change; and (likely) seven NZ dioceses of the other tikanga agreeing to change constitutes a "majority."]<br /><br />What is to be done? I suggest four possibilities (all of which, I stress, are intelligent responses to the proposal).<br /><br />(1) Argue that the proposal is faulty (i.e. unconstitutional) and dangerous (i.e. precedent creating with who knows what consequences) and may even not halt the likelihood of significant departures.<br />(2) Argue that (despite acknowledgement of faultiness and potential for danger) what is proposed is the best we can do measured by (e.g.) protection for each relevant minority in this situation, while also - seemingly, prior to GS - expressing the will of the majority.<br />(3) Generously commit to the proposal on the grounds that while the constitution matters, and while each minority group in the church is equally important, now is a time to place the protection of one minority ahead of other minorities, where "generous" means "the other minorities will not leave the church because of this matter."<br />(4) Reluctantly but good naturedly suggest this is all too difficult (canonically, constitutionally, etc) and work on a careful, kindly structural dismemberment of the church.<br /><br />I ask my fellow conservatives to consider whether we might find it in our hearts to go with suggestion (3).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90384238122610493562018-04-20T10:10:21.833+12:002018-04-20T10:10:21.833+12:00Dear Peter,
Yes, I am still fixated on General Sy...Dear Peter,<br /><br />Yes, I am still fixated on General Synod following the rules laid down for it by the constitution. Thank you for your candour with your "take" on the motion 29. I would just ask who are the "we" in your hypothetical conversation, who can agree not to be found in "strict accordance" with the constitution? The constitution's very function should be to limit such an excerise in power and to protect minority voices. So forgive me if I continue to think this will be the move that will break the church.<br /><br />And then, when I read the FCANZ submission [which, by the way, I had no input into] I find I am not alone with my concern about the constitution. The very first heading "Too far" goes at great length to articulate my concerns. In fact, I would argue that this is the main thrust of the FCA submission, for the second heading "Not far enough" begins, "Even for those who do feel that they can stay..." The conclusion I draw from the report is the bulk of the FCANZ membership is in the first group not the second.<br /><br />This is confirmed for me in the final paragraphs when they state: "But, we repeat, if General Synod adopts recommendations allowing authorized services which contradict our existing doctrine and practice, many Anglicans will have been abandoned by their denomination and will have no alternative but to seek other ways of remaining authentically Anglican."<br /><br />The FCANZ argues for an Extra Provincial Diocese as the only solution to remain together albeit under different structures. This makes sense to me, for the principle of subsidiarity (as spelt out in the Windsor report) would say that communion issues can only be solved at a communion level. Our General Synod, realising that they can't be solved at a provincial level, is attempting to send it down to the diocesan level (i.e. just vary the episcopal arrangements a little). That is a failed strategy. We need to reinvent the concept of province within the communion to allow this debate to be contained and the greatest level of unity to be maintained.<br /><br />As for Bosco's strictures—I laughed out loud. Was that your intention, Bosco? [not a genuine question, so you don't have to answer] Yet, I do have to allow for the possibility that it is just stupidity on my part—it wouldn't be the first time. Perhaps I have misread p21 of the WG report. Incredible, but it is possible! Perhaps in the end, I'm just too stupid to remain part of this church! I could end up leaving, but it would all be my own fault—I just wasn't smart enough to understand what was going on!<br /><br />Malcolm<br />Malcolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00673750364562577262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61293996176570020862018-04-19T22:08:35.290+12:002018-04-19T22:08:35.290+12:00Hi Andrei
Good point!Hi Andrei<br />Good point!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com