tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post4506238458934462766..comments2024-03-29T17:55:30.203+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Breaking News: A Way Forward is Paved with Good IntentionsPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-73233101422438950372014-05-19T06:02:44.899+12:002014-05-19T06:02:44.899+12:00Hi Ron
If by 'confrontational' you mean &#...Hi Ron<br />If by 'confrontational' you mean 'personal' then yes, you are being too personal.<br /><br />The aim here is to have discussion of comments and not of the commenters who make the comments.<br /><br />I am not saying "Butt out".<br /><br />I am saying, focus on the issues, not the person doing the talking about them.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31144102578314713732014-05-18T23:08:07.115+12:002014-05-18T23:08:07.115+12:00O.K., Peter, I get the message:
"Butt out, Ro...O.K., Peter, I get the message:<br />"Butt out, Ron, you're too confrontational". Message received. Over and out. I'll leave you with your mates. Enjoy.<br /><br />Had a good talk with our Bishop this evening, about the lack of confrontation at the G.S. Does that please you, I wonder?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34651869821589907422014-05-17T16:47:46.099+12:002014-05-17T16:47:46.099+12:00Hi Ron
In a recent comment offered here you make s...Hi Ron<br />In a recent comment offered here you make so many remarks about commenters rather than comments that if I took out the 'commenter' remarks not much would be left, so I have simply deleted the lot.<br /><br />I think we get it: you don't think much of those who don't think along certain lines but think along other lines.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67706688749169535672014-05-16T13:31:23.922+12:002014-05-16T13:31:23.922+12:00"This sounds OK for ACNA or GAFCON. However, ..."This sounds OK for ACNA or GAFCON. However, I do not recognise the core value as particularly 'Anglican'."<br /><br />Good heavens, Rev'd Fr. :-) <br /><br />I had assumed that the ACANZP, to which we both belong, was defined by the Prayer Book, the Articles of Religion, the Creeds, and the patristic trio of Scripture Tradition and Reason to which the Anglican Church has always been wedded. These are precisely the sources of authority which tell us we can't do what we've just done. (See my 4. above). Hitting the middle of absolutely everything has never been an Anglican distinctive, as the Articles make very clear.<br /><br />In the narrative you run above (in which evangelicals and Catholics are unAnglican, foreign, patriarchal, and should have died in 1955), I'm afraid it's not as easy as that--although thank you for clarifying what you believe to be the one eirenic movement you don't believe we can resile from--you've illustrated the problem rather nicely.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7007136633470709152014-05-16T13:22:02.211+12:002014-05-16T13:22:02.211+12:00In response to your comment of May 15, 2014 at 10...In response to your comment of May 15, 2014 at 10:00 PM, I wonder, Ron, if it has ever occurred to you, just for one wee moment, that perhaps two wrongs do not make a right? That on the one hand much of the treatment of people whom we now know as LGBT has indeed been merciless - AND that the Church has been implicated in that lack of mercy - as you aver. <i>Kyrie eleison!</i> And yet also on the other hand, that same-sex attraction, and its expressions, are in fact manifestations of our collective fallen condition - which surely does ‘need’ the divine mercy, just as much, since they mar the original divine image in which the Good Lord made human beings. Have you ever seriously thought of that second possibility?<br /> <br />I know I’ve tried to both understand and accept the ‘new thing’ the Spirit is seemingly ‘revealing’ to some of you. But in the end, after some 20+ years of <i>focused</i> attention, the evidence, duly weighed and considered - biological, cultural, psychological, historical, philosophical and theological, you name it - just does not stack up, IMHO. In fact, I have been forced to the conclusion that this is no new revelation at all ... And that is why I also find our proposed pathway, triggered by Motion 30, fraught with snares and inevitable failure. Two wrongs do not make a right ...Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-56285953434469144342014-05-16T12:41:26.204+12:002014-05-16T12:41:26.204+12:00Hi John
I am omitting one word from your comment b...Hi John<br />I am omitting one word from your comment below as it is the kind of word which generates heat and not light.<br /><br />""In as more balanced world, where masculinity is not threatened by the feminine attributes; there is no longer room for out-dated and unjust attitudes towards the minority LGBT community - who happen to be different from what may have been called 'the norm"...."<br /><br />This is part of a highly entertaining [piece], but there are so many assumptions, stereotypes and slogans in it that the mind boggles about where to start.<br /><br />It shouldn't need saying (and probably doesn't to most fair minded and inclusive people) but for the vast majority of conservatives, both Evangelical and Catholic, this isn't about culturally determined roles, hurting or stoning anyone, or trying to return to 1955.<br /><br />What young people my age (I'm 30) and younger really want is a Church which means what it says, and speaks to us for and from Christ, rather than recycling the same tired blather we get in Sociology class. Thank God, the long 1970's are finally ending, and many people (me included, I'm a convert) are discovering the immense joy of resting in the true, the good, and the beautiful, as opposed to the false, the ugly and the (thankfully) no longer fashionable slogans and straw men.<br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86976940599621807162014-05-16T12:37:58.688+12:002014-05-16T12:37:58.688+12:00" If we really are interested in holding toge..." If we really are interested in holding together as a family, we who remain traditional in understanding sexuality must be heard when we say we think this isn't something we can faithfully disagree.." - John -<br /><br />This sounds OK for ACNA or GAFCON. However, I do not recognise the core value as particularly 'Anglican'.<br /><br />The Church I belong to - ACANZP - has already declared its full acceptance of LGBTI people in our midst. (See the Statement made by the recent General Synod).<br /><br />We cannot resile from this eirenic movement forward from the status quo.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50589612852896681742014-05-16T05:10:26.553+12:002014-05-16T05:10:26.553+12:00Good point, Tim!Good point, Tim!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42302708022361017202014-05-16T05:10:25.866+12:002014-05-16T05:10:25.866+12:00Good point, Tim!Good point, Tim!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-8505018380011061652014-05-16T00:44:09.450+12:002014-05-16T00:44:09.450+12:00It's interesting that over at Thinking Anglica...It's interesting that over at Thinking Anglicans there are a lot of upset liberals.<br /><br />If this motion is such a great liberal victory as some conservatives here seem to think, then why aren't the liberals dancing in the streets?<br /><br />Tim C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38826293033772475552014-05-15T22:15:06.194+12:002014-05-15T22:15:06.194+12:00Hi John
A lot now rests on what the nest two years...Hi John<br />A lot now rests on what the nest two years bring as the working group works on things and brings them back to the next GS.<br /><br />One way of looking at this week from a conservative point of view is that a line has been drawn in the sand (in our favour). Will it remain there? I am confident it will, but we need to be vigilant.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1585339500343620742014-05-15T22:00:29.003+12:002014-05-15T22:00:29.003+12:00I am sad that so many contributors here seem to ha...I am sad that so many contributors here seem to have an outlook of doom and gloom - about something that has existed and remained un-addressed by the Church for many centuries. <br /><br />The fact of the existence of human beings with homoerotic attraction (albeit, only in a minority of the human race) as well as the majority of an inherently homosexual disposition is as old as the human race. <br /><br />Homo-eroticism is not a passing fad, nor something drummed up by the idle rich seeking a new and entertaining diversion. It is no respecter of a person's status, religious beliefs, gender, racial characteristics or social status. <br /><br />In places like Nigeria and Uganda, it is a matter of life or death - depending on one's ability to hide the fact at the heart of one's very being. No one in their right mind in such places would ever choose to be homosexual. There is too much danger and heartache involved - not only for one's-self but also for one's family and friends. <br /><br />In our western world, because of the traditional misunderstanding of the facts surrounding such an orientation, there has been a lot of hypocrisy about it - Yes! even in the Church. <br /><br />Only now, when there is a lot more information about the aetiology, biological and social circumstance attached to homosexuality, has there been any effort to come to terms with the reality - instead the exercise of an inherited judgementalist attitude from the macho patriarchalists - for whom the prospect of a male person having feminine attributes has remained taboo.<br /><br />However, things are changing. No longer are young fathers afraid to demonstrate their skills with raising their children, changing their nappies and preparing their food. No longer are women content to remain in the kitchen and the bedroom, waiting for the man of the family to come home from work.<br />In as more balanced world, where masculinity is not threatened by the feminine attributes; there is no longer room for out-dated and unjust attitudes towards the minority LGBT community - who happen to be different from what may have been called 'the norm'.<br /><br />Jesus was passionate for justice - even before self-justification. But if Gays have to justify themselves - then society may now just be coming around to this new understanding of the infinite variety of human personae - each one created in the divine image and Likeness, love by God and precious in god's sight.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54733267259658243432014-05-15T21:58:56.762+12:002014-05-15T21:58:56.762+12:00Sorry, yes, that was me.
I simply suggest that in...Sorry, yes, that was me.<br /><br />I simply suggest that in giving this a go (which we're all going to have to do, I suppose) experience shows that two integrities do not last very long unless both sides understand the other. Those on my side of this issue do not accept same sex unions as adiaphora. The resolution assumes we can and will. Actually, for many, both Evangelical and Catholic, this is a Salvation issue, and two integrities on such a question are not possible--and they're certainly not possible if the only structural protection of our orthodoxy we get are vague reassurances of the kind which were issued over WO, and soon dishonoured once facts on the ground or politics changed. If we really are interested in holding together as a family, we who remain traditional in understanding sexuality must be heard when we say we think this isn't something we can faithfully disagree ob, Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39365807509161289152014-05-15T21:05:15.416+12:002014-05-15T21:05:15.416+12:00Hi jpfoxnz (John?),
WO has been declared adiaphor...Hi jpfoxnz (John?),<br /><br />WO has been declared adiaphora by many Anglicans, even accepted as so by those agin it. I am not aware of such acceptance of samesex blessings as adiaphora.<br /><br />Yes, some attempts at two integrities have not worked out well. But let's give this church in its peculiarities a go (e.g. with the Dioceses of Polynesia and of Nelson in its midst).<br /><br />As for the Methodists in NZ: that is an interesting story: some churches which left are making their way back in.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-11609839795777904122014-05-15T18:17:51.732+12:002014-05-15T18:17:51.732+12:00"I may not be part of the ACANZP but since th..."I may not be part of the ACANZP but since the ACANZP is a province of the Anglican Communion and I am an Anglican Priest within the same Anglican communion, I think I am allowed to have an opinion and since I live in Australia and not China this is also true." - Joshua Bovis.<br /><br />However, you do not need to worry about ACANZP's trajectory, Josh.<br />We are quite capable of rendering the Joy of The Gospel in our own inimical way. Having a 3-tikanga Church gives us an edge on some other Provinces of the Communion. We have had to learn to 'Live and Let Live', which is a pretty good way of learning how to get along together with people different from ourselves - one of the real core values of true Anglicanism.<br /><br />Dear Jemma, thanks for your welcome contribution to this thread:<br /> <br />"Experience will decide: How blest are they, and only they, who in the Lord confide". <br /><br />I've always loved that old hymn. And you certainly have the real<br />experience of 'feet on the ground' in missionary-related China. May God continue to bless you!<br /><br />Bless you, too, Tim! Aroha.<br /><br />Thank God for ACANZP.<br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3241551524427742332014-05-15T17:43:25.668+12:002014-05-15T17:43:25.668+12:00The two integrities exist precisely because it is ...The two integrities exist precisely because it is not adiaphora.<br /><br />The Windsor Report called WO adiaphora, and the Lambeth Conference says both those who permit it and those who don't are faithful Anglicans. That formulation says "non-essential to Anglicanism" in big letters.<br /><br />Both TEC and the C of E committed to the honouring of difference on WO in almost identical words about valuable contributions and integrities. Look how that worked out--the traditional Anglo-Catholics are running for the exit or the Ordinariate. As for this country, how many conservative Methodists are left in the Methodist Church, let alone thriving? <br />jpfoxnzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17687319752184648964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9436324731145895522014-05-15T17:22:39.912+12:002014-05-15T17:22:39.912+12:00Hi John
Some of what you are concerned about will ...Hi John<br />Some of what you are concerned about will be tested as the future unfolds.<br /><br />I make two observations in response to your comment (which is much fuller than my two bits touch on).<br /><br />A. I do not think a 'two integrities' church is saying the matter of difference between the two integrities is 'adiaphora'. The two integrities exist precisely because it is not adiaphora.<br /><br />B. It is not my understanding of the history of our church that our decision to ordain women as presbyters also created space for 'two integrities' on the matter. We were a much more united church on that matter than we are on this. In other words, the history of the ordination of women in our church is not a guide to how this (in my view) new 'two integrities' approach will work out.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84065020973320685082014-05-15T17:08:05.675+12:002014-05-15T17:08:05.675+12:00Family unity is only possible when all parts of th...Family unity is only possible when all parts of the family have been properly heard. I've got several problems with the resolution as it stands--and I'm a good Anglican, and a good Kiwi.<br /><br />1. It assumes the matter of same gender blessings is adiaphora. This automatically excludes people like me who think it isn't, and already puts on very shaky ground blather about integrities and structures--especially given prior experiences with, say, Women's Ordination, in which recognition of two integrities on a matter genuinely adiaphora has been only a pause in the rush to the favouring of one side.<br /><br />2. The resolution takes such very great care to assure LGBT and allies that they'll have it their own way in time, while failing to offer any real language of assurance to conservatives, let alone conservatives who also struggle with same sex attraction, or conservatives stuck in liberal parishes and/or dioceses. In practice, this is a recipe for more marginalisation in the opposite direction. <br /><br />3. It is completely incoherent to expect people who believe that same gender relationships are holy and blessed to exist in the same space with people who believe they are reprehensible and sinful--someone's gotta give on that, and given 1. and 2. it will inevitably be the latter group.<br /><br />4. We don't do theology by taking a poll. We've functionally jettisoned our historical sources of authority by minimising, ignoring and relativising them out of existence. How, then, can you expect people who disagree with this decision to call it anything but illegitimate?Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74801435371997000302014-05-15T16:57:51.634+12:002014-05-15T16:57:51.634+12:00It is not entirely a throwaway line, Bryden! But i...It is not entirely a throwaway line, Bryden! But it is only one line and I would include God's glue holding us together (as it seems to have done this past week at GS).<br /><br />Yet the line repays careful study. I am not asking you or anyone to have confidence in the people: we may fail one another! No. I am simply saying that if we have the will to be a stable mixture we will be a stable mixture. But if that will does not exist, God's glue might struggle to hold us fast to one another.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65230418988386422562014-05-15T16:37:35.091+12:002014-05-15T16:37:35.091+12:00If you are correct Peter in your answer, that “sta...If you are correct Peter in your answer, that “stability" will be a function of "the will of the people”, then I am now truly alarmed! How so?<br /><br />An indispensable part of my own ‘reading’ of the cultural history of the last 300 + years, which has explicitly brought us to this point (to remind you, and others: the root question is, “just how did western Christianity finish up here?” with “the stand-off between those who deem homoeroticism <i>per se</i> a sin and those who desire to see it set within what they suggest is a “reasonable and holy” relationship”), has to do with the emergence of our understanding of human being which I have repeatedly termed “the autonomous, self-positing personal subject”. I.e. embedded in this construction of human being is an explicit <i><b>voluntarism</b></i> - derived from a Cartesian legacy mostly, but also tied back into the Middle Ages and beyond that to Stoicism. So when you tell me I should have confidence in the will of the people, I, as a Christian, whose entire understanding is premised on a Trinitarian view of God and the Mediation of the God-Human, Jesus Christ, simply have to differ - profoundly! Where IS Augustine when we need one?!<br /><br />The Gospel, so lauded in Motion 30's preamble, is either so premised as I aver - or it is a function of some other authority. And if the latter, then we have probably fallen into Gal 1 anathema territory. <br /><br />I realize your comment is a blog one liner, a throw away line in effect. But then perhaps it is also a Freudian slip, revealing far more than intended. I wish I could rejoice with your assessment of our “family” patch-up resolution; but nothing truly makes me shy away from earlier, posted conclusions, nor now this even more resolute assessment - not even +Kelvin’s otherwise delightful blog summaries (for which many thanks, Bp Kelvin! But perhaps we need to talk ...).Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37000547742756336122014-05-15T12:43:35.640+12:002014-05-15T12:43:35.640+12:00Indeed, Joshua.
And to pursue the analogy a little...Indeed, Joshua.<br />And to pursue the analogy a little further, much of our life here (perhaps over your way too) is about a group of Anglicans who cheerfully drink tea or coffee together regularly. But occasionally there is a situation with only cold drinks on tap and then it turns out that we have a mix of adherents to Pepsi, Coke, and anything-but-those-two-multinational companies.<br /><br />That is, much of the time we are on much the same page about lots of issues and only on this issue are there significant differences.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-89684632878329427252014-05-15T12:20:15.536+12:002014-05-15T12:20:15.536+12:00Peter,
Regarding last question. Of course. Will s...Peter,<br /><br />Regarding last question. Of course. Will save the question for another time, though in all honesty I think it is appropriate - it is all to do with personal integrity. It is analogous to someone who is an unashamed advocate of Pepsi and only Pepsi should be given a seat on the board of Coca Cola Corporation or that they should retain such a seat once their preference was clearly stated and understood.joshua Bovishttp://convictionalanglican.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43569021024015539792014-05-15T11:36:09.420+12:002014-05-15T11:36:09.420+12:00The stability, Bryden, will depend on the will of ...The stability, Bryden, will depend on the will of the people!<br /><br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65925291414097881922014-05-15T11:31:55.627+12:002014-05-15T11:31:55.627+12:00Yes Peter, I acknowledge your May 15, 2014 at 11:1...Yes Peter, I acknowledge your May 15, 2014 at 11:16 AM comment. I’d side mostly but not totally with it. Wherein the difference? I am not at all convinced that these two “integrities” will actually be able to “stand” - and here I invoke Eph 6 language notably. For how anyone “has arrived” at their respective positions is the entire point. For “probing” the extraordinary aetiology and genealogy of Western Christianity generally and ACANZ&P specifically is what underlies my all too brief Five Forces analysis. It remains a seriously unstable cocktail - logically and ontologically. Cocktail, not fudge is my metaphor - coz Molotov might still be the outcome ...Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-6350001439780519762014-05-15T11:20:12.091+12:002014-05-15T11:20:12.091+12:00Hi Joshua
I am omitting the last sentence from you...Hi Joshua<br />I am omitting the last sentence from your comment because it contributes too much heat in this particular context. There may be another day and another post to pose the question you pose.<br /><br />"Ron,<br /><br />Oh please! Spare me the histrionics Father! I fail to see what Sydney diocese has to do with my position since I am not a 'Sydney Anglican' and have never served as an Anglican minister in the Sydney diocese. The whole issue has to do with the very definition and nature of what it means to be a Christian, the essence of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture and the personal integrity of Anglican clergy.<br /><br />I may not be part of the ACANZP but since the ACANZP is a province of the Anglican Communion and I am an Anglican Priest within the same Anglican communion, I think I am allowed to have an opinion and since I live in Australia and not China this is also true.<br /><br />I wonder if you will ever actually respond to posts from Reformed Anglicans instead of reacting. The old adage is certainly true, "You cannot teach an old dog new tricks".<br /><br />Your reply Ron is in short…nonsense.<br /><br />When you said:<br /><br />"We are not part of the Gafcon ethos which seeks to maintain the status quo on matters of gender and sexuality." <br /><br />Your term 'status quo' should be replaced with "Biblical faithfulness".<br /><br />Your last comment is also nonsense.<br /><br />"What our General Synod has said is that the LGBT community is solidly part of our Church, and we will do our very best to welcome the sinners who - like ourselves - are fallen short of the glory of God. after all, is that not the message of the Gospel?"<br /><br />The answer to your question is simply "No" Because your gospel Ron is one that is devoid of repentance, you flagrantly and blatantly and unashamedly ignore/gloss over/deny clear passages from Holy Scripture which make it clear that Homosexual sexual activity excludes people from the Kingdom of God and promote a gospel that says to Homosexuals merely come as you are. This is not the Gospel Ron. By telling practicing homosexuals that they can be Christians and continue in a lifestyle that God says keeps one out of the Kingdom of God Ron is a lie. You are lying to them and it is not loving in the Biblical sense of the term. You have confused welcoming sinners with endorsing the sin of sinners.<br /><br />"We asked for God's will to be done".<br />Nonsense Ron! We do not need to ask God's will on the issue of same sex marriage because God has already his will on matters pertaining to sexuality in the Holy Scriptures. Your comment is simply smoke and mirrors because you have made it abundantly clear from your gay crusade that you simply don't believe what He has revealed. <br />"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com