tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post5758976966237269770..comments2024-03-30T00:33:32.285+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Thinking Anglicans Think, Don't They?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-13737345792911726552011-12-21T21:25:14.906+13:002011-12-21T21:25:14.906+13:00"Martin. A few other theologians, who are act..."Martin. A few other theologians, who are actually alive today, have cottoned on to the fact that God loves Gays."<br /><br />Really???? Next you'll be telling me he loves Vegetarians! or even Sydneysiders!<br /><br />"What has been lacking in your formation that you have not yet 'got the message'?"<br /><br />Oh, I dunno - I suspect I was too busy conducting pogroms and hate campaigns to give it much thought.<br /><br />Yes, I will "try not to worry about who is redeemed". Perhaps I should cancel my subscription to the Pereptual Chantry for the soul of Henry VIII?<br /><br />Et moi aussi, je te souhaite joyeux pas d'enfer!<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48289736796396002852011-12-21T11:32:14.478+13:002011-12-21T11:32:14.478+13:00Martin. A few other theologians, who are actually ...Martin. A few other theologians, who are actually alive today, have cottoned on to the fact that God loves Gays. What has been lacking in your formation that you have not yet 'got the message'?<br /><br />Do have a joyful Christmas. And try not to worry about who is redeemed. God will sort that our when the time comes. Alleluia!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81971625802233647042011-12-20T22:11:32.240+13:002011-12-20T22:11:32.240+13:00"How do I know this? Because enough followers..."How do I know this? Because enough followers - bishops, clergy and faithful laity - of the Anglican 'Scripture Tradition and Reason' ethos of the Church (after prayer, study and counsel together) have enunciated it, and my heart is now inclined to believe it"<br /><br />Yes, I think the Church Father St Arius said something similar around AD 325.<br /><br />And St Marcion before him.<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-54280500919295398212011-12-20T21:26:24.124+13:002011-12-20T21:26:24.124+13:00One of the 'new' revelations given by God ...One of the 'new' revelations given by God to those parts of the Body of Christ that have 'ears to hear', Martin, is that LGBT persons, being made in the divine Image and Likeness of God, have an equal share with heterosexuals of the redemption that Jesus Christ has secured for us.<br /><br />Agreed; some parts of the Church appear not to have heard that message yet! But, like the issues of the equal value of women and slaves to the males and patriarchs of the human species, that took time to be accepted by the whole Church, this basic knowledge, when properly understood by the current protesters, will eventually percolate down to those who, at present, actually doubt the value of women, slaves and LGBT persons as fellow workers in God's vineyard and members of the Body of Christ.<br /><br />How do I know this? Because enough followers - bishops, clergy and faithful laity - of the Anglican 'Scripture Tradition and Reason' ethos of the Church (after prayer, study and counsel together) have enunciated it, and my heart is now inclined to believe it.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48028794842629794062011-12-20T20:29:09.075+13:002011-12-20T20:29:09.075+13:00Ron writes: "I believe that Jesus still has t...Ron writes: "I believe that Jesus still has things to tell us, for instance, about what sin really is, and what it is not!"<br /><br />Actually, I believe Jesus was speaking to his apostles in the context of the quotation from John. Leaving that aside, have you had this private revelation, Ron? If so, please tell us where when and how this revelation occurred so the Church may judge whether to accept it or not.<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-461246362665469862011-12-18T23:46:35.092+13:002011-12-18T23:46:35.092+13:00Peter, you're trying to trap me on the old chi...Peter, you're trying to trap me on the old chicken and egg syndrome. However, you have just quoted the dominical Word of Jesus, which actually is revealed in scripture. Therefore, as this is The Word-made-flesh in Jesus - who is eternally part of the God-head and not limited to words on a page - The command of Jesus, too, is eternal" "Love one another as I <br />have loved you" Jesus is the Message as well as the Messenger.<br /><br />We need the Scriptures, of course, to have the original message revealed to us. But having said that, scripture requires, firstly an interpretation, and then, a response> This, in turn, may lead to further revelation that can be understood only as it is discerned and enunciated, hopefully, by the Church. "Nothing is impossible for God", as we heard today in the gospel Reading. Further revelation - beyond the words of Scripture - must be possible for God. Jesus is alive - "Christ in us, the hope of glory"<br /><br />"I have further things to tell you, but you could not bear them now".<br /><br />I believe that Jesus still has things to tell us, for instance, about what sin really is, and what it is not!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52377832931127771102011-12-18T22:57:08.397+13:002011-12-18T22:57:08.397+13:00A question, Ron:
Is 'A new commandment' a...A question, Ron:<br /><br />Is 'A new commandment' a commandment or a guideline?<br /><br />If the former, how do we know it is a commandment? That is, by what means has that commandment come to us?<br /><br />If the latter, by whose authority do we know it to be a guideline?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48557118441903886362011-12-18T22:52:09.783+13:002011-12-18T22:52:09.783+13:00Anonymous Martin, from your last posting on this t...Anonymous Martin, from your last posting on this thread, it has occurred to me that you might have at one time been a Roman Catholic. Am I right? If not, you sound like one of their finest casuistic thinkers - magisterial.<br /><br />Try to imagine that the Scriptures are only a guide (they never actually redeemed anyone) - the best resource we have in writing about God's dealings with his human children; but still a guide. God's Word has now been manifested in the life, witness, death, resurrection of God's Son, Jesus Christ - the Living Word - not just a substitute for the words of Scripture, but their ultimate fulfilment. <br /><br />"A New Commandment I give unto you: the you love one another, as I have loved you (to the death) so you should love one another" and "They will know you're my disciples by your LOVE" - not by your knowledge of the scriptures, important though they are as a foundation for faith.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18109283595299651832011-12-18T20:24:24.187+13:002011-12-18T20:24:24.187+13:00"I grant that there are a handful of texts di..."I grant that there are a handful of texts disapproving some male same-sex acts"<br /><br />- good (and you must also grant that the Bible NEVER speaks approvingly of such acts, and never imagines marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman)<br /><br />"and I examine and take them up with care in my book, and find they all refer either to idolatry, rape, or prostitution. Others may disagree with my finding"<br /><br />- yes they do: Ephraim Radner, Ashley Null, Robert Gagnon, Richard Hays, Gordon Wenham and many others. Idolatry, rape or prostitution may (or may not) be the consequences of wrongful desire, but that's not the fundamental issue. <br /><br />"but to say I've not investigated will not stand."<br /><br />- nobody is saying this. What we are saying is yours is an eccentric individual reading, and if you wish to be a catholic rather than some kind of protestant following his own private judgment, you should submit to the discipiline of the Church Catholic. "Securus iudicat omnis terrarum orbis", to mangle Manning or Wiseman's words (I forget which) to Newman.<br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-33686744465692278222011-12-18T04:13:56.983+13:002011-12-18T04:13:56.983+13:00Martin, and Shawn: you are shadow boxing against a...Martin, and Shawn: you are shadow boxing against a straw man of "liberlism" rather than addressing the arguments I've laid out at length in my book. Martin, you may deny that contradictions exist in Scripture, but at least one of them has come up in this discussion: Moses' provision for divorce and Jesus' rejection of it on the basis of Genesis 1 and 2. His reason: human hardness of heart. This is just one example where a particular text is privileged over an opposed text or set of texts. Much rabbinic discussion (and Jesus is part of that tradition) engage in exactly this method of privileging texts one over another. It was also the practice of the Fathers and the Scholastics (Aquinas often "trumps" one text with another that better fits his argument) and the Anglicans tasked with a similar adventure tried to find biblical grounds for Henry's divorce, opposing the prohibition in Leviticus against the mandate in Deuteronomy -- the latter having been favored by papal authority to grant the marriage to Catherine.<br /><br />As to arguing to a predetermined position, I find that more true of the "conservatives" who ignore anything that doesn't suit their position, and in some cases, such as Dr Gagnon, invent support; or come up with novel theologies ('complementarity') to bolster their claims.<br /><br />And yes, Shawn, if I believed the Scripture to be perfectly clear on this, attested in large portions of the text, I would be convicted by it. But it isn't. This is one of the reasons most "conservatives" depart into areas of "natural law" or insistence that texts such as Jesus' midrash on divorce are really about a unique allowance of heterosexual marriage -- a thing not at all evident in the text.<br /><br />I grant that there are a handful of texts disapproving some male same-sex acts, and I examine and take them up with care in my book, and find they all refer either to idolatry, rape, or prostitution. Others may disagree with my finding, but to say I've not investigated will not stand. <br /><br />Moreover there is only one possible biblical text on lesbianism, and it is likely that Clement of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo were correct in understanding the text on "their females" in Romans 1 as a reference to irregular sex in heterosexual marriages (echoing Wisdom of Solomon, on which Paul's text relies.) If that is true -- and it is a question -- then one immediately has to ask if it is right to speak of "homosexuality" and to wonder why if this is such an important prohibition God failed to inspire Moses to include it in the Torah. Or to consider either that only male same-sexuality is actually against God's will, or that we are dealing with a cultural artifact of a male-dominated culture that understood sex as primarily a male activity, something "done to" another. But then, you may choose to deny that any features of Scripture are conditioned by the cultures in which the texts were given.<br /><br />I think I'll let matters rest with this. I'm always grateful for real engagement, but I think Martin and Shawn and I are talking past each other.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25436654690216371462011-12-17T20:22:20.463+13:002011-12-17T20:22:20.463+13:00John 13.17: "If you know these things, blesse...John 13.17: "If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them" - this was the text I was trying to recall, but the other two from John do the job equally well. Blessing is not a matter of knowing the truth but doing it.<br />Understanding the Word is certainly important, which is why I spend an hour or so each morning with the Greek and Hebrew, but the Jacobite image of <br />"wrestling" in Scripture is primarily to do with persevering in prayer and resisting sin, not building up a store of unused knowledge.<br />I agree with Shawn that the trajectory of liberalism has been predictable for a long time now, because at its heart liberalism - or 'cultural Marxism' in its Gramscian form best known to us in the west through its influence on education, broadcasting and 'popular' sentiment - is a project for the here and now in which sexual satisfaction is the summum bonum. Theology-lite liberalism simply coopts the issue du jour of the secular capitalist world. Not long now before suicide becomes a "reasonable" and "holy" thing for Christians! <br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62786410916810950412011-12-17T15:10:07.852+13:002011-12-17T15:10:07.852+13:00Tobias,
"The fact that he finds some argumen...Tobias,<br /><br />"The fact that he finds some arguments reductive of the utility of texts to his predetermined end is simply testimony to his unwillingness to "wrestle till dawn" until a blessing is received."<br /><br />Then again, perhaps he has, and you just do not like the content of the blessing. "Wrestling" with Scripture can often be little more than an excuse to ignore it when it does not suit our politics or sexual compulsions. Liberals like to claim they "wrestle" with Scripture, but I do not believe them. It seems perfectly obvious to me that far from wrestling, they already know what they believe, and it would not matter one bit how clear Scripture is on an issue.<br /><br />Because this is not about how we wrestle with Scripture. The problem is that a small section of the Church has abandoned a Biblical worldview in favour of Western liberal progressive politics, and for liberals those politics always trump Scripture.<br /><br />Liberals approach Scripture the same way they approach everything, as somethinbg alien and subversive of liberal orthodoxy which must be tamed and rendered safe according to the Orwellian dogmas of cultural Marxism.<br /><br />Claims about contradictions in Scripture and the need to "wrestle" are just dishonest verbal tactics to hide the truth that Liberals know exactly what their position is going to be, and it matters not one bit what Scripture or the wider Church says.<br /><br />Francis Schaeffer wrote that reading Christian Century was a sadly predictibale affair because he always knew what side of a major ethical issue liberals would come down on. The side of secular humanism. All talk about "wrestling" with Scripture was just hot air.<br /><br />On every major ethical issue of our time, from marriage and sexuality, to abortion to euthanasia, "Christian" liberals are perfectly predictable. They will, and have, on every issue, sided not with the Church or with Scripture, but with secular humanism.<br /><br />As I have said before, this issue is not about differing interpretations of Church teaching and Scripture. This is about the false religion of secular Humanism, thinly dressed up in theological drag, infiltrating the Church and trying to bring it into submission.<br /><br />Answer one question for me. If Scripture had literally hundreds of pages concerning human sexuality and clearly came down against homosexuality, would it make any difference to you?<br /><br />Are you really concerned with what Scripture and/or the Father say? Or is that, as I suspect, just fog to disguise the truth that your in submission to something else entirely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18921080065804110982011-12-17T12:31:09.485+13:002011-12-17T12:31:09.485+13:00Ron, Professor Gordon Wenham's concise book &#...Ron, Professor Gordon Wenham's concise book 'Story as Torah' (2004) argues for a holistic way of reading OT narratives, in which the narrative outcome comments on the ethics involved, where explicit narrator comment may be lacking.<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45194651726113098372011-12-17T12:11:41.362+13:002011-12-17T12:11:41.362+13:00Tobias Haller writes: "Ultimately it becomes ...Tobias Haller writes: "Ultimately it becomes a kind of moral fideism rather than a real wrestling with the actual biblical text, with all its complexity and contradictions."<br /><br />I'm not really sure what "moral fideism" means here, but I don't think it applies to me. I've always understood the twin divine command to love God and neighbor as foundational of Christian ethics,and have closely followed the work of David Jones in his book and lectures 'Biblical Ethics'. I don't think my understanding of Christian ethics is obscurantist or unreflective - it's very mainstream and though I'm not a catholic, I'm sure catholics would agee with me. I'm a traditional historical Anglican so I don't accept that the text has "contradictions", other than in a formal or progressive revelationary sense; it's Modernist to find contradictions in Scripture and therefore set aside its authority. Wrestling with the actual text is *precisely what I do. Ignoring its uncomfortable parts by declaring them "obscure" or wrong is not an option I take. <br /><br />"The fact that he finds some arguments reductive of the utility of texts to his predetermined end is simply testimony to his unwillingness to "wrestle till dawn" until a blessing is received."<br /><br />Well, I have wrestled with this sentence a while and still don't know what it means. Whether I am "unwilling" is, I submit, not an easy psychological judgment to make. Tu quoque, Tobias? I do know that in God's economy, blessing comes from obedience to Christ's commands (John 14.15, 21).<br /><br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66053077895759727642011-12-17T11:35:54.824+13:002011-12-17T11:35:54.824+13:00Hi Ron
(1) The constituent aspect of marriage that...Hi Ron<br />(1) The constituent aspect of marriage that it is between male and female is preserved in polygamy.<br /><br />(2) The OT (taken as a whole) is ambiguous about polygamy; especially in comparison to its certitude about the wrongness of a sexual relationship between two men.<br /><br />(3) As Christians we take cognisance of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, valuing particularly those points where the combined witness of both Testaments come together to disclose God's will. In respect of marriage the line through Genesis, the gospels, and the epistles teaches monogamy; again, between a man and a woman. No ambiguity.<br /><br />I am open to correction but I do not think casuistry is involved in the set of observations above.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82611648516255090182011-12-17T10:32:59.610+13:002011-12-17T10:32:59.610+13:00Of interest, on this latter subject of the biblica...Of interest, on this latter subject of the biblical idea of marriage being only between one man and one woman, I've just been reading (again) - preparing for tomorrow's lectionary reading from 2 Samuel 7: 1-16 - some preliminary verses from chapter 5:13-16 (Jerusalem Bible)<br /><br />"After coming from Hebron, David took other concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and sons and daughters were born to him. These are the names of those born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, Eliphelet"<br /><br />What does this say vis-a-vis the biblical 'absolutes' about the idea of 'marriage' being the only God-ordained sexual relationship: 'between one man and one woman' ?<br /><br />(And no casuistry, please)Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23754236738202030102011-12-17T09:36:27.301+13:002011-12-17T09:36:27.301+13:00Thank you Peter. I think you do frame the real dif...Thank you Peter. I think you do frame the real difficulties well. The issue for the church will be how it works with those difficulties.<br /><br />I cannot say the same for Martin. <br />Ultimately it becomes a kind of moral fideism rather than a real wrestling with the actual biblical text, with all its complexity and contradictions. The fact that he finds some arguments reductive of the utility of texts to his predetermined end is simply testimony to his unwillingness to "wrestle till dawn" until a blessing is received.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82759367181211249362011-12-17T09:09:52.336+13:002011-12-17T09:09:52.336+13:00I find myself pretty much in agreement with Peter&...I find myself pretty much in agreement with Peter's last comment, which directs us first to the priority of Scripture over its interpreters (much as I value their work, there are points where I think Barth and Pannenberg are wrong about the Bible) and which strives to engage with the actual data of Scripture, particularly as it deals with sexual desire. Quite simply, sexual desire for one's own sex - however it arises in an individual - is misdirected and not God's will (as the Catholic Catechism frankly recognizes). I also think Tobias Haller misunderstands me when he writes:<br /><br />"A similar problem arises with the theses advanced by Martin: e.g., that SSM is "eroticized friendship." I assure you that gay and lesbian persons know the difference between spouses and friends to the same degree as heterosexuals -- unless by implication a heterosexual man is incapable of friendship with a woman because she is his sexual opposite. The assertions about "otherness" are also problematical: every person is "other" to every other person."<br /><br />First, I meant that God calls his people, in the family of the Church, to brother-and-sisterhood, and/or friendship and not to eroticize male-male or female-female affections with sexual desire. Second, I don't know any married man who isn't capable of an affair if he doesn't watch his friendships with women.<br /><br /> Haller's Modernism arises from: 1. ignoring or trying to nullify the Scriptural strictures against homosexual acts; 2. trying to speak about marriage - and maleness and femaleness - in an abstracted way that ignores the mystery of male-and-female together; 3. rejecting the traditional Catholic askesis of those not called to marriage. These are quintessentially Modernist strategies, because they don't deal with the actual text of Scripture (or try to make that text so "problematic" and obscure as to be useless, although nobody found them obscure at all until c. 1960) but work at a level of generalized abstraction. The turn of the century Cathpolic Modernists worked in a similar way.<br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31046246153179773962011-12-17T07:07:47.112+13:002011-12-17T07:07:47.112+13:00Hi Tobias,
Your excellence and adeptness in schola...Hi Tobias,<br />Your excellence and adeptness in scholarship, in moving between the times of ways of thinking through the ages, and your nuanced reading of Scripture are impressive (at least on this reader). There is no doubt, also, on your testimony and the testimony of others that relationships between people of the same sex akin to marriage are part of the weave and woof of modern life, especially if viewed through, say, the prism of 'fidelity.'<br /><br />I would go further and say that were Hooker alive today, were Barth a young man, and even Augustine (an ancient Father who knew a thing or two about relationships), they would join me in appreciation of your argumentation; in Barth's case, yes, there were signs at the end that he would go further and might agree with you.<br /><br />Yet in the end Barth or even if they were to line up, Barth/Hooker/Augustine, do not constitute final authority: the final authority is Scripture since Scripture critiques Tradition (as Anglicans (re)discovered at the Reformation), and Reason is an ongoing conversation about the meaning of Scripture which history reminds us involves an unchanging partner in the conversation (Scripture), and a changing partner (Reason as expressed through the generations).<br /><br />In Scripture, I suggest, we have authority for understanding that constituent to marriage is the union of of the two sexes, male and female; and, conversely, we have no authority in Scripture for understanding that this constituent factor to be varied. There are other constituent factors, as you argue, such as fidelity; any and each relationship which includes such a value enriches human society. Marriage, however, incorporates a factor unobtainable to two people of the same gender, the mystery of opposites uniting in one flesh. <br /><br />That mystery incorporates the outcomes deriving from the opposition of male and female sexual drive, reproductive cycles, etc which are unarguable biological differences, as well as the arguable differences in psyche (men from Mars, women from Venus). Scripture speaks of this mystery in various ways, from the Genesis creation texts entwined by our Lord himself, through the Song of Songs, and into the epistolic passages analogising human marriage and Christ's relationship with the church. It never speaks of the equivalence of marriage between a man and a woman and a relationship between two men or two women.<br /><br />Thus, appreciative of the sophistication of your method and of your learning, to say nothing of the ease with which you move through the eras of Christian scholarship, I nevertheless remain unconvinced that the outcome you seek in arguing that marriage is indifferent to gender is either credible or plausible.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50617410550829465542011-12-17T03:32:47.034+13:002011-12-17T03:32:47.034+13:00Thank you, Bryden. Let me just emphasize that I di...Thank you, Bryden. Let me just emphasize that I did not raise the points about Biblical, Patristic, etc. as points of authority but of method. Martin accused me of "Modernism" and "Liberal Protestantism" (the latter also a critique made by E Radner.) The irony is that it is actually folks like Gagnon who employ a late 19th century biblical hermeneutic. So my point is not about which technique is more worthy, or which might produce the right results, but rather an accurate description of what each is using. I find it fascinating that the anti-SSM lobby are generally the ones who fall back on the various "fallacies of authority" (antiquitaem, verecundiam, etc...). <br /><br />When it comes to understanding Scripture, I prefer close reading of texts, following Augustine's maxim to "edify" on the basis of the twofold commandment. I also take a canonical approach rather than relying on the tools of late 19th century scholarship (though aware of their utility -- esp. textual criticism when it comes to doubtful texts or multiple attestations. I think it would be foolhardy to jettison all that we have learned.<br /><br />I trace the "complementarity" heresy (and yes, that's what I think it entails) back to Karl Barth. I was pleased to discover, through a friend who edited his correspondence, that late in life he admitted to error on that, but sadly felt too old and sapped to pen a more formal reevaluation; this letter didn't make it into the English translation of his collected letters -- but it is in the German. Wonder why that might have been?<br /><br />I've not read Pannenberg's systematics. I have read his short essay on why the church cannot accept SSM, and found it mostly a string of unproven assertions. For instance, his assertion that Genesis 1-2 and Jesus' use of it in response to the question on divorce constitutes definitive rejection of same-sex relationships is not proven, merely proclaimed. The texts themselves do not suggest any such rejection, but rather an affirmation of permanent fidelity in marriage.<br /><br />A similar problem arises with the theses advanced by Martin: e.g., that SSM is "eroticized friendship." I assure you that gay and lesbian persons know the difference between spouses and friends to the same degree as heterosexuals -- unless by implication a heterosexual man is incapable of friendship with a woman because she is his sexual opposite. The assertions about "otherness" are also problematical: every person is "other" to every other person.<br /><br />Also FWIW I do not have much concern with the issue of inclusivity vs. catholicity, although I have written a bit about it under Hooker's concept of Comprehension and the Articles' notion of Sufficiency. Again, this places me more in the world of the 16th than the early 20th century -- but I do not say this as a matter of authority, but simply as a statement of how I work. It is the arguments themselves that must be evaluated, and not the people who make them.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90828607329788600972011-12-16T12:53:27.007+13:002011-12-16T12:53:27.007+13:00Clearly, I shall have to find time - after Christm...Clearly, I shall have to find time - after Christmas! - to try to digest these arguments you make/try to make, Tobias, in <i>R&H</i>. <br />However for now. There’s an important difference here: while both of us might be trying to reject ‘labels’, claims to such “pedigrees” (my word after all) as “My thesis, which is the Biblical, Patristic and Scholastic position (I offer citations for all of this)” I mostly find unconvincing first off, and so have stalwartly not used them myself. Simply because that’s what all the fuss is about! ‘Are you? Am I? Truly of such ...?’ It’s agreeing/disagreeing about such ‘belonging’ that’s precisely the point! And we may not try to claim ahead of the actual process of discernment itself. Positions may resonate with certain traits - or not. They may try to use certain traits, but then also bend them or extend them. This is the very warp and woof of the struggle. <br /><br />E.g. To nail but one key trait/motif: inclusivity versus catholicity. In 2006 I had published a small article/contribution by ATF Press in a motley collection entitled <i>Whose Homosexuality? Which Authority?</i> The point was to try to trace the historical - not to say genealogical (!) - differences between these two notions via my own title, “Whose Language? Which Grammar? ‘Inclusivity and diversity’, versus the crafted Christian concepts of catholicity and created differentiation”. My own thesis (!) was that the former kind of discourse and arising grammar was essentially predicated upon autonomous human reason’s cultural rise over the past 250 years, while the latter was indeed truly an essential part of the Christian Tradition. They sound effectively similar, and possibly the same, to some/many, but in fact they belong to two very different world-views, once we do the hard, genealogical work the likes of which MacIntyre encourages. So; that’s why I am shy of such ‘authoritative’ claims up front; they often/sometimes present as shout-out bids. Especially when the real logic/grammar rather bends instead of extending. Does yours in <i>R&H</i>? Don’t know for sure yet; this juryman remains still out (FWIW!). And I shall be especially alert to the section re “relational” vs. “complementarity”: the pedigree [sic!] for the latter includes Rahner and Jenson and Torrance, as well as Pannenberg, all in their creative and necessary ways. I myself discern something crucial afoot here frankly, something which has nothing to do with anthropomorphism and/or the anthropological alone, but which lies at the heart of triune Being, as revealed because immanently so, in sovereign freedom. Eh bien; on verra!<br />Have a blessed Christmas.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45860724690425933092011-12-16T03:41:52.251+13:002011-12-16T03:41:52.251+13:00Thank you, Peter. My main point of disagreement wi...Thank you, Peter. My main point of disagreement with you, then, is the extent to which I see you as taking as settled the very issues that are on the table and about which consensus has not in fact been reached. Lambeth 1998 1.10 was adopted, but clearly did not represent a consensus view. It is now being held up as the "mind of the communion." This creates a problem. You also seem to have advanced the Covenant to a point of adoption when even in your own province its success is by no means assured. At this point 'What it means to be Anglican' is what it has long been: in communion with the See of Canterbury, part of the ACC, etc. There is nothing "outmoded" in that. I don't think the failure of the Covenant will mean any change: the real Anglican communion will simply be defined as it has been: a fellowship of national or provincial churches in communion with Canterbury. This also addresses to some extent the concern Bryden raised: proposed centralization, apart from cooperation in mission, of the Communion is just that, proposed.<br /><br />Bryden, I too attempt to avoid "labels" but most especially "being labeled." I reject that assertion that I represent a "Modernist" position. When it comes to Pannenberg, I have a concern about "recipricalism" and prefer the "relational" model proposed in some other circles. Nor do I think it so entirely novel: since Father and Son do represent reciprocal terms. To see that as "complementary" however seems to me a grave error -- as it is in human anthropology. I lay out the rationale for rejecting this concept at length in the book, but the nub of the problem is that it implies "defect" or incompleteness. You will find the whole argument laid out in R&H. You may not accept it, but it is not a glib dismissal.<br /><br />Martin, I address all of your various assertions about marriage in my book at length, including the passage from Ephesians, any alleged confusions over friendship, and the relationship of the sexes. Again, you may disagree with my arguments and conclusions, but you are here simply contradicting things you imagine I may have said, rather than addressing what I actually have said. You may not feel it worth your time, and I understand that.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30084937059548984082011-12-15T20:13:43.372+13:002011-12-15T20:13:43.372+13:00A brief reply:
1. I am not a catholic but an evang...A brief reply:<br />1. I am not a catholic but an evangelical Anglican and sometime biblical scholar. Thomas does not have authority for me as he does for Rome, though I often find him very illuminating. But not the accidents/essence stuff. That's Aristotle, not the Bible.<br />2. The shared humanity of women and men should be obvious to any biblical Christian. I don't think that point needs to be labored.<br />3. But none of this tells us what sex is for, and how marriage is different from friendship. This is precisely where your confusion and Modernism enters. You don't understand the relational significance of the "joined otherness" of maleness-femaleness, and how Christian marriage. You have eroticized same-sex friendship and called it "marriage". I have called this "Modernism" but I guess I could have equally called it Pagan Classicism Revived.<br />The locus classicus for the Chrisitna understanding of marriage is Ephesians 5.21-33, which teaches that Christian marriage mirrors Christ's marriage with the Church. Two "husbands" or two "wives" could never be a Christian marriage, only a parody of one. You should read the little work 'God and Marriage' by that great Anglican scholar Geoffrey Bromiley.<br />4. The campaign against Mark Lawrence being conducted by liberals in Tec is overtly political. On the surface, it has nothing to do with, say, charges of heresy (Pike! Spong!) or immorality (Robinson!) but groundless disputes about canons.<br />The conduct of these Tec liberals is nothing short of scandalous.<br />5. Yes, my tone is sharp and I sometimes fail in charity, or at least "English" moderation. But partly it is my distress at the enormous damage caused to the Anglican Communion by the disobedience of revisionists and modernists in Tec.<br />MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27683587144305908452011-12-15T19:42:06.377+13:002011-12-15T19:42:06.377+13:00Hi Tobias
The Anglican Communion is the official g...Hi Tobias<br />The Anglican Communion is the official global Anglican body to which member churches who belong make claim that they are the official Anglican churches of their countries (or regions). Thus TEC (and ACCan) does see off the challenge of ACNA to also be an official Anglican church of North America.<br /><br />That there are schools of thought within the Anglican Communion is undeniable, and that many arguments carry on around the Communion claiming this and that is also undeniable: you and I contribute to that carry on, and each hope to influence those who listen to us.<br /><br />But when all is said and done, that official global body which effectively bestows status on member churches to be true local expressions of that global Anglicanism is the vehicle for Anglicanism and not nostalgia for classical Anglicanism or outdated statements of former Lambeth Conferences. The Anglican Communion currently has expressed itself through the most recent Lambeth resolutions (1998 because 2008 was a resolutive non-event), the Windsor Report and the ensuing Covenant. Claims that the Covenant is 'unAnglican' only stack up if, in the end, the Covenant is rejected. If it is accepted, as implied above, you and TEC should consider your position re being Anglican: the version which bestows status upon TEC or another version.<br /><br />If the Covenant is rejected the problem may be that the frayed and charred Communion will go up in smoke. At that point Anglicanism will definitely mean whatever anyone wants to make of it!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55385655004449025272011-12-15T13:05:53.317+13:002011-12-15T13:05:53.317+13:00Many thanks Tobias for the engagement. A few (off ...Many thanks Tobias for the engagement. A few (off the cuff) responses pro tem.<br /><br />I am aware that Oliver published his Fulcrum ‘sermons’ in the US earlier and under a different title to that in UK.<br /> <br />One of the key things that intrigues me in all this “listening process” is how one describes oneself, seeking to claim particular pedigrees - something, if folk really pay careful attention, I myself have never actually done re my own ‘position’: others merely try to attribute ...<br /><br />So; I read Oliver’s opening chapter as addressing 19th and 20th C liberalism, and its concomitant ethical reductionism. Nor can I agree that Thomist ontology should have the last word. For starters, two eminent contemporary theologians in the area of the revival of Trinitarian theology, Pannenberg and Jenson, both explicitly want to stress the <i><b>reciprocal</b></i> dynamics of the subsistent relations of the triune identities. Something the Tradition simply could not see itself doing, given its premises. Yet this has huge implications on the very questions before us - dogmatic, theological, and thereafter ethical. Your references to “complementarity” may not be dismissed as you try to do. In which case we all have to strive to agree on what constitutes forms of legitimate development and what illegitimate - the jury being utterly out at this point in time! Nor do I share your confidence on your ‘take’ re the AC’s current perceived trajectory; not at all. In fact, I think you are far too close to the ‘centre’ to really acknowledge the real forces of the periphery, which will, once again, as proven so often historically, determine the outcome - despite the current central power plays.<br /><br />Last but not least: citing Lambeth 1878 is classic! The AC had not become just that, the Anglican Communion; back then it was merely an embryonic thing, looking for some form of acknowledgement that ‘English speakers’ were all over the world, and so too was that thing the CoE, sort of: but how might we relate? And while canonical issues had arisen (e.g. SA), there was no sense yet of institutional cohesion: quite the opposite. Exactly 100 years later Lambeth saw fit to create the Primates Group, having already created the ACC, both as institutional expressions of something much richer than that of a hundred years previously. That is to say, “discipline” was exactly one of the things that was being sought over and above mere “bonds of affection” across this bourgeoning Communion as early as 1970s; otherwise why did Runcie, ahead of Lambeth 1988, see himself having to already address the supposed ‘Crisis of Authority’ [cf. his collection of essays/articles published that year]? That he failed to so address it is now, as they say, history. For 1998's resolution has become utterly washed up on the shore as mere flotsam in light of 2008. The ACO might not see it in this light; you neither. But the <i>institutional</i> life of the AC is all but over, frankly. For the failure of the Covenant, once seen as the only game in town, has ensured/will ensure this ... in the fulness of time. Well; that’s my take!!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.com