tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post6417855111702380102..comments2024-03-29T06:58:28.383+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Towards a Motion 29 Working Group 17 November SubmissionPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35949819927899521282017-10-06T15:55:06.217+13:002017-10-06T15:55:06.217+13:00I'm afraid your reply didn't really help m...I'm afraid your reply didn't really help much, Ron. It seems that you're saying that only those who understand will understand, which is all rather circular...<br /><br />And I don't think that's what Jesus meant when he said 'He who has ears, let him hear.' I think, as the Holman translates to, 'Anyone who has ears to hear should listen!' That is, pay attention to my words, all of you. Sam Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08279230294548242422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59558740100423758312017-10-06T15:49:48.519+13:002017-10-06T15:49:48.519+13:00Thanks again, Bowman. Also, interesting analysis o...Thanks again, Bowman. Also, interesting analysis of the state of play. Your comment on evangelicals in opposition is thought provoking.Sam Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08279230294548242422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87998409899013063402017-10-06T14:31:32.504+13:002017-10-06T14:31:32.504+13:00Father Ron, I am very pleased to see that there ar...Father Ron, I am very pleased to see that there are prayerbook Franciscans in the Blessed Isles. Are there many? Do they meet?<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-79259272938479346912017-10-06T14:27:25.569+13:002017-10-06T14:27:25.569+13:00Postscript-- It is plausible to me that we are see...Postscript-- It is plausible to me that we are seeing the fading of the liberal tradition in Anglicanism, and that this is both an opportunity and a problem. Against this background, it is hard to give any liberal agenda much attention at all, although humanly, one does owe something to the last words of the dying. <br /><br />The opportunity is that of weaving the several strands of the tradition back into a whole seamless garment of Christ. As long as we have been debilitated by the epistemological dodges dear to liberal pragmatists, this has been an unlikely hope. But their gradual fading has already enabled some Truth-centred ministry with more oxygen for souls that actually believe without tricks, dodges, and crossed-fingers. The challenge is to cook the intellectual harvest of the past generation into something that can be served up to more in the pews. <br /><br />But the problem is that Anglican evangelicals are not yet up to that task. The long polarisation between the catholic and reformed streams-- the polarisation that empowered liberals in the first place-- left the latter with only a partial grasp of the whole. And although the liberals in decline no longer have a useful vision for *the Church in society*-- that indeed is the main reason for their decline-- we cannot do without some such vision, even if it is just to work out the implications of the Benedict Option. Which some of us might oppose. Finally, in the church as in the state, effective opposition parties are often bad at the task of leading, governing, cultivating those beyond their militant bases. Much of Anglican evangelicalism is unprepared for its coming responsibility for souls very unlike themselves.<br /><br />So when Sam asks what the ACANZP should do, This Situation rather than That Topic is what seems urgent. <br /><br />BW Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51806706327185243062017-10-06T12:56:09.740+13:002017-10-06T12:56:09.740+13:00"...one could conclude from the absence of un..."...one could conclude from the absence of unified support for SSB, and indeed from the presence of permanent opposition to it that it is not a viable option for the Church. Full stop." BW<br /><br />"What I was really asking, however, was what you would think that we, the ACANZP, should do in the face of our current issue?" SA<br /><br />My best answer to that, Sam, is implicit in the first sentence of the thread: (a) reaffirm that a real church has *substantive working unity*; (b) promote the causes of the unity that you actually have in Christ; (c) discover, reduce, and if possible end the causes of disunity; (d) close debate on SSB forever or until all agree to reopen it; (e) graciously excuse those who will not obey decisions reached in unity and negotiate a warm ecumenical relationship with them; and (f) take the consequences of doing all this with faith, hope, and love.<br /><br />This answer comes more from prayer than from any strategy or calculation. I have no idea who would win or lose if these steps were taken. But there are problems to which erudition and cleverness, even if we have them, are not equal. "Some demons," Jesus said, "can only be cast out by prayer."<br /><br />Bowman Walton<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57863310378656300212017-10-06T09:28:22.098+13:002017-10-06T09:28:22.098+13:00Bowman. Her is something else the Blessed Isles ha...Bowman. Her is something else the Blessed Isles have now to commend them - A Franciscan liberality in the Gospel Mission:<br /><br />http://anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/The-Communion/frans-leadFather Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65842808005930293322017-10-06T09:17:18.275+13:002017-10-06T09:17:18.275+13:00Very droll, Bowman!Very droll, Bowman!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-40305563509841299482017-10-06T06:52:45.314+13:002017-10-06T06:52:45.314+13:00Well, Peter, everything is better in he blessed is...Well, Peter, everything is better in he blessed isles, including the lectionary and the people in the pews. So I expect that the latter listening to the former would hear Jesus talking about the one flesh, explaining where eunuchs come from, and then praising children. The flow of topics could sound a lot like--<br /><br />One Flesh ---> Children, EXCEPT Eunuchs (3 kinds!)---> Kingdom of Heaven?<br /><br />So at the reception after the service, they would sidle up to one of the parish eunuchs and say something like: <br /><br />"George, I had no idea that there were three kinds of eunuchs! I thought that there were only the... you know... that kind. The kind that carried little jars out of the Forbidden City. Which kind are you? (You don't have a liitle jar, do you George?) <br /><br />"Why was Jesus telling us where eunuchs come from? (And for God's sake, who wants to know?) Anyway, He says that there are three kinds-- born eunuchs (no jars), made eunuchs (painful, maybe jars), and self-made eunuchs (painful and crazy too, definitely jars). <br /><br />"George, I really hope that you can assure me that our senior warden is not a self-made eunuch! <br /><br />"And another thing, George: what did the Lord mean when he said-- twice-- that not everyone could receive his teaching?"<br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34045181016890600032017-10-05T23:07:50.794+13:002017-10-05T23:07:50.794+13:00It's all, Sam, in the mind! Some of us have re...It's all, Sam, in the mind! Some of us have remarkaby closed minds to certain things, and some more open. I guess this is why Jesus cautioned his hearers that what he was saying about marriage and about eunuchs would only be understood by those who were disposed to hearing it. Otherwise, why would Jesus have added this so important codicil to his teaching? ("He who has ears to hear, let hi hear what The Spirit is saying to the Church!" - is read on many churches after the reading of Scripture).Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26815970935857392742017-10-05T17:31:50.360+13:002017-10-05T17:31:50.360+13:00Hi Ron. With regards to you drawing attention to M...Hi Ron. With regards to you drawing attention to Matthew 19, would you mind explaining a little more how you understand this to be a part of the argument in favour of SSB/SSM?<br /><br />When I read it I see that Jesus could well be referring to those who are born with same-sex orientation, or biological misinforming. But it seems that they are in the category of those who <i> should not </i> marry, but rather receive the grace that God gives them to remain celibate i.e. all eunuchs regardless of how they became that way.Sam Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08279230294548242422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-770803560081702892017-10-05T16:58:43.458+13:002017-10-05T16:58:43.458+13:00Hi Bowman
Whether or not Jesus was speaking to the...Hi Bowman<br />Whether or not Jesus was speaking to the ordinary person in the pew, my dispute here is about the "clarity" of the passage, a measure of which is whether or not the ordinary person in the pew would "get" the meaning straightaway.<br /><br />If Jesus spoke very obscurely about homosexuals via speaking about eunuchs in an elliptical way, then I do not see how I could do anything other, if and when in direct discussion with the Master, than to ask, "Why?"Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82095530169740906912017-10-05T16:50:02.412+13:002017-10-05T16:50:02.412+13:00PS Ron
The other thing about the binary construct ...PS Ron<br />The other thing about the binary construct of gender is it perfectly explains human life: without a mother and a father I would not exist in order to be able to hold to the binary construct ... or dispute it.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38788365860958596312017-10-05T16:48:54.203+13:002017-10-05T16:48:54.203+13:00Hi Ron
Male and female he created them.
The Bible ...Hi Ron<br />Male and female he created them.<br />The Bible is binary in its description of gender.<br />I think if we start disputing that we may as well give the Bible away.<br />I notice that the modern discussion of gender fluidity is pretty binary in any case: men wanting to become women, women wanting to become men, men dressing as women, women dressing as men, those who feel a bit of both, those who feel they are on a sliding scale between male and female.<br />It all boils down to reference to masculinity and femininity.<br />I don't even think one has to be evangelical to think this way.<br />Most Catholics I know also think this way!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-92007072970799360412017-10-05T16:44:13.961+13:002017-10-05T16:44:13.961+13:00Thank you, Bowman, for the time you took to reply ...Thank you, Bowman, for the time you took to reply to my comments. I can't say that I see the connection between many of the subtopics and That Topic but I am, 1. but a babe and 2. three days into my caffeine-free October and it is not going well!<br /><br />You perhaps, and I suspect knowingly, took my words too literally when I admitted to not knowing where you 'come from' :) What you wrote was somewhat helpful. What I was really asking, however, was what you would think that we, the ACANZP, should do in the face of our current issue?Sam Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08279230294548242422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24923999252970197772017-10-05T13:48:56.680+13:002017-10-05T13:48:56.680+13:00Peter, was Jesus speaking to the ordinary reader i...Peter, was Jesus speaking to the ordinary reader in the pew in vv 10-12? <br /><br />My mind is open.<br /><br />BWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-84809132692241952842017-10-05T11:21:49.669+13:002017-10-05T11:21:49.669+13:00Well, Peter; you are a 'Christian Educator'...Well, Peter; you are a 'Christian Educator', are you not? However, I suspect you are so far into the Evangelical certitude about the binary sexual theory that you would prefer not to become responsible for this particular understanding. Teaching the Faith, after all, is a great responsibility. Even Pope Francis will recognise that fact. I, myself, have to be very careful and take my responsibility very seriously. However, I am not infallible!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-21293198154635708532017-10-05T09:03:30.227+13:002017-10-05T09:03:30.227+13:00Hi Bowman and Ron
I remain open to but not yet con...Hi Bowman and Ron<br />I remain open to but not yet convinced by the interpretation Ron puts on the eunuch passage.<br /><br />Nothing will dissuade me that the ordinary reader in the pew is going to strike that passage and say to her or himself, "Clearly that is referring to gays and lesbians."<br /><br />That isn't going to happen.<br /><br />What might happen is that informed, educated readers might begin to take for granted that that passage is so referring. But there would need to be reeducation for every succeeding generation of Christians.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76476168814826234642017-10-05T09:01:00.165+13:002017-10-05T09:01:00.165+13:00[From Bowman, for whom the submitting process did ...[From Bowman, for whom the submitting process did not work ...]<br /><br />"I know Peter isn't keen on my mentioning the Matthean passage in Chapter 19 on the subject of eunuchs - especially my reference to the possibility of the 'one who is so from his mother's womb'. However, as an intrinsically gay person myself, I am in the unique position of attributing this saying of Jesus to my own sexual orientation (over a life-time of being who I am, it is my only satisfactory scriptural explanation for my own reality)."<br /><br />Fathers Peter and Ron, I do not see where you disagree on St Matthew 19:12. <br /><br />Ron takes "one who is so from his mother's womb" as a clear reference to a man disoriented from procreation from well before puberty. Those with SSA may not be the only ones so disoriented-- there are also the intersexed-- but they do seem to be among them. This is important if it establishes that Jesus himself recognised that there are at least some who are born outside of the procreativity of Genesis 1:28.<br /><br />Peter pushes back that this may not be clear to the dull and the ignorant. I think he's right about that-- they probably have no idea what "eunuch" could signify-- but the point of Jesus's inclusio seems to be that it is never clear to any but those who can receive the saying. <br /><br />Where is your disagreement?<br /><br />Bowman Walton<br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23119536104691387332017-10-04T17:06:26.337+13:002017-10-04T17:06:26.337+13:00Father Ron, vv 10-12 of St Matthew 19 seem well wo...Father Ron, vv 10-12 of St Matthew 19 seem well worth closer study. Offhand, I take it that vv 11-12 are a response to v 10 and an anticipation of vv 13-15, so that it does refer to those who might otherwise marry. But Jesus's inclusio about those who can receive the saying about eunuchs makes its application a matter of vocation that must be discerned. What is to be discerned is whether the saying has been given to one, and a mark that it has been so given is that one is able to receive it. As you know, many a monastic meditation has been drawn up from that well, which is very deep indeed. <br /><br />In our time, most people would be struck by the contrast between vv 3-9 and vv 10-12. With the Pharisees, Jesus seems to be laying down an *objective* law transparent and applicable to all. With the disciples, he seems to be revealing a *subjective* higher obligation that is applicable to only a few. Before anything else, many will be uneasy that our obligation in sexuality is not all one or all the other. <br /><br />And why has God so ordered things that objectivity is for the married but subjectivity for the eunuchs? The interesting report of the TEC Task Force for the Study of Marriage-- with which I disagree-- argues that marriage is a matter of vocation. Jesus seems to be saying just the opposite here-- marriage is God's general and manifest intention for humanity, but some are called in secret to be eunuchs-- but why? How does this fit the totality of his teaching?<br /><br />Bowman Walton<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39076580272208199322017-10-04T15:27:16.918+13:002017-10-04T15:27:16.918+13:00Thanks, Bowman for your latest response to my last...Thanks, Bowman for your latest response to my last comment. I know Peter isn't keen on my mentioning the Mathean passage in Chapter 19 on the subject of eunuchs - especially my reference to thr possibility of the 'one who is so from his mother's womb'. However, as an intrinsically gay person myself, I am in the unique position of attributing this saying of Jesus to my own sexual orientation (over a life-time of being who I am, it is my only satisfactory scriptural explanation for my own reality).<br /><br />What amazes me, though, is that many of the 'purists' about homosexuality resist the possibility that God might just be calling THEM into a state of abstention from their heterosexual activity - that they, too, could be eunuchs (for the sake of the Kingdom - as Jesus puts it). This would certainly help to make their case for insistence on homosexual abstention.<br /><br />As for the thought (Iknow you do not think this way) that the Bible presents human sexuality as solely for the purpose of procreation; this is counter to the erotic text contained in the Song of Songs - though the purists seem not to have seen this aspect of the Scriptures, which is obliquely referred to in the BCP in the Marriage Service, describing the purpose of marriage as: "for the mutual society and comfort of one another". This is what one might call a polte reference to the Marriage Bed. Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39210059802985810702017-10-04T13:43:21.625+13:002017-10-04T13:43:21.625+13:00Yes, Father Ron, that is why my retrieval from scr...Yes, Father Ron, that is why my retrieval from scripture of both procreation and celibacy is distinctly different from "conservative" positions far to my left that retrieve only the man/woman dyad. It is also why house-blessings-- available to both the single and the married-- are a more apt sign of inclusion in the local church than solemnisation.<br /><br />BTW while I do not object to psychological speculation about how a discipline of celibacy changes personality, I do not defend the older psychoanalytic theory of *sublimation*. Other hypotheses could be advanced.<br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18644685541039957222017-10-04T13:13:52.453+13:002017-10-04T13:13:52.453+13:00"(5) Celibacy: It is not the absence of sex, ..."(5) Celibacy: It is not the absence of sex, but a transformation of sexual desire undertaken as a fruitful vocation in the Church. " - Bowman -<br /><br />I remember, Bowman, during my time as an Anglican Franciscan novice, being informed that what you are writing about here is called 'sublimation'. In the Chambers dictionary described as:<br /><br />"1. (in psychosomatic theory) to divert or modify (an instinctual impulse) into a culturally higher or socially more acceptable activity.<br /> 2. transform into a purer or idealized form."<br /> <br />There is also a third (chemical) explanation: "a solid deposit that has been sublimed"<br /><br />While hesitating to apply the third aspect; one might well question the perpetual wisdom of the first two - on the grounds of the undue suppression of the natural instincts.<br /><br />However, sublimation is possible - more possible to some than others. But I do note that those conservatives in the Church who would like homosexuals to sublimate their natural sexual impulses by perpetual celibacy (maybe in a religious order) are often loth to sublimate their own heterosexual impulses by deciding to join an Order or the Roman Catholic priesthood.<br /><br />See how many of the critics of gay people are heterosexually active, while yet denying sexual activity - even in a monogamous loving relationship - of<br />homosexuals.<br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-51858838696068560402017-10-03T14:42:56.102+13:002017-10-03T14:42:56.102+13:00"I'm glad that I'm not the only one w..."I'm glad that I'm not the only one who finds your position a little difficult to 'get'. I've tried, unsuccessfully to put you into several boxes, but you never seem to quite fit!"<br /><br />That Topic has several interrelated subtopics. I have drawn unusual, though not idiosyncratic, conclusions on several of them. There are also a few subtopics that only I have considered salient. Putting them together results in a position that is coherent-- at least to me-- but that could not be reached by taking a strong position on just one subtopic and bending every other thought to fit it. Understandably, the latter way is the way most people decide most things, so a few strong positions result in a few very full boxes.<br /><br />Here are a few sample subtopical conclusions to which almost nobody here would agree--<br /><br />(1) Sex: I have updated and broadened rather than dropped the traditional view that the created telos of sex was procreation. <br /><br />(2) Ethics in Scripture: St Irenaeus of Lyon and Martin Luther were right to find answers to questions about *what is good?* in protology but answers to questions about *how should I decide what to do with my life?* in eschatology. <br /><br />(3) Ethics in Scripture: St Paul's ethos is far closer to being an account of the virtues of a soul being transformed in Christ than to being a body of positive law that makes sense apart from that transformation.<br /><br />(4) Orientation: As with many teleological life processes, it is probably an organic mental process invisible to introspection and encapsulated from volition. <br /><br />(5) Celibacy: It is not the absence of sex, but a transformation of sexual desire undertaken as a fruitful vocation in the Church. <br /><br />(6) Tradition: The Holy Spirit's proper works include the occasional ripening and designation of ideas and practises that enable the sanctification of souls in the Church, which by scripture recognises and by grace cultivates them. <br /><br />(7) Tradition: The Reformers' critique of the innovations of the High Middle Ages was mandated by God for the good of the Church but does not entail rejection of the tradition of the first millennium. <br /><br />(8) Authority: Because the Holy Spirit saves souls through tradition, the recognition and cultivation of the body of it is the principal exercise of authority in true churches, and both individual charism and official processes are necessarily dependent on, and subordinate to, that work. <br /><br />"I couldn't summarise where you come from to my wife when she asked me to" <br /><br />Where I come from is a metaphor with many degrees of concreteness. My ancestors settled Virginia-- Englishmen in the Tidewater in the early C17, Germans along the Blue Ridge in the early C18-- and I grew up there, mostly in greater Washington. Childhood religion was a roughly equal exposure to conservative Pietism and mainline Protestantism. I was educated in several things at several universities-- along the way, Reginald H Fuller was my confessor, Bart Ehrman and I chatted over coffee and doughnuts, there were friendly ties to the Cowley Fathers, and the reality of the Resurrection was vividly illumined-- but I finally finished at Harvard. My evangelicalism is complemented by my ecumenism, and I have absorbed far more from Luther and the East than is usual in our tribe. In the past century, Karl Barth was the best systematician since St Thomas, but the most useful and reliable ones for Anglicans were Thomas F Torrance (CoS) and Robert W Jenson (ELCA). I have a particular interest in theology and clinical psychology. Does anything in there help?<br /> <br />"(it's wonderful that she is interested in all this stuff!)"<br /><br />Yes, Sam, I am very happy for you both!<br /><br />"Unrelated point: do you know you can sign your post with you name, rather than 'anonymous' and then your name at the bottom?"<br /><br />Yah, but I set up very few social media accounts. Disqus is a parasite.<br /><br />Bowman WaltonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76328071085874326822017-10-03T13:20:28.839+13:002017-10-03T13:20:28.839+13:00"A possible connection there may be and I am ..."A possible connection there may be and I am sure scholars will continue to ponder the possibility. But will a possible connection with learned analysis to make the connection ever amount to clarity for the ordinary reader of Scripture?" - Dr.Peter Carrell -<br /><br />Couldn't agree with you more, Peter. "Possible connections" in Scripture are often ambiguous. But this doesn't stop the nay-sayers on S/S relationships from asserting their own conclusions. I guess this is why we Catholic Anglicans value the quantifying/qualifying brakes of Tradition and Reason to our understanding of the Scriptures. God-breathed they may be but some of their interpreters seem to cloud the issue with their own aspirations.<br /><br />One of the foremost writer/prophets of the N.T., Saint Paul, has, in the end, to say that he is not always right: "Why do I do (say) the things I ought not to do; why do I not do (say) the things I ought to, BUT, thanks be to God for the victory in our Lord Jesus Christ! God only has sinners to proclaim the Gospel!<br /><br />I am acutely aware, too, of Our Blessed Lord's tendency to teach through the medium of the parables, whereby only those meant to really hear what is being said may understand. ("You read the Scriptures and you still do not understand..." - Jesus)Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35329324384578807052017-10-03T07:29:28.585+13:002017-10-03T07:29:28.585+13:00Hi Nick
Thank you for your kinds words!Hi Nick<br />Thank you for your kinds words!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com