tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post8116920482498057717..comments2024-03-29T17:32:49.778+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: My "Way Forward" (Part 4)Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83661352666188334992016-08-08T09:31:40.833+12:002016-08-08T09:31:40.833+12:00Hi Bowman
I am trying to get my head around what y...Hi Bowman<br />I am trying to get my head around what your fine logic means in everyday "Anglicanspeak"!<br /><br />Are you saying that (a) both sides have their points (b) each side should respect the logic of the other (i.e. better than we often experience in current debates), and (c) the combination of (a) and (b) mean that we do not really have sufficient grounds for schism on this particular matter?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-85600227781844560492016-08-08T09:24:38.084+12:002016-08-08T09:24:38.084+12:00"2. An Anglican who follows the scriptures as...<br />"2. An Anglican who follows the scriptures as an *unnormed norm* can be, but need not be, *morally certain* that--<br /><br />(a) The first Christians associated the Six Texts with persons whose desire for the same sex was cultivated rather than innate.<br /><br />(b) In the providence of God, some persons have an unintended, uncultivated and innate desire for persons of the same sex.<br /><br />(c) Such desires will be found to have a biological explanation.<br /><br />"3. A Christian who believes (2) does not contradict (1) in approving a relationship like marriage for persons of the same sex, neither of whom has ever been attracted to the opposite sex."<br /><br /><br />Peter, Brendan, Brian--<br /><br /><br />Some replies to the counterplan seem to have overlooked the import of *moral certainty*, a term from moral theology. Moral agents are obliged to act, not on the basis of a perfect knowledge that is unavailable to them, but rather by balancing the urgency of the matter at hand against the relative certitude of the necessarily contingent (and sometimes mistaken) knowledge that human beings have.<br /><br /><br />In this instance, the causal origin of the homosexual desires described as "innate" (as distinct from "cultivated") is not known. Our sketchy knowledge about this is, not revealed and eternal, but rather empirical and contingent. For that very reason, our Bayesian priors, our selection of the evidence, or both may well lead us to reasonable doubts about (a), (b), and (c). Brendan and Brian are right about that. <br /><br /><br />But these are not grounds for doubting that other ordinary human beings are acting with the obligatory *moral certainty* when they follow their own Bayesian priors and selection of evidence to believe that (a), (b), and (c) are probably true enough to ground action (ie a changed view of the scope of a received interpretation of scripture). Indeed, if they both believe as the Church believes concerning what is revealed and eternal (ie that scripture is *norma normans non normata*) and act with due diligence with respect to the contingent unknowns (a), (b), and (c), then they do all that the Western Church has required of them. <br /><br /><br />It is hard to found a case for schism on a narrow disagreement about the import of inconclusive research. Nevertheless, should further investigations supersede the views plausible today, future moral agents will be similarly constrained by *moral certainty* to act in the light of it. And because the received teaching on marriage is both revealed and eternal, applications to changing circumstances can never be more than conjectural and contingent. This is why the camel cannot follow his nose into the tent of a scriptural church. <br /><br /><br />Bowman Walton<br /><br /><br />PS-- Sorry to be so slow to reply. This is a busy year Up Yonder...<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-2241475302427532802016-07-19T19:18:08.093+12:002016-07-19T19:18:08.093+12:00Peter, I do not wish lawyers or courts on the ques...Peter, I do not wish lawyers or courts on the questions that I posed; it is simply a matter of the wise man building his house upon the rock. Since your structural church has an Act of parliament as its rock, you need to be clear that your new round of soul searching and dialogue is not sand-based. Otherwise despite all your wrestling with the issues and walking along side, you know what will happen in the heavy legal rain. Rev Bosco Peters' view could be rock; why doesn't someone find out legally?<br /><br />NickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-21306806653212348002016-07-19T12:46:10.965+12:002016-07-19T12:46:10.965+12:00You are right in your assessment of our opinions, ...You are right in your assessment of our opinions, Peter. Scripture reminds us that "Here, we see through a glass, darkly" but one day, please God, "We shall see Him, face to face". Agape.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwiangloo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15055685716660510802016-07-19T11:49:32.647+12:002016-07-19T11:49:32.647+12:00Hi Rosemary
Your point about "in Christ"...Hi Rosemary<br />Your point about "in Christ" is well made. There is a teaching there that I know I have neglected.<br /><br />On the question of whether the unity of the church is God's will, when it disagrees over what the truth is, I am entirely open to the possibility that God's will is misunderstood by me!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-52029420249529704622016-07-19T09:23:34.761+12:002016-07-19T09:23:34.761+12:00Hi Malcolm (at 11.56 am): your comment raises issu...Hi Malcolm (at 11.56 am): your comment raises issues I will deal with in a separate post!<br /><br />Hi Rosemary, Thank you for a warm appreciation of commenters here, including me!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31506349128346800052016-07-18T22:43:51.781+12:002016-07-18T22:43:51.781+12:00Thank you, Rosemary, for your acceptance of me as ...Thank you, Rosemary, for your acceptance of me as I know I am accepted by God. Regarding the innermost thought of our hearts; only God is privy to them. If we know, in our hearts, that God does not judge us, we have nothing to fear from the judgement of fellow human beings. Thanks be to God! Let's all try to be better at not judging one another.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwiangloo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66697835982469299432016-07-18T20:43:10.457+12:002016-07-18T20:43:10.457+12:00It’s sad to read some of these recent posts. Chi...It’s sad to read some of these recent posts. Chin up everyone, perhaps we have forgotten that we are all ‘in’ Christ. That is everything to Rev. Vaughan Roberts. He may be same sex attracted, but he is loved and knows he is loved because he is ‘in’ Christ. I know that is everything to me. I may be a woman .. and like Vaughan, try to submit my all to the Godhead .. but I don’t find being a woman easy. But .. I am ‘in’ Christ .. and really that is all that matters. I’m not one of the hordes standing at the brink of the chasm between us and God .. all of whom believe that Jesus is the only way .. but I am ‘in’ Him.<br /><br />Surely we must also remember that He is not only the way and the life, but that He is also Truth. Peter, you are very compassionate and courageous to try and find a way to help the two sides to be united, but I must ask if you are SURE that, that is the True way He wants you to find? I know how hard it is to be heterosexual and compassionate, especially if you are also male, but you are clear as to the teaching of Scripture, therefore perhaps it is less than compassionate to not stress that Truth.<br /><br />Father Ron, in a public meeting recently you declared that you are ‘gay’ .. and that you just want to be loved. I’m sad that you use the term gay, because I think for most of us, that means someone who practices their homosexual leanings. Whereas we all know that you are not only married, but a very principled person, so I doubt that you are committing adultery against your wife. That means as far as I’m concerned, that you are a same sex attracted man who struggles to be obedient to our Lord. For that I honour and respect you. Also, if you are ‘in’ Christ Jesus, you ARE loved, no one .. NONE could love you more.<br /><br />Rev. Bosco Peters, I don’t understand what you mean by the canons are already changed, but you know that I am not one to agree to divorce lightly, that I don’t agree with the ordination of women, although I do believe the matter is adiaphora, and therefore not a first order issue. That I DO think the matter of same sex blessings and marriage IS a first order issue, and that to say anything less is to mislead and perhaps deny any same sex attracted person the Kingdom of Heaven, and Jesus did warn us strongly that if we misled any of His children so, we would be better off with a millstone around our necks!!!<br /><br />Remember everyone, we ARE loved, we are ‘in’ Christ, and there is nowhere safer, and nowhere we wish anyone else to be.<br />Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11987628838945618258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58795675910200079252016-07-18T18:35:39.530+12:002016-07-18T18:35:39.530+12:00Ron, sorry to disappoint you but I was simply maki...Ron, sorry to disappoint you but I was simply making a comment on Peter's proposal.<br /><br />MalcolmMalcolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00673750364562577262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53794209595523063162016-07-18T16:11:29.019+12:002016-07-18T16:11:29.019+12:00So, tell me, Malcolm; is it your honest opinion th...So, tell me, Malcolm; is it your honest opinion that, if our Church allows for the celebration of Same-Sex blessings for faithful members of our congregations you could not live with that and would have to leave? That seems to me to be what you are no0w implying.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwiangloo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74003529181296625082016-07-18T11:56:44.800+12:002016-07-18T11:56:44.800+12:00Peter,
I disagree with you on the viability of us...Peter,<br /><br />I disagree with you on the viability of using the recent changes to how services are authorised to bring about the compromise you propose. Among other things, it would be destructive of good order to bypass Part G, section 4 of the constitution on what has proven such a controversial issue. <br /><br />Your proposal also seems to hinge on a distinction between doctrine-as-enshrined-in-the-formularies and doctrine-as-expressed-in-the-church's-worship: formulaic doctrine as opposed to permissive doctrine. That is too subtle for me.<br />Whether General Synod changes its doctrine of marriage (which it seems reluctant to do at present) or redefines the church's understanding of chastity (as you propose in your clause 3), both involve changes to the doctrine expressed in the fundamental provisions of the constitution. <br /><br />As an aside: I consider these two alternatives to be mutually exclusive: if you extend the doctrine of marriage (as proposed by the Working Group), you don't need to change the definition of chastity; if you change the definition of chastity, you can not but diminish the doctrine of marriage. If the church effected both changes at once, the church would be left with a nominal doctrine of marriage that was only a matter of personal preference.<br /><br />You ask me for a better pathway. The only viable pathway, in my view, involves structural change and constitutional revision. We should not be under any allusion that accommodating such a compromise will involve far-reaching changes. I am less certain, however, that we have the collective will to pursue such a course.<br /><br />Malcolm<br />Malcolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00673750364562577262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-61390487700646408532016-07-17T21:48:27.465+12:002016-07-17T21:48:27.465+12:00Hi Nick
Rev Bosco Peters would be the first to adm...Hi Nick<br />Rev Bosco Peters would be the first to admit that the canon lawyers may know more than he, and they would be the first to admit that where "canon" meets "liturgy", he may know more than them. The one thing that unites us all, me included, is a fervent desire to not have to find out the constitutional truth via an ecclesiastical court case :)<br /><br />(In a serious answer to your question: not that I am aware of.)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72231689224087640492016-07-17T19:08:14.343+12:002016-07-17T19:08:14.343+12:00Hi Peter; Rev Bosco Peters has mentioned the const...Hi Peter; Rev Bosco Peters has mentioned the constitutional change more than once. The interesting thing is that if he is right, no one seems to be waking up. Are there any Anglican canon lawyers who have given a view on what you might have alteady done? <br /><br />NickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-2208736257552268952016-07-17T12:54:19.737+12:002016-07-17T12:54:19.737+12:00"You are an intelligent and learned man, Bria..."You are an intelligent and learned man, Brian, so I am surprised that you do not understand, or do not appear to understand that homosexuals might be as innately homosexual as heterosexuals are innately heterosexual." - Dr. Peter Carrell -<br /><br />Thank you for that reality check, Peter. However, sadly, most conservatively heterosexual persons - despite their sometimes obvious intelligence - seem simply unable (certainly unwilling) to admit that, though their own sexuality is innate, the sexuality of homosexuals is mostly 'innate'. In other words, it is not something that we actually choose to be.<br /><br />At last in old age, I can now admit to being, myself, innately homosexual - though married but living a 'celibate' lifestyle.<br /><br />I suppose not many innately heterosexual persons could really ever understand what it might mean to be innately homosexual. Not a fault on their part, just a reality!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwiangloo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23111379795636117692016-07-17T11:49:50.080+12:002016-07-17T11:49:50.080+12:00Hi Readers in the light of Bosco's comment at ...Hi Readers in the light of Bosco's comment at 8.38am<br /><br />A note to explain why I once argued against a recently made constitutional change but now wish to use that constitutional change re SSB ...<br /><br />In general terms I think the constitutional change is dangerous around bishops promulgating liturgical change which effectively defines doctrine (at least local to their episcopal units) without such change being a matter of common agreement across our whole church.<br /><br />Now that we have the change, for the specific matter of that which may yet split our church apart, I am happy to use the change to the advantage - so I hope (against hope?) - that it might provide a "way forward" which enables us not to split.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-69809345423685820742016-07-17T08:38:58.207+12:002016-07-17T08:38:58.207+12:00I wish, once again, that people here would engage ...I wish, once again, that people here would engage with what is actually written. I said nothing of the sort of silliness that Brian reads into the final paragraph of my comment. If you want to make a feeble straw man to argue against, please don’t falsely ascribe that to me.<br /><br />Clearly people here cannot agree whether women should be allowed to be overseers in the church, or whether divorced-and-remarried people (males?) should be allowed to be such overseers. Our church has followed agreed due process and decided that the former be allowed. Our church has not yet followed agreed due process whether divorced people can be remarried – but for about half a century we have gone ahead and done so anyway. <br /><br />Bowman has given a wonderful response to Brendan’s argument from silence.<br /><br />And Malcolm, have you missed the change to our Constitution? The very shift you are arguing against is now part of our Constitution that you and I sign up to. Where were you when I argued so strongly, repeatedly, and widely that this not proceed (and Peter argued similarly on this site)? I have already indicated, Peter is also writing as if the constitutional change didn’t happen. The discussion cannot continue as if we are working within the context of the unrevised Constitution.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />BoscoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53289853262512950782016-07-16T22:55:31.985+12:002016-07-16T22:55:31.985+12:00Hi Brian
By "innate" I mean that whateve...Hi Brian<br />By "innate" I mean that whatever causation factor or combination of factors is involved, my sexual orientation is what it is through all my life.<br />Whether we attribute this to God or not is a tricky question, just as it is re (say) left-handedness, rare blood types, and growing up in a posh family rather than a poor family (thinking about God's role as creator and sustainer of all things, as the one who works out all things according to his plan).<br /><br />I think I have been quite clear here on ADU that I read Scripture as only approving sexual intercourse within marriage between a man and a woman. I am also trying to be clear that I am trying to understand those in my church who do not share that clarity!<br /><br />Bowman is more than able to respond, but I am happy to demonstrate that I am more sympathetic to his approach to working out how we live with difference in the Anglican Church than (e.g.) to your approach.<br /><br />But I appreciate both of you for the learning and clarity of conviction you bring to the conversations.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36710589756839009442016-07-16T22:21:42.828+12:002016-07-16T22:21:42.828+12:00Peter, since my comments were directed to Bowman, ...Peter, since my comments were directed to Bowman, I will allow him to speak for himself, whether I have understood him correctly.<br /><br />But let me take up your remarks: 'I am surprised that you do not understand, or do not appear to understand that homosexuals might be as innately homosexual as heterosexuals are innately heterosexual.'<br /><br />By 'innately' I understand 'born that way'. My skin, eye and (former) hair colour are 'innate' to me, as are other physical features (including propensities for health or illness) because they are genetically coded. Everything else has been programmed into me by experience. I do not believe *anyone* - not even you, Peter - is "innately" heterosexual or "innately" homosexual. Sexual affections are not genetic in character. Many years of studying identical twins has not established the very high level of concordance<br />that such a claim would require. (And there is plenty on the subject in Socarides, Nicolosi, Satinover, Yarwood, Regner etc.)<br /><br />Peter, the point you have to answer squarely is not "What kind of people are we?" but "What does God want us to be - and do?"<br />In other words - and here, Peter, you need to be very clear about what you believe (because you are adept at listing all the things you are uncertain, unclear, unsure and agnostic about when it comes to reading the Bible):<br /><br />"Is it God's WILL that some humans should have homosexual attractions?"<br /><br />This was the very point I was faulting Bowman in his use of the word "normal".<br />You see, I am left-handed and belong to a relatively uncommon blood group. What does 'normal' mean here? I could easily imagine world in which left-handedness and my blood group were the majority - "normal".<br /><br />I'm afraid the rest of your point is rhetoric, not argument - said with feeling but still rhetoric.<br />BrianR https://www.blogger.com/profile/11084982458935874569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80384792256877877172016-07-16T21:16:14.679+12:002016-07-16T21:16:14.679+12:00Hi Malcolm
I think they are fair criticisms to bri...Hi Malcolm<br />I think they are fair criticisms to bring to the table of discussion of my proposal. But what is your better pathway in the face of a church which (IMHO) is not agreeable to not having some way forward re SSB, yet seems to understand that it will drive more people away if it changes our formularies than if it does not?<br /><br />In defence of my proposal I offer the following advantages to sit alongside your offering re disadvantages:<br /><br />- it provides for the bishop (or bishop-in-consultation-with-their-synod) to judge when the time is right for implementation<br /><br />- it provides for Dioceses such as Nelson and Polynesia to never implement the service<br /><br />- it sits with existing powers of bishops to not make a move on some matters (e.g. historically, we know that +Sutton in Nelson refrained from ordaining women for some ten years after our church permitted ordination of women to proceed; we know that some bishops are keener on ordaining to the vocational diaconate than others, some dioceses pursue LSM while others do not (or once did and now are withdrawing that model)<br /><br />- (incidentally, wouldn't it be similar to the ecclesiology of our sister church in Oz?)<br /><br />A further point which your wording does not seem to appreciate when you say "[what] makes the local bishop ... the arbiter of the Church's doctrine?" The very point of what I am proposing is that SSB would not be "doctrine" in the sense of something enshrined in a formulary, to bishops would neither be defending doctrine in this sense, nor defining it. They would simply be acting (to implement or not) within a permissive environment in which our church made SSB permissible without making believing in SSB mandatory via formulary.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-44839324178161840962016-07-16T21:03:51.978+12:002016-07-16T21:03:51.978+12:00Hi Peter,
I suspect the effect of your canon will...Hi Peter,<br /><br />I suspect the effect of your canon will be to simply shift the debate from General Synod onto the local dioceses and their bishops and make unpicking the tangle even more thwart. Why bypass the checks-and-balances of the constitution with regard to formularies and makes the local bishop (with or without a diocesan synod’s agreement) the arbiter of the Church’s doctrine? Bishops are to defend the faith, not define it. <br /><br />I also suspect that your canon would have the effect of creating a “claytons” formulary that, while not applying to the whole province, would nevertheless carry the weight of a formulary within those dioceses that adopted it. In my view, General Synod cannot delegate away its responsibility under our constitution onto a diocesan structure that was not designed to bear its weight.<br /><br />Malcolm <br />Malcolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00673750364562577262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17251942785198975532016-07-16T20:02:30.339+12:002016-07-16T20:02:30.339+12:00Hi Brian @ 6.52
I do not agree with the criticism...Hi Brian @ 6.52<br /><br />I do not agree with the criticism you make of Bowman's "parsing."<br /><br />Those in favour of SSB include those who appear to subscribe to every aspect of a conservative evangelical's stereotype of a liberal, progressive Christian who has sold out to the culture but, in my experience, most of the Anglicans I mingle with who are in favour are resolutely creed-believing, Bible-preaching, follow the words of the agreed liturgy of the church Anglicans, and also believe in marriage between a man and a woman being open to procreation, binding for life etc. Why, some even believe that only SSB is possible because SSM is not agreeable to their understanding of marriage.<br /><br />The question Bowman raises is a good one. If Anglicans are committed to Scripture as the Holy Scripture of the church and believe nevertheless that Scripture does not actually answer questions about the propriety of SSB and thus we might pursue SSB as a matter not forbidden, then we have a church which, if it then divides, should honestly appraise the situation as one in which the division is over SSB and not over a general commitment to Scripture, or orthodox belief in the creeds. <br /><br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64209563063693459522016-07-16T19:55:10.748+12:002016-07-16T19:55:10.748+12:00Hi Brian @6.44 pm
I suggest "innate" is ...Hi Brian @6.44 pm<br />I suggest "innate" is pretty clear. Ever since I can remember having any desires relating to the opposite gender, they have been for the opposite gender. I am innately heterosexual, though I presume various aspects of upbringing, Hollywood movies, all those romance books I devoured as a teenager, to say nothing of all the baudy talk at my all boys' school (both viciously homophobic as well as vigorously macho) all fostered that innate desire. Is it that difficult to actually hear what homosexuals say when they say that they have been innately homosexual, rather than heterosexual?<br />(And, yes, for the record, I have also come across the testimony of the kind, "I was interfered with as a young boy by an older man and that set me on the pathway to (e.g.) homosexual desires, bisexual desires, confusion about my sexuality).<br />You are an intelligent and learned man, Brian, so I am surprised that you do not understand, or do not appear to understand that homosexuals might be as innately homosexual as heterosexuals are innately heterosexual.<br />And, yes, I know, we all know here, that that does not then straightforwardly mean that SSB or SSM is all fine by God because desire is one thing and acting on desire is another.<br />But the question hangs in the air of 21st century life, is the God of love to deny the covenanting of love between two men or two women? Are we utterly certain that all that is in the Bible denies the possibility that the church might support people committed to faithful love of one another (and especially in a world of easy promiscuity)? And, even when some of us are utterly certain that the Bible does so deny, Bowman's point, are we to deny a place in the church for those who do not share that certainty?<br /><br />As for the camel's nose in the tent. Isn't the story of decline in Western Anglican churches about so much more than specific decisions made about homosexuality? Would the decline be much less if the status quo on homosexuality of (say) the early 1970s had remained in force till now?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17413169555240837082016-07-16T18:52:04.176+12:002016-07-16T18:52:04.176+12:00"Persons and churches should not be described..."Persons and churches should not be described as having rejected the authority of the scriptures if they both affirm the orthodox understanding of marriage ***for all normal cases*** [emphasis mine], and acknowledge that *economy* may require a dispensation for anomalous cases. And if they have not rejected the Word, then the one persistent argument for schism collapses."<br /><br />Bowman, that is nonsense that doesn't survive parsing. You have simply arrived at revisionism using slightly different language about "normal" and "anomalous" that some homosexuals would take offence at. The "orthodox understanding of marriage" (i.e. the NT teaching) is binding on *everyone.<br />BrianR https://www.blogger.com/profile/11084982458935874569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1814521727985820162016-07-16T18:44:34.054+12:002016-07-16T18:44:34.054+12:00Bowman wrote above:
"2. An Anglican who foll...Bowman wrote above:<br /><br />"2. An Anglican who follows the scriptures as an unnormed norm can be, but need not be, morally certain that-- <br /><br />(a) The first Christians associated the Six Texts with persons whose desire for the same sex was cultivated rather than innate.<br />[* What does it mean to say a desire is 'innate'? Surely ALL desires - as opposed to unlearned instincts for air and food - are LEARNED?]<br /><br />(b) In the providence of God, some persons have an unintended, uncultivated and innate desire for persons of the same sex.<br />[* The Providence of God allows ALL KINDS of things - good and evil - to exist in the world. The use of 'providence' here misconstrues the meaning of this word in reformed theology: that God is sovereign and grants and permits all manner of things - even man's disobedience and unbelief - to the end of His glory. Assyria is the rod of God's anger against Israel (Isa.10.1) - but Assyria will also be punished for its wrongdoing.]<br /><br />(c) Such desires will be found to have a biological explanation. <br />[* 'will be found'? Is this dogmatic prophecy? How about: 'will NOT be found'? or 'will remain mysterious till the eschaton'?]<br /><br />Sorry, Bowman - you are inviting the camel into the tent. It has already made its way inside in North America and driven out the poor Bedouin. <br />Sadly, orthodox Anglicans are having to fold their tent in order to survive. Which is hard to do when your tent is made of stone.<br />The Diocese of Dunedin, once quite lively, in in terminal decline, having lost 80% of its attendance in 30 years. Do you want to administer the coup de grace?BrianR https://www.blogger.com/profile/11084982458935874569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-13653121197613116302016-07-16T14:49:13.133+12:002016-07-16T14:49:13.133+12:00Hi Malcolm,
(This is my understanding, happy to be...Hi Malcolm,<br />(This is my understanding, happy to be corrected by a jurist or a liturgist!).<br />If a service is a formulary then it has a particular status in the life of our church, it expresses what we have agreed to enshrine what we believe as ACANZP/as licensed officers of ACANZP.<br />If a service is authorised for use, but is not a formulary, then that service expresses what some believe but not what all are required to believe.<br />I am trying to lower the temperature of the situation.<br />The route I am proposing is a compromise in at least two ways: those who would wish a service of blessing to be a formulary would be denied that wish; those who would not like formal permission to be given for those who wish to conduct SSB would be asked to accept that formal permission was being given.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com