Further in this series, I now respond to this comment made a few days ago:
"(2) "How would opting out line up with the religious exemption in the Human Rights Act? You could hardly argue that something is core to your belief if half of your fellow believers thought it was not.""
For those outside of NZ, this comment refers to the possibility under our laws (re Human Rights, re our Marriage Act which permits same sex marriages) that if a church such as ACANZP ends up with a set of canons which permits its marriage celebrants to believe differently on marriage then the 'religious exemption' allowing marriage celebrants not to be pursued at law for refusing to conduct a same sex marriage might not apply.
Obviously there is a legal answer to the question which I am not qualified to provide (and, indeed, no one may be so qualified until a case arises which is addressed by our judges).
But I would think there would be some credence to a church (even better, to a set of churches in NZ, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists ...) which said,
(1) our canon on marriage remains as it has been and expresses the traditional Christian belief concerning marriage, therefore our ministers accepting this canon as part of their submission to the authority of General Synod cannot say Yes to performing a same sex marriage on behalf of the state,
(2) yet a subset of ministers within the church may legally bless same sex partnerships because they choose in writing to exercise an option to do so (e.g. the option to be available to bless such partnerships).
(On my original writing of the above paragraph, I offered a confusing wording around the idea that there might be an 'opt in' to the traditional canon on marriage and/or an 'opt out' of that canon in favour of a more progressive canon. Apart from recognising (H/T to a correspondent) the confusion in the wording, I now see that 'opt in' or 'opt out' options (to coin a phrase!) are quite tricky to work out. The wording above hopefully is less confusing; but the proposal made around 'opt' could no doubt be improved considerably).
If such an approach failed then we might or even would have to pursue the possibility that we no longer conduct marriages on behalf of the state.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Is Parris worth a Mass?
Matthew Parris is something of a journalist gadfly or agent provocateur. He writes,
"I wince to see the philosophical mess that religious conservatives are making of their case. Is there nobody of any intellectual stature left in our English church, or the Roman church, to frame the argument against Christianity’s slide into just going with the flow of social and cultural change? Time was — even in my time — when there were quiet, understated, sometimes quite severe men of the cloth, often wearing bifocal spectacles, who could show us moral relativists a decent fight in that eternal debate. Now there’s only the emotional witness of the ranting evangelicals, most of them pretty dim. How I miss the fine minds of bishops like Joseph Butler, who remarked drily to John Wesley: ‘Sir, the pretending to extraordinary revelations, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, is an horrid thing, a very horrid thing.’
Of course Matthew Parris is not particularly kind above to 'ranting evangelicals, most of them pretty dim.' There is a certain kind of bigotry which presumes Christians of intellectual stature will be found anywhere but in evangelicalism!
Does he have a point, however, in what he argues above, that Christianity (in the West) is sliding 'with the flow of social and cultural change'?
Yes, he does. Christians are more than capable of flowing with social and cultural change (ask e.g. Catholics who use artificial means of contraception, check out e.g. Anglican priests who conduct remarriages of divorcees). It has actually always been thus and so. Paul changed the native culture of the gospel (Judaism, Israel, Aramaic) in order to win the world for Christ (Hellenism, Athens and Rome, Greek). The first Christians went with the flow which said slavery was part and parcel of life.
And why has this been so and why is this so today? The answer is a point I think Parris misses. Christians live their lives in the world and not out of it. Precisely because we are in the world and not out of it, we need, in the words of the Archbishop of Dublin after the result of the referendum was announced, a 'reality check' ... every day.
That 'reality check' means that Christians took a long view over (ancient) slavery and changed it eventually. On sexual relationships conservative Christians (such as Roman Catholics) have another sort of long view: that long view concerns communication and connection with society. We do not want to stop communication. We do not want to lose connection. Neither do we want to change God's revelation on sin.
Conservative churches are not separate from society. The Archbishop's point is not that 62% in a referendum have determined what is right is what used to be wrong and his church must now catch up. If it were so, Parris for Pope! No, the point the Archbishop is making is that a society contesting what is right and what is wrong is inside the church as much as it is outside the church. The reality check for the church is facing up to that fact and working out how to act.
If we wish to avoid either schism (a current Anglican option) or excommunication (at least a theoretical Roman Catholic option) then we need to find 'a way forward'.
That way - my Yes and No of the previous post - is going to look like flowing with social and cultural change to some and like stubborn, 'pretty dim' adherence to old-fashioned ideas about sin to others.
End Note: Oh, and by the way, if you do not know much about Matthew Parris and what kind of conservative he might be and thus what kind of conservatives I pal around with, this is how the citation above began:
"Even as a (gay) atheist, "
*If the title seems strange, it is a play on some famous words which I am sure our friend Google will assist with.
"I wince to see the philosophical mess that religious conservatives are making of their case. Is there nobody of any intellectual stature left in our English church, or the Roman church, to frame the argument against Christianity’s slide into just going with the flow of social and cultural change? Time was — even in my time — when there were quiet, understated, sometimes quite severe men of the cloth, often wearing bifocal spectacles, who could show us moral relativists a decent fight in that eternal debate. Now there’s only the emotional witness of the ranting evangelicals, most of them pretty dim. How I miss the fine minds of bishops like Joseph Butler, who remarked drily to John Wesley: ‘Sir, the pretending to extraordinary revelations, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, is an horrid thing, a very horrid thing.’
So, wearily and with a reluctance born of not even supporting the argument’s conclusion, let me restate the conservative Catholic’s only proper response to news such as that from Dublin last weekend. It is that 62 per cent in a referendum does not cause a sin in the eyes of God to cease to be a sin.
Can’t these Christians see that the moral basis of their faith cannot be sought in the pollsters’ arithmetic?"Of course Matthew Parris is not particularly kind above to 'ranting evangelicals, most of them pretty dim.' There is a certain kind of bigotry which presumes Christians of intellectual stature will be found anywhere but in evangelicalism!
Does he have a point, however, in what he argues above, that Christianity (in the West) is sliding 'with the flow of social and cultural change'?
Yes, he does. Christians are more than capable of flowing with social and cultural change (ask e.g. Catholics who use artificial means of contraception, check out e.g. Anglican priests who conduct remarriages of divorcees). It has actually always been thus and so. Paul changed the native culture of the gospel (Judaism, Israel, Aramaic) in order to win the world for Christ (Hellenism, Athens and Rome, Greek). The first Christians went with the flow which said slavery was part and parcel of life.
And why has this been so and why is this so today? The answer is a point I think Parris misses. Christians live their lives in the world and not out of it. Precisely because we are in the world and not out of it, we need, in the words of the Archbishop of Dublin after the result of the referendum was announced, a 'reality check' ... every day.
That 'reality check' means that Christians took a long view over (ancient) slavery and changed it eventually. On sexual relationships conservative Christians (such as Roman Catholics) have another sort of long view: that long view concerns communication and connection with society. We do not want to stop communication. We do not want to lose connection. Neither do we want to change God's revelation on sin.
Conservative churches are not separate from society. The Archbishop's point is not that 62% in a referendum have determined what is right is what used to be wrong and his church must now catch up. If it were so, Parris for Pope! No, the point the Archbishop is making is that a society contesting what is right and what is wrong is inside the church as much as it is outside the church. The reality check for the church is facing up to that fact and working out how to act.
If we wish to avoid either schism (a current Anglican option) or excommunication (at least a theoretical Roman Catholic option) then we need to find 'a way forward'.
That way - my Yes and No of the previous post - is going to look like flowing with social and cultural change to some and like stubborn, 'pretty dim' adherence to old-fashioned ideas about sin to others.
End Note: Oh, and by the way, if you do not know much about Matthew Parris and what kind of conservative he might be and thus what kind of conservatives I pal around with, this is how the citation above began:
"Even as a (gay) atheist, "
*If the title seems strange, it is a play on some famous words which I am sure our friend Google will assist with.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
A Kiwi response to the Scots showing the English the way forward (1)
(1) "“Oh, you might say, but we need to press for the 'truth' to win. I agree but I find there are two different versions of what is 'true' about same sex marriage and they are pushing together like two scrums with no signs of one buckling and the referee is getting impatient for the ball to come out. And the different scrums are composed of friends of mine. I would like to not ditch one set of friends for another.”
Hmm, two different truths .. 2+2 makes 4, AND 2+2 makes 5 .. both true? Both acceptable? Requiring those in the math class to learn a new set of ‘truths?’ Peter, if you have friends in both scrums, as indeed I hope we all do, then what sort of friends are they that they don’t deserve to hear your particular version of the two truths? I suppose I must ask again, where exactly is the line you draw .. or is there not one at all?"
My response:
Part of the difficulty of getting our heads around the nature of the differences among Christians over same sex partnerships is that some see the differences as clearly as "Hmm, two different truths .. 2+2 makes 4, AND 2+2 makes 5 .. both true? Both acceptable? Requiring those in the math class to learn a new set of ‘truths?’" while others see the differences less clearly.
For instance, what if the analogy was between wave and particle theories of light rather than between 2+2=4 or 2+2=5? These theories can be opposed to each other with much argument on either side. They are also able to be accommodated - at least they were when I studied physics decades ago - so that both theories are simultaneously true!
Are we a church which can acknowledge that we cannot even agree on the nature of the differences between us on these matters?
Then the question of 'the line you draw ... or is there not one at all?'
First, a general comment about 'lines': I am sure we all have them.
There are lines which mean Anglicans do not want to be (say) Presbyterians and vice versa, as well as potential lines which mean Anglicans might contemplate leaving the Anglican church or at least staging some kind of ecclesiastical protest.
For instance, I imagine all Anglicans here would have trouble if General Synod agreed to ditch the Nicene Creed from our liturgies. That line is very clear.
But what if General Synod agreed to drop the filioque clause from the Nicene Creed? Would that be a 'line' that led to protest or departure, or a change which one could (reluctantly, grumblingly) live with?
Speaking personally, I have a line around the definition of marriage in our canon on marriage and marriage liturgies, the definition which makes a man and a woman essential to the Christian understanding of marriage. If this definition changed, I would be sorely tried.
Do I have a line on the matter of blessing of same sex partnerships? I have a theological line in this sense: I do not see where the authorisation of such blessings comes from (save that we assert that authority on the basis of (e.g.) the authority we have taken to bless (e.g.) battleships).
But I live in an Anglican church, in a global Christianity where fellow believers are taking different views on these matters (as expressed here in some confident, robust, well argued comments that all is in order in respect of same sex marriage and the ones out of order are those such as myself who beg to demur). Can I draw a political line around my church, let alone around global Christianity which constrains any accommodation of difference of viewpoint, which rules out all views opposing my own views? At this point I cannot draw that line and for these reasons.
First, for reason of acknowledging the role dissent may play in church life. If the majority boot turns out to be on the foot of those with a progressive approach, I would hope that space would be permitted for conservatives who dissent from a changed view re blessings of same sex partnerships. Should I not, quid pro quo, as a matter of recognition of the politics of the church, allow that if the conservative view prevails on marriage (as I intuit it may do in ACANZP) then a dissenting view might be permitted on the blessing of same sex partnerships?
Secondly, for reason of respect for fellow Christians and the views they hold as we all grapple with changing times in the Western world. The referendum vote of the Irish people these past few days to legalise same sex marriage is a sign of a tsunami of change over an issue that is turning out to be a challenge for all Western Christians in all churches. The challenge is now not just for Anglicans!
In such a world it is understandable that many Christians (perhaps even in the Roman Catholic church itself) are asking whether this particular Zeitgeist might be accommodated through a loving response from the church. What they are asking fellow Christians to consider is whether this Zeitgeist is towards good or towards evil?
We all get it that the Zeitgeist in the 1930s in Germany was towards evil (and recognise that many German Christians failed to discern that). But this Zeitgeist is away from promiscuity, away from casual sex, away from a society in which young gay people feel helpless dissonance and sometimes commit suicide. Is it towards evil? That question puts the church, all Western churches in a dilemma. Dare we answer 'Yes' and doom ourselves to further loss of membership as people, especially young people turn their backs on us. Dare we answer 'No'? Dare we answer 'Yes' and 'No'?
How is the church in the West to respond to the amazing shift in understanding of marriage going on around us (including among our closest friends and family members)?
Obviously some commenters here represent the view that the churches should simply go with the Zeitgeist, no further questions please. The answer to the above question is a resounding 'No.'
Some commenters here represent the view that the church should resist the Zeitgeist. Also, no further questions please. The answer to the above question is a resounding 'Yes.'
I am suggesting that out of respect for differing responses to the Zeitgeist we in ACANZP might be a church which says 'Yes' and 'No'. We man up and acknowledge that we are a church with differences, that we are a church where arguments can be mounted and firmly held both for maintaining a traditional Christian understanding of marriage and for offering a prayerful response to those taking up the state's provision of marriage between partners of the same sex.
If we do this, might we keep open lines of communication between 'church' and 'society' in the 21st century which are in grave danger of being shut down.
That is another insight about 'lines' in this situation! We needs lines of communication as well as lines in the sand :)
What do you think? Am I barking mad or barking up the wrong tree?
Hmm, two different truths .. 2+2 makes 4, AND 2+2 makes 5 .. both true? Both acceptable? Requiring those in the math class to learn a new set of ‘truths?’ Peter, if you have friends in both scrums, as indeed I hope we all do, then what sort of friends are they that they don’t deserve to hear your particular version of the two truths? I suppose I must ask again, where exactly is the line you draw .. or is there not one at all?"
My response:
Part of the difficulty of getting our heads around the nature of the differences among Christians over same sex partnerships is that some see the differences as clearly as "Hmm, two different truths .. 2+2 makes 4, AND 2+2 makes 5 .. both true? Both acceptable? Requiring those in the math class to learn a new set of ‘truths?’" while others see the differences less clearly.
For instance, what if the analogy was between wave and particle theories of light rather than between 2+2=4 or 2+2=5? These theories can be opposed to each other with much argument on either side. They are also able to be accommodated - at least they were when I studied physics decades ago - so that both theories are simultaneously true!
Are we a church which can acknowledge that we cannot even agree on the nature of the differences between us on these matters?
Then the question of 'the line you draw ... or is there not one at all?'
First, a general comment about 'lines': I am sure we all have them.
There are lines which mean Anglicans do not want to be (say) Presbyterians and vice versa, as well as potential lines which mean Anglicans might contemplate leaving the Anglican church or at least staging some kind of ecclesiastical protest.
For instance, I imagine all Anglicans here would have trouble if General Synod agreed to ditch the Nicene Creed from our liturgies. That line is very clear.
But what if General Synod agreed to drop the filioque clause from the Nicene Creed? Would that be a 'line' that led to protest or departure, or a change which one could (reluctantly, grumblingly) live with?
Speaking personally, I have a line around the definition of marriage in our canon on marriage and marriage liturgies, the definition which makes a man and a woman essential to the Christian understanding of marriage. If this definition changed, I would be sorely tried.
Do I have a line on the matter of blessing of same sex partnerships? I have a theological line in this sense: I do not see where the authorisation of such blessings comes from (save that we assert that authority on the basis of (e.g.) the authority we have taken to bless (e.g.) battleships).
But I live in an Anglican church, in a global Christianity where fellow believers are taking different views on these matters (as expressed here in some confident, robust, well argued comments that all is in order in respect of same sex marriage and the ones out of order are those such as myself who beg to demur). Can I draw a political line around my church, let alone around global Christianity which constrains any accommodation of difference of viewpoint, which rules out all views opposing my own views? At this point I cannot draw that line and for these reasons.
First, for reason of acknowledging the role dissent may play in church life. If the majority boot turns out to be on the foot of those with a progressive approach, I would hope that space would be permitted for conservatives who dissent from a changed view re blessings of same sex partnerships. Should I not, quid pro quo, as a matter of recognition of the politics of the church, allow that if the conservative view prevails on marriage (as I intuit it may do in ACANZP) then a dissenting view might be permitted on the blessing of same sex partnerships?
Secondly, for reason of respect for fellow Christians and the views they hold as we all grapple with changing times in the Western world. The referendum vote of the Irish people these past few days to legalise same sex marriage is a sign of a tsunami of change over an issue that is turning out to be a challenge for all Western Christians in all churches. The challenge is now not just for Anglicans!
In such a world it is understandable that many Christians (perhaps even in the Roman Catholic church itself) are asking whether this particular Zeitgeist might be accommodated through a loving response from the church. What they are asking fellow Christians to consider is whether this Zeitgeist is towards good or towards evil?
We all get it that the Zeitgeist in the 1930s in Germany was towards evil (and recognise that many German Christians failed to discern that). But this Zeitgeist is away from promiscuity, away from casual sex, away from a society in which young gay people feel helpless dissonance and sometimes commit suicide. Is it towards evil? That question puts the church, all Western churches in a dilemma. Dare we answer 'Yes' and doom ourselves to further loss of membership as people, especially young people turn their backs on us. Dare we answer 'No'? Dare we answer 'Yes' and 'No'?
How is the church in the West to respond to the amazing shift in understanding of marriage going on around us (including among our closest friends and family members)?
Obviously some commenters here represent the view that the churches should simply go with the Zeitgeist, no further questions please. The answer to the above question is a resounding 'No.'
Some commenters here represent the view that the church should resist the Zeitgeist. Also, no further questions please. The answer to the above question is a resounding 'Yes.'
I am suggesting that out of respect for differing responses to the Zeitgeist we in ACANZP might be a church which says 'Yes' and 'No'. We man up and acknowledge that we are a church with differences, that we are a church where arguments can be mounted and firmly held both for maintaining a traditional Christian understanding of marriage and for offering a prayerful response to those taking up the state's provision of marriage between partners of the same sex.
If we do this, might we keep open lines of communication between 'church' and 'society' in the 21st century which are in grave danger of being shut down.
That is another insight about 'lines' in this situation! We needs lines of communication as well as lines in the sand :)
What do you think? Am I barking mad or barking up the wrong tree?
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
A Kiwi response to the Scots showing the English the way forward (Prelude)
A few posts ago, some sharp questions came in responsive comments. I identify these questions as particularly sharp (in my view):
(1) "“Oh, you might say, but we need to press for the 'truth' to win. I agree but I find there are two different versions of what is 'true' about same sex marriage and they are pushing together like two scrums with no signs of one buckling and the referee is getting impatient for the ball to come out. And the different scrums are composed of friends of mine. I would like to not ditch one set of friends for another.”
Hmm, two different truths .. 2+2 makes 4, AND 2+2 makes 5 .. both true? Both acceptable? Requiring those in the math class to learn a new set of ‘truths?’ Peter, if you have friends in both scrums, as indeed I hope we all do, then what sort of friends are they that they don’t deserve to hear your particular version of the two truths? I suppose I must ask again, where exactly is the line you draw .. or is there not one at all?"
(2) "How would opting out line up with the religious exemption in the Human Rights Act? You could hardly argue that something is core to your belief if half of your fellow believers thought it was not."
(3) "I agree that living with difference is a model that can work for "disputable matters".
But why not apply this same logic to priests living in a de facto relationship? That is a widely accepted practice in today's society but it violates God's commandments to us in the same way as active homosexual relationships do.
Once you start down the road of "co-existence" or "living with difference" you need very clear guidelines about what is disputable and what is not.
To follow your analogy, are we still really a team if we're wearing the same jumper but every player plays according to their own set of rules?"
(4) "Obviously, choices in this life involve many possibilities, and some possibilities may clearly lack other and crucial qualities. The suggested "solution" in your post values expediency and a form of "peace" over principle and a struggle for revealed truth. I'll let you decide whether, in view of the following quotes, a possibility heavily-based on expediency is something you commend to any Christian denomination. My views is that any denomination that places a high value on expediency is due for reaping a deserved low respectability rating from the general populace together with a concomitant, nominal status the denomination will occupy in the life of that population.
"Enter by the narrow gate. Wide is the gate and broad the road that leads to destruction, and many enter that way; narrow is the gate and constricted the road that leads to life, and those who find them are few." Mt. 7:13 (REB). "'Make every effort to enter through the narrow door; for I tell you that many will try to enter but will not succeed.'" Lk. 13:24 (REB)"
(5) "Once the pass that "marriage is for life" was surrendered, the insistance on "one man, one woman" becomes clearly about attitudes to homosexuals more than about "retaining marriage as it was". The on-this-site oft-repeated "two wrongs don't make a right" sounds extremely hollow after many years now of nothing being done about the first "wrong". The plain reading of the Bible is much clearer about the first wrong than the second, and, casuistry notwithstanding, the issue is much deeper than agreeing, as is easily done, on a God-sourced anthropology. The integrity of Christianity is at stake when those who in NT-Jesus terms bless adultery and fornication of sequentially-monogamous heterosexuals, but vociferously condemn homosexuals seeking to express God's lifelong covenant in their relationship."
(6) "[After 2 points made] 3. Lastly, and vitally, given for the moment that the two stances as outlined in Motion 30, 1 (a) and (b), do have their respective “integrities”, and given a way forward can be found institutionally whereby these two might live ‘under one roof’ [both massive assumptions, I realise], nonetheless what integrity might this new entity itself possess?
Well; there we all have it ... And the outcome of such careful archaeological/genealogical work will, I suggest, only show how illogical and impossible it will be to keep these ‘good folk’ within one and the same house ... And thereafter history, especially eschatological history, will be the judge."
(7) "Peter, Mike has a point. This really is not for me to say, but do evangelicals need to repent of allowing an almost sacramental divorce. From a sola scriptura point of view, gay marriage is trivial if you allow heterosexual divorce."
I hope over coming days to offer some thoughts on each of these seven. I note that in the comments to the original post some replies are already given by others.
(1) "“Oh, you might say, but we need to press for the 'truth' to win. I agree but I find there are two different versions of what is 'true' about same sex marriage and they are pushing together like two scrums with no signs of one buckling and the referee is getting impatient for the ball to come out. And the different scrums are composed of friends of mine. I would like to not ditch one set of friends for another.”
Hmm, two different truths .. 2+2 makes 4, AND 2+2 makes 5 .. both true? Both acceptable? Requiring those in the math class to learn a new set of ‘truths?’ Peter, if you have friends in both scrums, as indeed I hope we all do, then what sort of friends are they that they don’t deserve to hear your particular version of the two truths? I suppose I must ask again, where exactly is the line you draw .. or is there not one at all?"
(2) "How would opting out line up with the religious exemption in the Human Rights Act? You could hardly argue that something is core to your belief if half of your fellow believers thought it was not."
(3) "I agree that living with difference is a model that can work for "disputable matters".
But why not apply this same logic to priests living in a de facto relationship? That is a widely accepted practice in today's society but it violates God's commandments to us in the same way as active homosexual relationships do.
Once you start down the road of "co-existence" or "living with difference" you need very clear guidelines about what is disputable and what is not.
To follow your analogy, are we still really a team if we're wearing the same jumper but every player plays according to their own set of rules?"
(4) "Obviously, choices in this life involve many possibilities, and some possibilities may clearly lack other and crucial qualities. The suggested "solution" in your post values expediency and a form of "peace" over principle and a struggle for revealed truth. I'll let you decide whether, in view of the following quotes, a possibility heavily-based on expediency is something you commend to any Christian denomination. My views is that any denomination that places a high value on expediency is due for reaping a deserved low respectability rating from the general populace together with a concomitant, nominal status the denomination will occupy in the life of that population.
"Enter by the narrow gate. Wide is the gate and broad the road that leads to destruction, and many enter that way; narrow is the gate and constricted the road that leads to life, and those who find them are few." Mt. 7:13 (REB). "'Make every effort to enter through the narrow door; for I tell you that many will try to enter but will not succeed.'" Lk. 13:24 (REB)"
(5) "Once the pass that "marriage is for life" was surrendered, the insistance on "one man, one woman" becomes clearly about attitudes to homosexuals more than about "retaining marriage as it was". The on-this-site oft-repeated "two wrongs don't make a right" sounds extremely hollow after many years now of nothing being done about the first "wrong". The plain reading of the Bible is much clearer about the first wrong than the second, and, casuistry notwithstanding, the issue is much deeper than agreeing, as is easily done, on a God-sourced anthropology. The integrity of Christianity is at stake when those who in NT-Jesus terms bless adultery and fornication of sequentially-monogamous heterosexuals, but vociferously condemn homosexuals seeking to express God's lifelong covenant in their relationship."
(6) "[After 2 points made] 3. Lastly, and vitally, given for the moment that the two stances as outlined in Motion 30, 1 (a) and (b), do have their respective “integrities”, and given a way forward can be found institutionally whereby these two might live ‘under one roof’ [both massive assumptions, I realise], nonetheless what integrity might this new entity itself possess?
Well; there we all have it ... And the outcome of such careful archaeological/genealogical work will, I suggest, only show how illogical and impossible it will be to keep these ‘good folk’ within one and the same house ... And thereafter history, especially eschatological history, will be the judge."
(7) "Peter, Mike has a point. This really is not for me to say, but do evangelicals need to repent of allowing an almost sacramental divorce. From a sola scriptura point of view, gay marriage is trivial if you allow heterosexual divorce."
I hope over coming days to offer some thoughts on each of these seven. I note that in the comments to the original post some replies are already given by others.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Spiritual and Sacred Links - Monday 25 May 2015
Supplied by a UK colleague ...
Here are some things which may be of interest: #1 Mike Pilavachi, Soul Survivor preacher on the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church; #2 Bishop Rennis Ponniah on the call to Christian service; #3 Stewart Ruch explains the charismatic understanding of prophesy; #4 Professor John Lennox on the compatability of Christianity and Science, but not Atheism; #8 and 9 Bellringing for Pentecost in Hull; #10 Ascension choral evensong from Lichfield; #13 I thought of apologising for or cutting some of the many links to persecution of Christians, but the reality is that it is accelerating, particularly in from Muslim and atheistic forces, so please pray for the many Christians under pressure across the world; #15 Thoughts on Pentecost, science and the fall out from the UK election.
Prayers for you for the coming week
SERMONS AND TALKS
1. Holy Spirit for the Local Church - Mike Pilavachi - St Albans Fulham Audio [Acts 2]
http://tinyurl.com/oktln6j
2. The Nature of Christian Service - Bishop Rennis Ponniah
http://tinyurl.com/qhcj6m8
3. Pentecost Sermon - Rev Steward Ruch - St Andrew's Cathedral Singapore Audio [1 Corinthians 13:13 and 14:1]
http://tinyurl.com/nwnnbq4
4. Cosmic Chemistry: Do Science and God Mix? John Lennox - Veritas Forum at U of Florida
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km0FGgbx42I
Commentary
5. Preaching Ideas and Commentary - Rev Peter Carrell
http://preachingdownunder.blogspot.co.nz/
6. The Sunday Readings - Rev Stephen Trott
https://laworgospel.wordpress.com/
7. The New Testament in a year with Rev Andrew Goddard
http://www.sjtl.org/category/reading-nt/
WORSHIP
8. The bells of Holy Trinity, Hull - BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vssqb
9. Sunday Worship from Holy Trinity, Hull - BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vssqn
10. Choral Evensong from Lichfield Cathedral - BBC Radio 3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vh9ps
11. Sunday Hour - BBC Radio 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vxlj5
12. Choral services from the chapels of King's College Cambridge
http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/choir/webcasts.html
and St John's College, Cambridge
http://www.sjcchoir.co.uk/webcasts
and Trinity College, Cambridge
http://trinitycollegechoir.com//webcasts/listen-again/
and New College, Oxford
http://www.newcollegechoir.com/webcasts.html
PRAYER
Please pray for the Church of England, Christians and all facing persecution and crime in Syria and Iraq, Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan and China; for those affected by the earthquakes in Nepal; for peace in Burundi, Ukraine, Israel and Gaza; and for the Diocese of South Carolina.
13. Topical Prayers - Church of England
http://tinyurl.com/6wnk2pk
Prayers for the Church of England from Lent and Beyond
http://tinyurl.com/mvux2u3
Nigeria: Christians killed as villages raided - Release International
http://tinyurl.com/ouzdebx
Four priests beaten to stupor as Enugu government battles Anglican Church - Daily Post Nigeria
http://tinyurl.com/orl29ha
Kenya: Al Shabaab attacks village in Kenya's Garissa - CT
http://tinyurl.com/qdcox7s
Sudan: Trial begins for Sudanese Clergymen - CSW
http://tinyurl.com/ocfu3k6
Iran :Eighteen Iranian Christian Converts Sentenced to a Total of 23 Years in Prison - ICNA
http://tinyurl.com/pzawf64
Pakistan:Pakistan charges 106 over deaths of Christian couple burnt in brick kiln - CT
http://tinyurl.com/nbd22m5
China:Chinese President warns religious groups against foreign influence - CT
http://tinyurl.com/plonmbg
South Carolina: Visit of Primate of South America
http://tinyurl.com/q6f5erh
Prayers from Lent and Beyond
http://tinyurl.com/kssn33y
CURRENT AFFAIRS
14. Sunday Programme - with Edward Stourton - BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vssqj
Food for thought
15. What is Pentecost? - Mark Woods
http://tinyurl.com/o33esx6
Why doesn't the Holy Spirit do anything to me? - Martin Saunders - CT
http://tinyurl.com/ntmxmsz
Seven Spirits of God: A Pentecost Exhortation - Peter J Leithart - First Things
http://tinyurl.com/nszpcqa
3 Reasons for Christians to Engage in Science - Ed Stetzer - Christianity Today
http://tinyurl.com/pgfosp9
The time bomb in the church's midst... and how to defuse it - Martin Saunders - CT
http://tinyurl.com/qek5twg
The 2015 General Election: Religious Affiliation and Party Vote Share Across Constituencies - BRIN
http://tinyurl.com/pxfymrk
CofE celebrates key Christian appointments in Parliament - Ruth Gledhill - CT
http://tinyurl.com/or2k9fd
FINALLY
16. Alpha International Lookback 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3uxlJJGsw
17. O thou who camest from above - Stopford - Ecclesium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAdWe67BajU
18. Spirit Fall - New Wine Worship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdioQL3HWLM
19. Praise the Lord with Drums and Cymbals - St. Olaf Handbell Choir [Psalm 150]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwrshiYDn0M
Here are some things which may be of interest: #1 Mike Pilavachi, Soul Survivor preacher on the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church; #2 Bishop Rennis Ponniah on the call to Christian service; #3 Stewart Ruch explains the charismatic understanding of prophesy; #4 Professor John Lennox on the compatability of Christianity and Science, but not Atheism; #8 and 9 Bellringing for Pentecost in Hull; #10 Ascension choral evensong from Lichfield; #13 I thought of apologising for or cutting some of the many links to persecution of Christians, but the reality is that it is accelerating, particularly in from Muslim and atheistic forces, so please pray for the many Christians under pressure across the world; #15 Thoughts on Pentecost, science and the fall out from the UK election.
Prayers for you for the coming week
SERMONS AND TALKS
1. Holy Spirit for the Local Church - Mike Pilavachi - St Albans Fulham Audio [Acts 2]
http://tinyurl.com/oktln6j
2. The Nature of Christian Service - Bishop Rennis Ponniah
http://tinyurl.com/qhcj6m8
3. Pentecost Sermon - Rev Steward Ruch - St Andrew's Cathedral Singapore Audio [1 Corinthians 13:13 and 14:1]
http://tinyurl.com/nwnnbq4
4. Cosmic Chemistry: Do Science and God Mix? John Lennox - Veritas Forum at U of Florida
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km0FGgbx42I
Commentary
5. Preaching Ideas and Commentary - Rev Peter Carrell
http://preachingdownunder.blogspot.co.nz/
6. The Sunday Readings - Rev Stephen Trott
https://laworgospel.wordpress.com/
7. The New Testament in a year with Rev Andrew Goddard
http://www.sjtl.org/category/reading-nt/
WORSHIP
8. The bells of Holy Trinity, Hull - BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vssqb
9. Sunday Worship from Holy Trinity, Hull - BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vssqn
10. Choral Evensong from Lichfield Cathedral - BBC Radio 3
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vh9ps
11. Sunday Hour - BBC Radio 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vxlj5
12. Choral services from the chapels of King's College Cambridge
http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/choir/webcasts.html
and St John's College, Cambridge
http://www.sjcchoir.co.uk/webcasts
and Trinity College, Cambridge
http://trinitycollegechoir.com//webcasts/listen-again/
and New College, Oxford
http://www.newcollegechoir.com/webcasts.html
PRAYER
Please pray for the Church of England, Christians and all facing persecution and crime in Syria and Iraq, Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan and China; for those affected by the earthquakes in Nepal; for peace in Burundi, Ukraine, Israel and Gaza; and for the Diocese of South Carolina.
13. Topical Prayers - Church of England
http://tinyurl.com/6wnk2pk
Prayers for the Church of England from Lent and Beyond
http://tinyurl.com/mvux2u3
Nigeria: Christians killed as villages raided - Release International
http://tinyurl.com/ouzdebx
Four priests beaten to stupor as Enugu government battles Anglican Church - Daily Post Nigeria
http://tinyurl.com/orl29ha
Kenya: Al Shabaab attacks village in Kenya's Garissa - CT
http://tinyurl.com/qdcox7s
Sudan: Trial begins for Sudanese Clergymen - CSW
http://tinyurl.com/ocfu3k6
Iran :Eighteen Iranian Christian Converts Sentenced to a Total of 23 Years in Prison - ICNA
http://tinyurl.com/pzawf64
Pakistan:Pakistan charges 106 over deaths of Christian couple burnt in brick kiln - CT
http://tinyurl.com/nbd22m5
China:Chinese President warns religious groups against foreign influence - CT
http://tinyurl.com/plonmbg
South Carolina: Visit of Primate of South America
http://tinyurl.com/q6f5erh
Prayers from Lent and Beyond
http://tinyurl.com/kssn33y
CURRENT AFFAIRS
14. Sunday Programme - with Edward Stourton - BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vssqj
Food for thought
15. What is Pentecost? - Mark Woods
http://tinyurl.com/o33esx6
Why doesn't the Holy Spirit do anything to me? - Martin Saunders - CT
http://tinyurl.com/ntmxmsz
Seven Spirits of God: A Pentecost Exhortation - Peter J Leithart - First Things
http://tinyurl.com/nszpcqa
3 Reasons for Christians to Engage in Science - Ed Stetzer - Christianity Today
http://tinyurl.com/pgfosp9
The time bomb in the church's midst... and how to defuse it - Martin Saunders - CT
http://tinyurl.com/qek5twg
The 2015 General Election: Religious Affiliation and Party Vote Share Across Constituencies - BRIN
http://tinyurl.com/pxfymrk
CofE celebrates key Christian appointments in Parliament - Ruth Gledhill - CT
http://tinyurl.com/or2k9fd
FINALLY
16. Alpha International Lookback 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3uxlJJGsw
17. O thou who camest from above - Stopford - Ecclesium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAdWe67BajU
18. Spirit Fall - New Wine Worship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdioQL3HWLM
19. Praise the Lord with Drums and Cymbals - St. Olaf Handbell Choir [Psalm 150]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwrshiYDn0M
Friday, May 22, 2015
During interlude let's pop over to the States (updated: and to Ireland)
Sorry but my schedule is terrifically intense and dangerously deadlined re a major funding application. So my reply to questions to the post below is postponed until ... I have some spare time. After the deadline?
In the meantime life and Anglican debates go on, so why not pop over to the States, or stay there if you are already there?
The Living Church has a useful lead in article with links to unfolding discussion and debate as TEC's General Convention looms into view and thus the imminence of proposed change to TEC marriage canons is well, imminent. Tobias Haller's blog features among the links.
UPDATE: Tim Stanley, reflecting on the just announced (as I write) news that Ireland has overwhelmingly voted in a referendum for same sex marriage to be legalised, offers this:
"Why were the forces behind Yes so overwhelming?
Well, it could just be that the case for gay marriage is so strong – that the siren call of equality was irresistible.
It could also be that the No side’s arguments were out of touch with how the West now views not only gay rights but the institution of marriage itself.
No campaigners kept on talking about the importance of parenthood – as though marriage was still a legal contract entered into with the express purpose or hope of raising children. But this traditional understanding of marriage has long since passed away. It’s about love, children are not necessarily a priority, and religion is window dressing.
Given this tectonic shift in attitudes towards marriage, it’s going to be harder and harder to insist that it be limited to just a man and a woman – or even just to two people."
Stanley, incidentally, in my experience of his writings is a deeply sympathetic Catholic, so his words above are not his personal criticism of the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage. Rather he is attempting to capture the Zeitgeist of Ireland.
I reckon he captures the Zeitgeist sweeping the whole Western world!
The [Anglican] Church of Ireland has posted a response to the referendum here.
In the meantime life and Anglican debates go on, so why not pop over to the States, or stay there if you are already there?
The Living Church has a useful lead in article with links to unfolding discussion and debate as TEC's General Convention looms into view and thus the imminence of proposed change to TEC marriage canons is well, imminent. Tobias Haller's blog features among the links.
UPDATE: Tim Stanley, reflecting on the just announced (as I write) news that Ireland has overwhelmingly voted in a referendum for same sex marriage to be legalised, offers this:
"Why were the forces behind Yes so overwhelming?
Well, it could just be that the case for gay marriage is so strong – that the siren call of equality was irresistible.
It could also be that the No side’s arguments were out of touch with how the West now views not only gay rights but the institution of marriage itself.
No campaigners kept on talking about the importance of parenthood – as though marriage was still a legal contract entered into with the express purpose or hope of raising children. But this traditional understanding of marriage has long since passed away. It’s about love, children are not necessarily a priority, and religion is window dressing.
Given this tectonic shift in attitudes towards marriage, it’s going to be harder and harder to insist that it be limited to just a man and a woman – or even just to two people."
Stanley, incidentally, in my experience of his writings is a deeply sympathetic Catholic, so his words above are not his personal criticism of the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage. Rather he is attempting to capture the Zeitgeist of Ireland.
I reckon he captures the Zeitgeist sweeping the whole Western world!
The [Anglican] Church of Ireland has posted a response to the referendum here.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Are the Scots showing the English the 'way forward'?
The clock is running down for Western churches. It is certainly running down for ACANZP. Less than one year to go now till our next General Synod.
What are we going to do about same sex partnerships, including same sex marriages now made possible by civic authorities in some countries?
I suggest the solution showing signs of emerging is one in which we agree to live with our (severe) disagreement and diversity on the matter. When no side is budging there is an option which is not schism. That option is living with difference.
It is not rocket science to see that the CofE is heading that way (analogous to how it is holding itself together over women bishops).
Now the Church of Scotland has charted this way forward with a 309 to 183 vote:
"A spokesman for the Church of Scotland said that the current stance meant that the Church had adopted a position which "maintains a traditional view of marriage between a man and woman, but allows individual congregations to 'opt out' if they wish to appoint a minister or a deacon in a same sex civil partnership."
The Telegraph reports that the Scottish think this might be a way forward for the English,
"The Very Rev David Arnott, who coordinates the General Assembly’s business, said that although the Presbyterian structure of the Church of Scotland is different from that of Anglican churches, he hoped the plan could offer a “template” for the Church of England to consider.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme: “We are not going to change people’s minds, we have to come to a way of living together with our differences and living with our diversity and I hope that we’re able to do that.”"
Could ACANZP do something like that?
Oh, you might say, but we need to press for the 'truth' to win. I agree but I find there are two different versions of what is 'true' about same sex marriage and they are pushing together like two scrums with no signs of one buckling and the referee is getting impatient for the ball to come out.
And the different scrums are composed of friends of mine. I would like to not ditch one set of friends for another.
Reading about the current moment in the CofE approach, concerning facilitated conversations, I note these two reports, by Jeremy Pemberton and Richard Coles.
I don't imagine that a similar conversation in our church would yield a different set of reports from two blokes committed to changing the status quo. They are not going to buckle. The conservatives who took part in the conversation are not buckling. We can be sure the conservatives who did not turn up are not buckling either.
But here is the thing: everyone wants to remain in the Anglican church.
Both scrums want to remain on the same field playing rugby union. No one wants to opt for rugby league!
I do not see how we are going to remain in the one church unless we can find a way forward something like the Scottish proposal for the Presbyterians.
It wouldn't take that much humility for Anglicans to learn something from Presbyterians. Would it?
What are we going to do about same sex partnerships, including same sex marriages now made possible by civic authorities in some countries?
I suggest the solution showing signs of emerging is one in which we agree to live with our (severe) disagreement and diversity on the matter. When no side is budging there is an option which is not schism. That option is living with difference.
It is not rocket science to see that the CofE is heading that way (analogous to how it is holding itself together over women bishops).
Now the Church of Scotland has charted this way forward with a 309 to 183 vote:
"A spokesman for the Church of Scotland said that the current stance meant that the Church had adopted a position which "maintains a traditional view of marriage between a man and woman, but allows individual congregations to 'opt out' if they wish to appoint a minister or a deacon in a same sex civil partnership."
The Telegraph reports that the Scottish think this might be a way forward for the English,
"The Very Rev David Arnott, who coordinates the General Assembly’s business, said that although the Presbyterian structure of the Church of Scotland is different from that of Anglican churches, he hoped the plan could offer a “template” for the Church of England to consider.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme: “We are not going to change people’s minds, we have to come to a way of living together with our differences and living with our diversity and I hope that we’re able to do that.”"
Could ACANZP do something like that?
Oh, you might say, but we need to press for the 'truth' to win. I agree but I find there are two different versions of what is 'true' about same sex marriage and they are pushing together like two scrums with no signs of one buckling and the referee is getting impatient for the ball to come out.
And the different scrums are composed of friends of mine. I would like to not ditch one set of friends for another.
Reading about the current moment in the CofE approach, concerning facilitated conversations, I note these two reports, by Jeremy Pemberton and Richard Coles.
I don't imagine that a similar conversation in our church would yield a different set of reports from two blokes committed to changing the status quo. They are not going to buckle. The conservatives who took part in the conversation are not buckling. We can be sure the conservatives who did not turn up are not buckling either.
But here is the thing: everyone wants to remain in the Anglican church.
Both scrums want to remain on the same field playing rugby union. No one wants to opt for rugby league!
I do not see how we are going to remain in the one church unless we can find a way forward something like the Scottish proposal for the Presbyterians.
It wouldn't take that much humility for Anglicans to learn something from Presbyterians. Would it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)