Jonathan Porritt is a well-known British environmentalist. Naturally he appears on Anglican Down Under because his great-grandfather was once Vicar of Kaikoura in our Diocese!! But every blog site in the world should be concerned about the world and its future health. Posting in the Guardian Jonathan Porritt makes these observations in respect of a major conference coming up at Poznan:
"And that's the problem. A lot has been going on out there in the natural world since 2005. There is three years' worth of published peer-reviewed evidence, a lot of it from the frontline of the eco-systems most directly affected by climate change. Those whose job it is to take account of all that new evidence (universities, thinktanks, government departments and so on) have a common message to pass on: the vast majority of those studies tell us incontrovertibly that the impact of climate change is more severe and materialising much more rapidly than anything reflected in the fourth assessment report. It's much worse out there, and it's getting even worse even faster.
This presents a paradoxical challenge for national delegations in Poznan. Even if they wanted to draw on that new evidence base to justify more progressive policy positions, they would technically be out of order.
This is particularly surreal in terms of all the evidence coming in from the Arctic, which has seen a 4°C rise in average temperatures over the past few decades. Arctic sea ice reached an all-time low in 2007, the Greenland ice cap is undergoing accelerated melting, and there are growing worries about the melting of the Siberian permafrost, which has the potential to release huge volumes of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
It's this kind of evidence that has persuaded Nick Stern that his own 2006 report on the economics of climate change got it wrong ("We underestimated the damage associated with temperature increases, and we underestimated the probability of temperature increases"), and has led Jim Hansen, the US's pre-eminent climatologist, to warn that the current target for stabilisation of CO2 at 450 parts per million in the atmosphere is woefully inadequate. There is a growing school of thought that 350ppm represents a far more realistic safe upper limit - which is more than a little problematic, given that the concentration is already 384ppm."
One does not need to be an expert in climate change to understand the implications.
World, panic, NOW!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Still haven't found what I am looking for
I am open to a good biblical and theological argument in support of the blessing of same sex partnerships, and in support of naming such partnerships as 'marriages'. I have yet to find such an argument. I certainly do not find it in the cover story of Newsweek this week where Lisa Miller proffers a religious argument in favour of gay marriage - the background story being the recent decision of the people of California to reject a decision of the judiciary of California to legalise gay marriage. (I appreciate, by the way, the wisdom of our NZ parliament a few years ago when legislating for gay and lesbian partnerships: it provided for 'civil unions' and distinguished these from 'marriages')
I mention this in part because I find Lisa Miller's method of argument quite unpersuasive. She parodies the Bible on marriage, mocking its ability to prescribe for 'modern' marriage by citing the usual suspects of polygamy, wives treated as submissive chattels, and Pauline reluctance to endorse marriage save as a remedy for lust. Of Jesus at the wedding at Cana, the high view of marriage in association with Christ's relationship to the church in Ephesians 5, and the high view of marriage in Jesus' teaching against divorce you will not find a mention in Miller's apparition of an argument. If Lisa Miller (and Newsweek) wishes to persuade the conservative Christian community to think again on homosexuality then a better starting point would be respect for the Bible on marriage rather than mocking it. As it is her argument is effectively a chorus line for the already converted.
In another part of the article Miller takes a tack which I also find unpersuasive, notwithstanding the fact that it is almost endlessly replicated by those attacking the Bible on homosexuality: an attempt is made to undermine the significance of the key Levitical text (18:22) by contrasting it with various other Levitical prohibitions which today look weird and wacky. What Miller and many others do not do is to consider carefully the distinction the church has made ever since Jesus between 'moral' and 'ceremonial' and 'civil' laws in Leviticus, which helps locate Leviticus 18:22 among the 'moral' laws and constrain appropriate comparison to other moral laws, rather than to seemingly weird and wacky, or just plain redundant prescriptions around ceremonial or civil matters. Nor does the tack she takes consider Leviticus 18:22 in the important context of Leviticus 18 itself - a chapter with a list of rules regarding sexual behaviour most if not all of which are honoured to this day in nearly all, indeed if not all societies around the world. (For those with a Bible not handy the rules include prohibition of incest and bestiality - generally illegal, and of adultery - generally not illegal but still regarded as immoral).*
I am open to the possibility that Leviticus 18:22 is accepted by the church as no longer applicable to society today. But the arguments which will persuade me (let alone the whole of the universal church) will need to be of a different calibre to what Miller offers.
*I make this observation not to imply that a loving sexual act between two consenting adults is directly comparable to bestiality (to ward off an obvious protest which might be made about my post) but simply to make the point that Leviticus 18 offers a comprehensive ethic for human sexuality which has relevance to modern society in a manner unsurprising to those who have actually read the whole of the chapter but surprising to those who read articles which imply (however inadvertently) that the Levitical prohibition on homosexual sexual acts is sandwiched between rules forbidding the eating of shellfish and the cooking of milk and meat together and prescribing how slaves and wives are to be bought and sold.
I mention this in part because I find Lisa Miller's method of argument quite unpersuasive. She parodies the Bible on marriage, mocking its ability to prescribe for 'modern' marriage by citing the usual suspects of polygamy, wives treated as submissive chattels, and Pauline reluctance to endorse marriage save as a remedy for lust. Of Jesus at the wedding at Cana, the high view of marriage in association with Christ's relationship to the church in Ephesians 5, and the high view of marriage in Jesus' teaching against divorce you will not find a mention in Miller's apparition of an argument. If Lisa Miller (and Newsweek) wishes to persuade the conservative Christian community to think again on homosexuality then a better starting point would be respect for the Bible on marriage rather than mocking it. As it is her argument is effectively a chorus line for the already converted.
In another part of the article Miller takes a tack which I also find unpersuasive, notwithstanding the fact that it is almost endlessly replicated by those attacking the Bible on homosexuality: an attempt is made to undermine the significance of the key Levitical text (18:22) by contrasting it with various other Levitical prohibitions which today look weird and wacky. What Miller and many others do not do is to consider carefully the distinction the church has made ever since Jesus between 'moral' and 'ceremonial' and 'civil' laws in Leviticus, which helps locate Leviticus 18:22 among the 'moral' laws and constrain appropriate comparison to other moral laws, rather than to seemingly weird and wacky, or just plain redundant prescriptions around ceremonial or civil matters. Nor does the tack she takes consider Leviticus 18:22 in the important context of Leviticus 18 itself - a chapter with a list of rules regarding sexual behaviour most if not all of which are honoured to this day in nearly all, indeed if not all societies around the world. (For those with a Bible not handy the rules include prohibition of incest and bestiality - generally illegal, and of adultery - generally not illegal but still regarded as immoral).*
I am open to the possibility that Leviticus 18:22 is accepted by the church as no longer applicable to society today. But the arguments which will persuade me (let alone the whole of the universal church) will need to be of a different calibre to what Miller offers.
*I make this observation not to imply that a loving sexual act between two consenting adults is directly comparable to bestiality (to ward off an obvious protest which might be made about my post) but simply to make the point that Leviticus 18 offers a comprehensive ethic for human sexuality which has relevance to modern society in a manner unsurprising to those who have actually read the whole of the chapter but surprising to those who read articles which imply (however inadvertently) that the Levitical prohibition on homosexual sexual acts is sandwiched between rules forbidding the eating of shellfish and the cooking of milk and meat together and prescribing how slaves and wives are to be bought and sold.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
1 Timothy 2:12 does not prohibit women teaching men
Philip Payne in an article published in New Testament Studies in April 2008* tackles the technical question of whether the negative used by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12 implies one or two prohibitions in the verse. This is his conclusion:
"Consequently this oude construction makes best sense as a single prohibition of women teaching with self-assumed authority over a man.
This understanding fits the text and its context lexically, syntactically, grammatically, stylistically, and theologically. This single specific restriction perfectly fits the danger of false teaching by women in Ephesus. It does not contradict Paul's and the Pastoral Epistles' affirmations of women teaching nor does it prohibit women such as Priscilla (who instructed Apollos in Ephesus according to Acts 18:24-8 and later was evidently still in Ephesus) from teaching men, as long as their authority is properly delegated, not self-assumed. It simply prohibits women from assuming for themselves authority to teach men."
Exactly!
(* 1 Tim 2.12 and the use of oude to combine two elements to express a single idea, NTS 54 (2008) pp. 235-253 - Hat-tip to Evangelical Textual Criticism).
"Consequently this oude construction makes best sense as a single prohibition of women teaching with self-assumed authority over a man.
This understanding fits the text and its context lexically, syntactically, grammatically, stylistically, and theologically. This single specific restriction perfectly fits the danger of false teaching by women in Ephesus. It does not contradict Paul's and the Pastoral Epistles' affirmations of women teaching nor does it prohibit women such as Priscilla (who instructed Apollos in Ephesus according to Acts 18:24-8 and later was evidently still in Ephesus) from teaching men, as long as their authority is properly delegated, not self-assumed. It simply prohibits women from assuming for themselves authority to teach men."
Exactly!
(* 1 Tim 2.12 and the use of oude to combine two elements to express a single idea, NTS 54 (2008) pp. 235-253 - Hat-tip to Evangelical Textual Criticism).
Monday, December 8, 2008
The heart of Romans: justification by faith
The other day a colleague proffered the view that ‘justification by faith’ is not the heart of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. That and an opportunity to read a paper on some related matters got me thinking about the so-called “New Perspective” on Paul. In this new perspective - as I understand it – Paul’s gospel message is primarily that Gentiles as well as Jews are saved. Theologically this involved Paul arguing with Jewish Christians reluctant to fully accept Gentile Christians that the works of the law cannot save them, only faith (see especially Romans, Galatians). Exegetically the new perspective proposes that ‘works of the law’ mostly mean ‘badges of Jewish identity’ such as circumcision, and that ‘faith’ primarily means ‘the faith, or faithfulness of Jesus Christ’ rather than ‘(my personal, individual decision to have) faith in Jesus Christ’. In this perspective the gospel message is not understood - pace Luther and the Reformation - as primarily a message of salvation from sin, where sin includes attempts to please God through obedience to the law of Moses, and salvation is accessible through faith in Jesus Christ. In a phrase, justification by faith is no longer the heart of Romans. A possible alternative phrasing of the heart of Romans would be: God’s grace extends to the Gentiles.
There are some strengths to the New Perspective which I appreciate: it makes good sense of Romans 9-11, for example, as a reassurance to Jews that God has extended his grace, not transferred his grace to the Gentiles. Arguably this is better than the Lutheran approach to Romans in which chapters 9-11 seem at best an appendix and at worst a backtracking on Paul’s part from his main thesis of ‘justification by faith’.
But my reflections this past week have been against rather than for the New Perspective. Now I think there is an exegetical case against the New Perspective, especially through (a) reading Romans 1-3 slowly and seeing the problem stated to which ‘justification by faith’ is the solution; the problem being every person’s rebellion against God (‘sin’) and not over confident Jewish identity; and (b) reading Romans and Galatians in the context of the Old Testament, including passages such as the Old Testament reading for yesterday, Isaiah 40:1-11, where sin is disobedience to the detail of the law and not just the badge of identity stuff! But my recent reflections have flowed from two fascinating books I have been reading: Richard Swinburne’s Was Jesus God? and Andrew Shanks’ Against Innocence: Gillian Rose’s Reception and Gift of Faith [the late Gillian Rose was a leading British philosopher who was baptised a Christian on her deathbed – Andrew Shanks explains her ‘dense’ writing for lesser mortals]. Each of these books makes the philosophic case for Christianity, and it’s from that perspective that I see weakness in the New Perspective.
From a philosophic perspective the point of Christianity is that it offers a unique interpretation of life. Gillian Rose, for example, though a Jew, converted to Christianity because she understood that it told the truth about life in the way that neither Judaism nor … anything else did. I suggest that uniqueness is the resolution of the problem created by sin – that is the problem of broken relationship between God and humanity, between humans, and within each human being. In no other faith or philosophy does God take up human life in order to mend the brokenness of sin, nor is God wounded and killed in those other ways in order that we might be healed and live. The weakness of the New Perspective is that, intentionally or unintentionally, it casts the problem of humanity in a narrow framework of racial division. But the problem of humanity is much bigger than that, and is foremost a problem of division between God and humanity. This division needs more than the mere faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a wonderful example to overcome it: it requires a propitiatory and/or expiatory act (Romans 3:25 – translations use both ‘–iatory’ words).
Without this act of atonement has Christianity anything to offer not already available in Judaism, or later available in Islam? Without such an act of atonement has any religion a plausible solution to human sin not also available to morally well-intentioned atheists? The New Perspective rightly corrects a number of imbalances in our understanding of ancient Judaism, and challenges some presumptive prejudices in Christian thinking about modern Judaism. But pressed too far the New Perspective has potential to constrain Jesus and his interpreter Paul to a gospel which is indistinct from Judaism, with the later distinctiveness between Judaism and Christianity itself a resort to racial stereotype: Jews and Gentiles do not mix!
So, I think that ‘justification by faith’ (Romans 5) is indeed the heart of Romans. For each human to be included in the family of God there needs first to be a justification by God, declaring us to be righteous. Our response to this can be refusal. Or it can be acceptance (i.e. ‘faith’).
This approach is, naturally, very Anglican for we understand the importance of personal faith only too well: without faith in each participant at the eucharist there is no real presence of Christ. The ‘faith of Christ’ is not all that matters: ‘feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving’.
There are some strengths to the New Perspective which I appreciate: it makes good sense of Romans 9-11, for example, as a reassurance to Jews that God has extended his grace, not transferred his grace to the Gentiles. Arguably this is better than the Lutheran approach to Romans in which chapters 9-11 seem at best an appendix and at worst a backtracking on Paul’s part from his main thesis of ‘justification by faith’.
But my reflections this past week have been against rather than for the New Perspective. Now I think there is an exegetical case against the New Perspective, especially through (a) reading Romans 1-3 slowly and seeing the problem stated to which ‘justification by faith’ is the solution; the problem being every person’s rebellion against God (‘sin’) and not over confident Jewish identity; and (b) reading Romans and Galatians in the context of the Old Testament, including passages such as the Old Testament reading for yesterday, Isaiah 40:1-11, where sin is disobedience to the detail of the law and not just the badge of identity stuff! But my recent reflections have flowed from two fascinating books I have been reading: Richard Swinburne’s Was Jesus God? and Andrew Shanks’ Against Innocence: Gillian Rose’s Reception and Gift of Faith [the late Gillian Rose was a leading British philosopher who was baptised a Christian on her deathbed – Andrew Shanks explains her ‘dense’ writing for lesser mortals]. Each of these books makes the philosophic case for Christianity, and it’s from that perspective that I see weakness in the New Perspective.
From a philosophic perspective the point of Christianity is that it offers a unique interpretation of life. Gillian Rose, for example, though a Jew, converted to Christianity because she understood that it told the truth about life in the way that neither Judaism nor … anything else did. I suggest that uniqueness is the resolution of the problem created by sin – that is the problem of broken relationship between God and humanity, between humans, and within each human being. In no other faith or philosophy does God take up human life in order to mend the brokenness of sin, nor is God wounded and killed in those other ways in order that we might be healed and live. The weakness of the New Perspective is that, intentionally or unintentionally, it casts the problem of humanity in a narrow framework of racial division. But the problem of humanity is much bigger than that, and is foremost a problem of division between God and humanity. This division needs more than the mere faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a wonderful example to overcome it: it requires a propitiatory and/or expiatory act (Romans 3:25 – translations use both ‘–iatory’ words).
Without this act of atonement has Christianity anything to offer not already available in Judaism, or later available in Islam? Without such an act of atonement has any religion a plausible solution to human sin not also available to morally well-intentioned atheists? The New Perspective rightly corrects a number of imbalances in our understanding of ancient Judaism, and challenges some presumptive prejudices in Christian thinking about modern Judaism. But pressed too far the New Perspective has potential to constrain Jesus and his interpreter Paul to a gospel which is indistinct from Judaism, with the later distinctiveness between Judaism and Christianity itself a resort to racial stereotype: Jews and Gentiles do not mix!
So, I think that ‘justification by faith’ (Romans 5) is indeed the heart of Romans. For each human to be included in the family of God there needs first to be a justification by God, declaring us to be righteous. Our response to this can be refusal. Or it can be acceptance (i.e. ‘faith’).
This approach is, naturally, very Anglican for we understand the importance of personal faith only too well: without faith in each participant at the eucharist there is no real presence of Christ. The ‘faith of Christ’ is not all that matters: ‘feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving’.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Advent of the New Anglican Province
The announcements have been made. So have initial responses. (Check out, e.g. Titus One Nine for posts, and many comments from supporters and detractors). Much of the story of the new Anglican province for North America lies in the future. Two important questions to be answered in the future are these:
(i) numbers matter: will the province grow significantly beyond its estimated 100 000 members? AND will TEC continue its estimated decline of a 1000 members a week from an estimated 2.4 million members?
If TEC stops haemorrhaging and the new province does not significantly grow TEC 'wins', but if TEC continues to decline and the new province grows, then one day the latter's aim to replace TEC will be achieved.
(ii) how will this body which has honestly declared itself to be an ecclesial community of many prayer books, ordination policies, and approaches to orthodoxy (i.e. Anglo-Catholic, evangelical, charismatic) resolve internal disagreement?
Obviously there is huge goodwill at present, and a remarkable unity of purpose given some previous disunity between 'non-TEC' Anglican groupings in North America. But in 2028 or 2048 will the same goodwill exist?
My humble suggestion is that significant theological, structural and constitutional work within the new province begins now in order to meet the inevitable challenges of the future.
(i) numbers matter: will the province grow significantly beyond its estimated 100 000 members? AND will TEC continue its estimated decline of a 1000 members a week from an estimated 2.4 million members?
If TEC stops haemorrhaging and the new province does not significantly grow TEC 'wins', but if TEC continues to decline and the new province grows, then one day the latter's aim to replace TEC will be achieved.
(ii) how will this body which has honestly declared itself to be an ecclesial community of many prayer books, ordination policies, and approaches to orthodoxy (i.e. Anglo-Catholic, evangelical, charismatic) resolve internal disagreement?
Obviously there is huge goodwill at present, and a remarkable unity of purpose given some previous disunity between 'non-TEC' Anglican groupings in North America. But in 2028 or 2048 will the same goodwill exist?
My humble suggestion is that significant theological, structural and constitutional work within the new province begins now in order to meet the inevitable challenges of the future.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
New Anglican Province
Am going to be away from my online connection for the next few days when meetings in Chicago announce the new North American province and then the GAFCON Primates meet with the ABC in Lambeth (presumably to ask the ABC to recognise the new province).
I am intrigued by the thought of a new province based on 'theology'. Ostensibly this gladdens the heart of an Anglican evangelical. But in an Anglican setting the question has to be asked, 'what theology?' and 'who rules over this theology?' Theology always involves difference of view - including in the New Testament itself. Theology requires judgement: is this theology acceptable? compatible with that theology? able to co-exist alongside another theology? The role of the church is to make that judgement. The question for any ecclesial body is who makes that judgement and how? I am simply unclear how the new province will proceed as a 'theological' province.
I am aghast at a comment reported from one of the new province leaders along the lines of 'if the ABC recognises us he will incur the wrath of TEC; if he does not recognise us he will incur the wrath of others'. What kind of language is this to use of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Why is he envisaged as being constrained to one and only one binary choice?
I am watching TEC closely, particularly through Mark Harris' Preludium blog (accessible off the sidebar here). It seems to me very clear that TEC is taking a hardline stance: good-bye not au revoir to the dioceses and parishes seceding from it; and, looking forward to General Convention 2009 when we can cement a few things in place (e.g. clarification of the role of the Presiding Bishop; commitment to GLBT matters). Ironically one of my questions re 'theology' as the foundation of an Anglican church is whether TEC is 'anti-theological' relative to the new province's 'theological' approach. (See note below).
Advice for the ABC: either recognise the new province alongside TEC and ACCan or suspend recognition of all North American Anglican/Episcopal churches until after GC 2009!!
PS Mark Harris is very observant and makes the point - to be noted by those who think the ABC should just recognise the new province and be done with it - that the new province incorporates an amalgam of Anglican entities and episcopal figures not all of which and whom are as well 'ordered' as others!
TEC's 'anti-theological' approach:
Here is a motion to the forthcoming convention of the Diocese of Los Angeles looking ahead to the General Convention (Hat-tip to Titus One Nine):
"Resolution regarding the 2006 General Convention Resolution B033
Resolved, that the One Hundred Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles call upon the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church to abide by the canons of The Episcopal Church; to respect the responsibility of each diocese to discern prayerfully the will of God in calling leaders; to refrain from restricting the potential field of candidates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation; and thus to retract General Convention 2006 Resolution B033.
Submitted by: Mr. Jim White
Chair, Diocesan Deputation to General Convention
All Saints’ Church, Pasadena
Explanation
In 2006 the 75th General Convention concurred in the adoption of Resolution B033, which “call[ed] upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” The language of the resolution was widely understood to refer to gay and lesbian persons with same sex domestic partners. Several considerations compel the retraction of General Convention 2006 Resolution B033:
1. In modeling Jesus Christ, as a Church and as Christians, we do not discriminate. “God is not one to show partiality.” (Acts 10:34-35) The gifts for ministry are given by God’s grace to all members of Christ’s body. (Romans 12:4-8, Ephesians: 4:4-16).
2. Because we are baptized in Christ, our gifts are the result of God’s grace given to us as members of Christ’s body, independent of other distinctions.
3. The Canons of General Convention (Title III, Canon 1, Section 2) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation: “No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons.” General Convention 2006 Resolution B033, if interpreted to mean that a person living in a same-sex partnership should be excluded from consecration, stands in conflict with Title III, Canon 1, Section 2."
The 'anti-theology' here is the appeal to egregious error ("In modeling Jesus Christ, as a Church and as Christians, we do not discriminate" - yet Jesus discriminated, e.g. between disciples and would-be disciples, between those who believed in him and those who did not, between 'the Twelve' and the larger group of disciples); the absence of engagement with the possibility that holiness of life might also be determinative alongside consideration of 'gifts'; and the appeal to law (the Canons of General Convention) ahead of appeal to the whole of Scripture).
I am intrigued by the thought of a new province based on 'theology'. Ostensibly this gladdens the heart of an Anglican evangelical. But in an Anglican setting the question has to be asked, 'what theology?' and 'who rules over this theology?' Theology always involves difference of view - including in the New Testament itself. Theology requires judgement: is this theology acceptable? compatible with that theology? able to co-exist alongside another theology? The role of the church is to make that judgement. The question for any ecclesial body is who makes that judgement and how? I am simply unclear how the new province will proceed as a 'theological' province.
I am aghast at a comment reported from one of the new province leaders along the lines of 'if the ABC recognises us he will incur the wrath of TEC; if he does not recognise us he will incur the wrath of others'. What kind of language is this to use of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Why is he envisaged as being constrained to one and only one binary choice?
I am watching TEC closely, particularly through Mark Harris' Preludium blog (accessible off the sidebar here). It seems to me very clear that TEC is taking a hardline stance: good-bye not au revoir to the dioceses and parishes seceding from it; and, looking forward to General Convention 2009 when we can cement a few things in place (e.g. clarification of the role of the Presiding Bishop; commitment to GLBT matters). Ironically one of my questions re 'theology' as the foundation of an Anglican church is whether TEC is 'anti-theological' relative to the new province's 'theological' approach. (See note below).
Advice for the ABC: either recognise the new province alongside TEC and ACCan or suspend recognition of all North American Anglican/Episcopal churches until after GC 2009!!
PS Mark Harris is very observant and makes the point - to be noted by those who think the ABC should just recognise the new province and be done with it - that the new province incorporates an amalgam of Anglican entities and episcopal figures not all of which and whom are as well 'ordered' as others!
TEC's 'anti-theological' approach:
Here is a motion to the forthcoming convention of the Diocese of Los Angeles looking ahead to the General Convention (Hat-tip to Titus One Nine):
"Resolution regarding the 2006 General Convention Resolution B033
Resolved, that the One Hundred Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles call upon the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church to abide by the canons of The Episcopal Church; to respect the responsibility of each diocese to discern prayerfully the will of God in calling leaders; to refrain from restricting the potential field of candidates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation; and thus to retract General Convention 2006 Resolution B033.
Submitted by: Mr. Jim White
Chair, Diocesan Deputation to General Convention
All Saints’ Church, Pasadena
Explanation
In 2006 the 75th General Convention concurred in the adoption of Resolution B033, which “call[ed] upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” The language of the resolution was widely understood to refer to gay and lesbian persons with same sex domestic partners. Several considerations compel the retraction of General Convention 2006 Resolution B033:
1. In modeling Jesus Christ, as a Church and as Christians, we do not discriminate. “God is not one to show partiality.” (Acts 10:34-35) The gifts for ministry are given by God’s grace to all members of Christ’s body. (Romans 12:4-8, Ephesians: 4:4-16).
2. Because we are baptized in Christ, our gifts are the result of God’s grace given to us as members of Christ’s body, independent of other distinctions.
3. The Canons of General Convention (Title III, Canon 1, Section 2) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation: “No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons.” General Convention 2006 Resolution B033, if interpreted to mean that a person living in a same-sex partnership should be excluded from consecration, stands in conflict with Title III, Canon 1, Section 2."
The 'anti-theology' here is the appeal to egregious error ("In modeling Jesus Christ, as a Church and as Christians, we do not discriminate" - yet Jesus discriminated, e.g. between disciples and would-be disciples, between those who believed in him and those who did not, between 'the Twelve' and the larger group of disciples); the absence of engagement with the possibility that holiness of life might also be determinative alongside consideration of 'gifts'; and the appeal to law (the Canons of General Convention) ahead of appeal to the whole of Scripture).
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Do not give ACC a Covenant role
The Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream site is carrying notes from a recent talk given by Christina Baxter, Principal of St John's Nottingham and general luminary in the C of E. In the course of these notes we find the following telling paragraph:
"ACC meets and makes progress reports, does work for Anglican Communion. Most presiding bishops don’t go. ABC is always there as he calls and chairs it. Generally others are not there.
You might be the one person who has gone from your part of the world, eg as a layperson from Japan, and you alone speak for your Province at the ACC. You are struggling to understand. You are a senior layperson, but your Province may not have Synods as frequently as we do, you may not be familiar with your own Province’s personnel or policy. But this is the group which, under proposals of the Covenant, would have to make difficult decisions. It is not fit for purpose."
I have long wondered about the viability of ACC as a comprehensively representative body of the churches of the Anglican Communion. If we are to have a body which implements and applies the Covenant (here I am deliberately choosing not to use words like 'impose and police'), then it needs to be a body in which has the confidence of the whole Communion for the task given to it.
Perhaps we need a new body (e.g. a joint meeting of Primates and ACC) or a new formation of the ACC?
"ACC meets and makes progress reports, does work for Anglican Communion. Most presiding bishops don’t go. ABC is always there as he calls and chairs it. Generally others are not there.
You might be the one person who has gone from your part of the world, eg as a layperson from Japan, and you alone speak for your Province at the ACC. You are struggling to understand. You are a senior layperson, but your Province may not have Synods as frequently as we do, you may not be familiar with your own Province’s personnel or policy. But this is the group which, under proposals of the Covenant, would have to make difficult decisions. It is not fit for purpose."
I have long wondered about the viability of ACC as a comprehensively representative body of the churches of the Anglican Communion. If we are to have a body which implements and applies the Covenant (here I am deliberately choosing not to use words like 'impose and police'), then it needs to be a body in which has the confidence of the whole Communion for the task given to it.
Perhaps we need a new body (e.g. a joint meeting of Primates and ACC) or a new formation of the ACC?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)