Limits of authority?

"Scripture", "the authority of Scripture", "the Bible says," are shorthand for longer ideas about the will of God being revealed to humanity, a will expressed in acclamations and proclamations, in commands and prohibitions, in warnings and encouragements, and in guidance and general directions for how we should live as people claiming relationship with God.

Rightly, yesterday, a commenter here raised questions about our knowledge of the revelation of God (see bottom of post). If, for instance, it is declared to us within the 'canon of Scripture', that is, within a prescribed set of pages of writing, on what basis do we understand the limitation of that canon since there is no additional message in writing "they be the limits of my revelation to the church."

One response, articulated by another commenter is: "because the Church has acknowledged Scripture, as collected by sheer use/citation early on in the piece, is both the authoritative witness to and unique instrument in the saving economy of God, climaxing in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel."

I agree with that response but acknowledge that it does raise the question whether the church which acknowledges Scripture as authoritative witness to etc might at another point in its life acknowledge something else as "authoritative witness" to God acting in history, as, indeed, I understand those parts of the church today are wanting to do when they say something like "we now see that God is working in the lives of [identity of people group]."

I think one way forward in such discussion could be to acknowledge a point at the heart of Eastern Orthodox theology, God has spoken in ecumenical councils where "ecumenical" means the "undivided church" and "council" means a true representation of the whole church. That is, we might one day be in a position to say with authority that the authoritative revelation of God has been given on [issue of the day] because a new ecumenical council has assented to such proposition.

That makes working for the unity of the church, organically and organisationally worth doing!

But if you would allow my paragraph above, a proposal I am articulating within it is this: if we do not have the agreement of the whole church on the matter we do not have much authority  when we attempt to claim that on a matter we have now received the authoritative revelation of God.

Focusing down to the Anglican church in these islands and decisions we might come to at our General Synod in 2014, it is comparatively easy to predict that we will pass by a majority some decisions that will change our polity on the blessing of same sex relationships while simultaneously indicating to ourselves that we are not a united church on such change. Such change, no doubt, would enable those who wish to perform such blessings and to have such blessings performed to proceed. What could not then be claimed (I suggest) is that our church had now received an authoritative revelation from God to so proceed.

In other words, effectively, if change comes to pass, (I suggest) we would be allowing that on this matter we did not have the authoritative revelation of God but we did not mind if individuals (ministers, parishes, dioceses) proceed to bless.

If, from the perspective of "revelation" this was so, then it would be a matter of integrity, fairness and justice that our church transparently indicated that it would be equally permitted that individuals did not proceed to bless.

What do you think?

"Bosco Peters commented: That all relevant revelation is already received by the church in Holy Scripture is a revelation beyond the closure of the Christian canon of Scripture. Discuss.

The canon of Scripture is a revelation beyond the closure of the Christian canon of Scripture.Discuss.

What is the Christian canon of Scripture? Discuss.

That many issues are so difficult to find unmistakably articulated in the Christian canon of Scripture points either to the inadequacy of it for the purpose of all relevant revelation received by the church or indicates that a variety of responses to these many issues are acceptable to the Revealer. Discuss."

Getting Wronger Every Day?

Running up to a conference exploring theology of marriage, a couple of items catch my eye this week, forcing some thinking about the 'state of the argument' in respect of what marriage is, ought to be and possibly could become.

In that well known blog Ezekiel, post #18, being read around the world in the morning office, we have an interesting case in point of transformed interpretation. Pause to read Ezekiel 18. 

Famously this chapter within the Hebrew scriptures (that is, in the scriptures being written and read by God's people before the singular transformative effect on interpretation wrought by Jesus Christ) alters the understanding of another passage in those scriptures. Exodus 20:5 says that the Lord God visits 'the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.' Ezekiel 18 is summarised in 18:20a, 'The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.'

Now arguments can be had about whether the later passage is a straight-line contradiction of the former passage, or a clarification of it (noting that Ezekiel 18 is also a message about possibilities for repentance, for sons seeing iniquitous fathers and choosing not to be sinful, for the wicked person turning away from all their sins) or a development from one to the other in a richer more nuanced moral understanding and so forth.

But there is no argument that once Ezekiel 18 has been received into the sacred scriptures of Israel that Exodus 20 needs to be read newly in the light of the later revelation.

In a worldwide debate about changing attitudes to marriage, it is worth pondering the extent to which later revelation modifies earlier revelation. Such a matter is inextricably tied to our understanding of revelation and how that is discerned by God's people. For some, all relevant revelation is already received by the church in Holy Scripture, so debates about later and earlier revelation are intra-scriptural debates about meaning and application. For others, revelation is possible beyond the closure of the Christian canon of Scripture.

A keen question, perhaps, about church unity is whether "some" and "others" here can co-exist in one body of believers. Discuss.

To those advocating for change to our understanding of human sexuality in general and to marriage in particular, or, for that matter, to those advocating not to change, Ephraim Radner has published (IMHO) as good an argument as one can find anywhere that "Same-Sex Marriage is Still Wrong."

But, how good is this argument? Discuss. (I suggest it would save a bit of time and bother if we discussed the character and content of Ephraim Radner's argument articulated in the essay rather than engaged, yet again, in a free and wide-ranging general argument about human sexuality and marriage).

Postscript: A fascinating point made by Radner, interalia, is that slavery in the mode which was abolished in the 19th century is an example of a phenomenon which the church had rejected (as an application of scripture) then changed its mind about only to eventually have to admit (also from a basis in scripture) that it got this "horrendously wrong."

Later: For the latest contretemps involving St Matthew's in the City and same-sex marriage, go here.

Via Twitter, yet another angle here re human sexuality, Christianity and marriage.

Shameless

Theology House has a major conference coming up and I am shamelessly promoting it ...

Tough Questions Today: Exploring Theology of Marriage

Theology House Conference, 2013

Dates: Friday evening 16^th and Saturday 17^th August 2013.

Venue: St Christopher’s Church, Avonhead has been booked, with capacity for breakout rooms.

Speakers: Bishop Tim Harris, Adelaide; Rev Dr Sue Patterson, Nelson; Bishop Victoria Matthews, Acting Dean Lynda Patterson, Rev Dr Peter Carrell, Christchurch.

Background to the Conference:

Theology of marriage is a hot topic for churches today. In a changing world, gay marriage is being legislated for, leading Christians to divide into those who support such change and those who oppose it. 

At the very least intense thinking about marriage is taking place in churches and in society. Does marriage require a man and a woman? Should churches be servants of the state in registering marriages? Perhaps the simplest and most basic question today is, ‘What is marriage?’ Tough questions are being asked. Traditional answers are under scrutiny. So are modern answers. 

This conference offers an opportunity for Christians to set time aside to engage with the questions.

A specific background to this conference is the call of the General Synod 2012 of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia (ACANZP) for exploration of theology of marriage in the run up to General Synod 2014.

Details re registration (by 12 August, please) and so forth are here.

Measle epidemic could help Communion

Whether the Communion splits or stays together does not depend on one man, let alone the Archbishop of Canterbury. But I am more than prepared to say that he is more influential on the future of the Communion than many men or women. Perhaps, one might argue, he is more important than all the Anglican bloggers put together :) (Not that we are much of a force. We rarely agree with each other).

Anyway, we should keep in touch with ++Justin's thinking and what better way than via the reporting of Charles Moore.

The Communion should split

"They are creating a nasty, divided, prejudiced church which looks totally un-Christian to those on the outside (and to many of us within the church).

The Church of England knows it has a crisis on its hands. It thinks the crisis might be solved by gently persuading enough conservatives to overcome their convictions and vote yes for women bishops. I am convinced the problem is far deeper than that. I think we hold dramatically different understandings about the nature of God and they are irreconcilable. I believe in a God of love. They believe in a nasty, rule-bound, vindictive God who despite everything they say, hates gays. Until they overcome their prejudice, they will continue to drive the church towards a precipice."

John Richardson at The Ugley Vicar draws attention to the article from which this citation comes. These words are written by Colin Coward of Changing Attitudes as he reflects on the course of the recent C of E General Synod. Of course the 'they' here are people who could be labelled 'conservative' though I suggest a more accurate label would be 'Anglicans who disagree with Colin Coward.' Where, however, there could be a point of agreement with Colin is here,

"I am convinced the problem is far deeper than that. I think we hold dramatically different understandings about the nature of God and they are irreconcilable."

If this is true for sufficient numbers then I think the C of E and consequentially the Anglican Communion should split or, if you like, continue its splitting.

But is this true for sufficient numbers? If Colin Coward's god and the god believed by the rest of the church are dramatically different then that is not quite grounds for splitting the church. I think we could forbear for Colin to remain in the church.

But the whole of Colin's article effectively claims that he speaks for the majority of the church. That is, there are sufficient numbers supporting his understanding of god for a split to be considered because it is mighty hard to maintain two dramatically different understandings of god inside one religious entity which claims itself to be a church of the one God.

I myself, however, am slightly less than convinced by the line Colin takes. My own experience of being an Anglican is that there is a diverse range of views among us including our understanding of God. But the key word is 'range'. I do not see that we fall into neatly divided camps: you lot with your understanding of god pitch your tent over there, my lot will pitch our tents over here. Sure, I can think of fellow Anglicans who when they speak of God speak of a god I do not feel I know (and presumably vice versa) but I cannot count those Anglicans up to be a sufficient number to warrant splitting away from them.

But Colin says some things which are perfectly dreadful inasmuch as they represent a view of fellow Christians which is as nasty as the allegations he makes. To say of people who disagree with him, "They believe in a nasty, rule-bound, vindictive God who despite everything they say, hates gays" is extraordinary in its understanding of fellow believers. Extraordinary because it is not true. People who believe in such a god just don't get elected to Synod! Or selected for ordination :)

However a point lurks uneasily in these words. If one part of an Anglican church or of the Communion is running round thinking another part is 'nasty' and links that to believing in a 'vindictive God' and not believing in a God of love, then there is little hope of reconciliation, of truly partaking of communion together in which one bread is broken as the body of the one Christ. Even fellowship over a cup of tea is going to be difficult.

Noting progress or 'progress'

One keeps an eye on the wider world.

Though it might be better to keep one's eyes closed, there are so many sad, awful, and bizarre things going on. The story of the Canadian oil train exploding after running away seems to be an example of everything that could possibly go wrong going wrong with tragic results. Close to hand as a story of one wrong action leading to multiplying tragedy is the plane crashing at San Francisco, seemingly at the hands of a trainee pilot. (I am quietly disposing of my lifelong theory that it is better to sit at the back of a plane). Definitely in the bizarre category is politics in New Zealand. Recently we had the spectacle of a person wanted for extradition in the USA lecturing our Prime Minister. Now we have rumours that our Opposition Leader [Labour Party] is about to be toppled in a coup. Perhaps some kind of socialist bacteria jumped across the Tasman!

Stuff is happening in Anglicanland. The C of E General Synod is slowly making its way towards having women bishops. In Canada they are making their way towards changing their marriage canon to include same sex marriage. The motion they have just passed is a prelude to the change envisaged when their GS next meets.

My own efforts in this area are not attuned to such development. This is a motion I am proposing for our Synod in September:

"That this Synod:

( (1) Notes a resolution from General Synod 2012,  “THAT this General Synod/ te Hinota Whanui resolves:

That given the long‐held mission of our Church to challenge and support couples publicly to commit themselves to each other,

Asks Episcopal Units to hold conversations in our Church and with the wider community about the nature of marriage,

And to explore how the Church might theologically and liturgically respond to gay and lesbian Anglican couples who request this rite,

Further, it asks General Synod Standing Committee to support and resource the Episcopal Units in this endeavour;

And for Episcopal Units to demonstrate progress to the General Synod Standing Committee and where appropriate, to Ma Whea? Mei Fe Ki Fe? Where to? Commission, in advance of the next General Synod/te Hīnota Whānui in 2014.”

(2)  Notes the existence and work of the Ma Whea Commission, as well as other work of a theological and doctrinal nature instituted by General Synod Standing Committee, with a view to the deliberations of these bodies informing further discussion of likely motions (at least two of which lie on the table from General Synod 2012) concerning ordination of partnered gay and lesbian persons, marriage, same sex marriage and liturgies for relationships at General Synod 2014;

(3)  Requests the Bishop and the diocesan representatives to General Synod 2014 to prayerfully discern the mind of this Diocese on these and any related matters which come before General Synod 2014.

(4)  Affirms the doctrine of marriage of this church, as explained in Clause 1.3 of Title G Canon III Of Marriage.

Appendix to Motion: Clause 1.3 of Title G Canon III reads as follows:

“The minister shall provide education to the parties seeking marriage on the Christian understanding of marriage, or see that such education is provided by some other competent person, in accordance with any Guidelines that General Synod may from time to time issue.

In particular the minister shall ascertain that the parties understand that Christian marriage is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman, entered into in the community of faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind and will, and with the intent that it be lifelong.

The Church's teaching on Christian marriage is enshrined in the Formularies of the Church and is expressed in all the marriage services in the Formularies and in the introduction for the congregation to Christian marriage in A New Zealand Prayer Book - He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa, (See Schedule II of this Canon).”

Explanation: ‘Formularies’ here means the Book of Common Prayer and A New Zealand Prayer Book – He Karakia o Aotearoa. Schedule II of the Canon collects together teaching on marriage enshrined in our prayer books."

POSTSCRIPT For a good argument for society investing in marriage, read here.

Tragic marriage split through misunderstanding

It is very confusing making sense of most marriage break ups since there are often two quite different narratives at play about who did and said what in the rundown to splitting up. We are seeing this played out in the media in the case of Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson. Photos of him clutching her by the throat seem to be an illustrated narrative of his contribution to separation. But now he has announced through a newspaper that he will divorce her because she did not stick up for him. Good luck with making sense of that!

If GAFCON II later this year becomes the moment when all sides agree that the Communion is irrevocably split I suggest it is going to be very confusing trying to make sense of how, in fact, we will have come to this position. Sure, it could be said that 'they misinterpreted the Bible and taught a false gospel' and that 'they excluded people from the church on the basis of misunderstanding human sexuality and refusing to act justly.' If it is as neat as that, then we have an open and shut case for blaming one side (or both!) and sheeting home responsibility for ecclesial tragedy to a bunch of renegades.

It is not as neat as that, I submit. We have a few months to push the PAUSE button on this tragic movie being played out before our eyes and ask whether we might just clear up a few misunderstandings. Should we hit that button, here are some starters for reflection.

Engagement with society

I would like bishops and theologians around the Communion to acknowledge that every Anglican church is engaged with their own local society and the course of that society. A bishop in Nigeria looks in askance at how the C of E is responding to changes in legislation regarding civil partnerships and gay marriage. A theologian in the States looks in askance at a bunch of bishops in Uganda cheering on legislation repressive of openly gay and lesbian Ugandan citizens. In each case the local church is engaged with local issues, working out how best to respond to the direction their own society is heading in. It is easy, is it not, to blast from far away the actions of others. It is harder to pause, reflect, and imagine one's way into what it means to work out the gospel in England, in the States, in Uganda and in Nigeria. But to do so might be to gather up some crumbs of sympathy for the dilemmas of others. When we are sympathetic to others we can find the will to walk an extra mile with them, rather than run away from them.

Understanding the Bible

It would be quite good if we could all work harder at understanding the Bible. Too often, it seems, we work hard at understanding one part of the Bible and then use that understanding to talk past each other.

Thus the Bible is a revelation of God teaching the importance of justice, human dignity and respect for one another while promoting values of fidelity, sacrificial love and stable family life. With that understanding we can talk past those who miss (or downplay) that understanding in favour of the Bible as a revelation of God teaching the importance of holiness, sexual discipline, the importance of marriage between a man and a woman as the cornerstone of society while promoting a gospel which both invites all to enter God's kingdom and announces God's judgment on those who refuse to repent and believe in Christ.

Such understandings potentially could lead to a conversation about what the whole of the Bible says to the church today. Unfortunately that potential is not being reached because ... well, there is quite a question to consider, is there not? We Anglicans love the Bible (we say). We read Scripture together (we say). Scripture is paramount in our life (cf. the Thirty-Nine Articles, our various constitutions, Lambeth resolutions). Yet somehow we are not reaching a common understanding about the Bible, about what God is saying through Scripture to the church today.

Nothing is easy here, just as generally any marriage heading for the rocks is a hard, complicated and difficult situation to reverse.

Could we give ourselves one last shot at reconciliation?

For a contrasting if not contrary view, head to Anglican Curmudgeon.