My "Way Forward" (Part 3)

Oliver O'Donovan, highly respected British theologian, writer and ecclesial luminary, recently spoke along these lines:

"Christian Today has revealed that one of the ways the Church may find a compromise over the issue is through a "pastoral accommodation". This could take the form of an authorised service of "welcome" or even blessing for people in same-sex relationships, but not an official marriage.
Oliver O'Donovan, a theologian who was among the first to propose the idea, told Christian Today "untraditional forms of marriage" had been adopted "without modifying or qualifying in any way the teaching of the church about marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life".
He cited polygamous households in African churches and divorced couples in Western churches as two examples of a departure from traditional Church teaching. He said these models do "not undermine the natural family as a norm, but affirm it, by modelling itself as closely as possible upon it, so the well-designed pastoral accommodation in marriage, designed to meet a quite specific need, will witness in its own way to the normative form from which it derives"." Reported here.

I like what Oliver O'Donovan says and it does accord with where our GS 2016 was heading (retain traditional doctrine of marriage, authorise blessing of same sex relationship liturgy). Broadly, what he proposes is the compromise on the table of our church for our consideration.

But where we got stuck - in my understanding - was around the word "authorise" because the route we took was to authorise-via-a-formulary. There were several (if not numerous) problems with this route. It involved an effective change in our doctrine of marriage (despite language which claimed otherwise), it involved an oddity that dioceses could then choose whether or not they implemented (and thus corporately believed) something set down in writing as part of the common liturgy/belief of our whole church, and it required "civil marriage" as a pre-condition for the service of blessing which simultaneously raised and lowered the "status" of civil marriage between two people of the same gender.

What I want to propose - see next post - is a different level of authorisation of a liturgy of blessing, removing the requirement of a preceding civil marriage and a different level of decision-making regarding who may offer a liturgy of blessing.

My "Way Forward" (Part 2)

"Deep conviction is entirely creditable. But dogmatic adherence to policy issues is not realistic. You can’t even bring up kids on that basis. I don’t think you can even buy a car on that basis. People of deep convictions can afford to compromise. People of shallow convictions are terrified of compromise, because they will consider that to compromise is to betray. Well, if you’ve got deep convictions, you know damn well it isn’t. You know that compromise is a means of getting to the next stage, a bit closer to what you originally wanted to do. It’s called parliamentary democracy." (Neil Kinnock, former leader, British Labour Party, speaking about the current turmoil around leader Jeremy Corbyn.)

People of deep convictions can afford to compromise. At the core of my suggested way forward (in draft form here through this series of posts, open to change through your comments ... before I finally post to the Archbishops) is this presupposition: ACANZP is divided on the matter of blessing of same-sex relationships. It can stay together if there is compromise. It must divide if there is not.

Also at the core is the possibility that we might be a church, on this matter at least, in which we are not of one mind. Over the past few days the United Reform Church in England and Wales (URC) has agreed that its local churches may choose to conduct and register marriages for same-sex couples. In Thinking Anglicans' post on the matter, I note the following sentence,

"It has long been clear that the denomination cannot express a single view on the issue of same-sex marriage."

I think that is pretty clear for ACANZP also. We are not of one mind on either blessing of same-sex relationships nor on conduct of same-sex marriages within our churches. Among us are those who would affirm the thesis of this article and those who would reject it. We have, however, declared we are of one mind in upholding the traditional understanding of marriage (as expressed in our liturgies and canons) and that means that, unlike the URC, the focus here is on blessing of same-sex relationships rather than conduct of same-sex marriages.

So, the questions I am seeking to answer in this series of posts include

"How might those in ACANZP with strong convictions arrive at an agreed compromise?" and

"How might we give expression in the structures (and, concomitantly, canons and liturgies) of our church to our inability to express a single view on same-sex relationships?"

My "Way Forward" (Part 1)

Readers may recall this Taonga report, following General Synod's impasse over "A Way Forward" in May 2016, including:

"The archbishops have outlined the process and the timetable by which the church will make a final search for a structure that will satisfy people of differing convictions on the issue of the blessing of same gender relationships.And Anglicans who want to have a say in shaping those structural arrangements have four months to make their suggestions.On September 1, the archbishops will name the personnel on a new working group whose task will be to consider those suggestions.The deadline for those suggestions is October 1, and the working group will provide feedback to the proposers and the wider church by the end of January 2017. It may also develop its own options.The working group will finalise its proposal – or set of proposals – by July 1 next year, as required by Motion 29."

This is drawn from a letter from the Archbishops, including:

"We are very conscious that Tikanga Maori and Tikanga Pasifika were in a position to support the provisions proposed in the “A Way Forward” Report, its recommendations and the accompanying draft legislation. While the challenge was clearly issued at GSTHW to Tikanga Pakeha to identify “possible structural arrangements”, nonetheless, as Primates we are clear that this is a task ‘of the whole Church, for the whole Church’.
We are also clear that any possible structural arrangements need to be consistent with Anglican ecclesiology and with Te Pouhere, the Constitution of this three Tikanga Church.Therefore, we wish to outline the following time line: [sic, re repeated "1"]

1. We want to encourage wide discussion and to provide a space for this to take place. Consequently, there will be a period of just on four months for networks, organisations, informal groupings and individuals to identify possible structures for consideration by the Working Group which we will appoint.

1. The Working Group will be named on 1 September 2016 . We will make this appointment having taken terms of reference and suggested membership to the General Synod Standing Committee meeting in Western Samoa from 23 to 26 July 2016.

1. We would ask that any formal suggestions of possible structural arrangements are in the hands of the General Secretary of this Church no later than 1 October 2016.

1. Such suggestions do not need to be formed in detail but can be ‘high level’ suggestions.

1. The Working Group will consider each suggestion and may also identify other possibilities. The Working Group will provide feedback to proposers and to the wider Church by the end of January 2017 .

1. The Working Group will finalise a proposal (or set of proposals) for the consideration of the Church by the 1 July 2017 date asked for by General Synod 2016."

Here on ADU I wish to set out a "draft" of my "suggestion of possible structural arrangements", with comments/feedback hopefully leading to something more "final" from me, by 1 October 2016.

In subsequent parts to this post I hope to offer something sane, sensible, Scriptural and sensitive. If not soporific :)

Britain's next PM will be a Christian & other news

In all the hoopla this morning (NZ time) about Britain's next PM being a woman (the contest is now Theresa May v Andrea Leadsom), I have yet to see a headline "Britain's next PM will be a Christian", both woman publicly declaring they are Christians.

In news closer to home, there is some news, at last, about our Christchurch Cathedral. Read here and don't ask me any questions because I know nothing more than is in the article! Anyway, it is progress, and, as the video shot by a drone shows, there is real regress in the state of the walls and pillars.

Then there is news from further away, from the east and the west, to the east and to the west. Something about an advert for the Orient, I gather. Now you see me, now you don't as I turn my back on you. Bosco Peters has the news here with many links, including to the recent Orthodox synod in which everyone agreed with everything, except for those who didn't agree to actually go to the Synod. So Anglican, as Bosco points out :)

Good news bad news presbyterianised Anglican world

Psephizo - Ian Paul - has had some great posts recently about specifically Anglican matters.

Ian Paul had a go at language we use about priesting (presbyterianising??) in this post with a provocative title, "Ordination does not make you a priest." (Which is correct, Jesus our Great High Priest became priest through crucifixion!)

That post has received a well-argued reply from Simon Oliver, Van Mildert Professor of Divinity at Durham, giving a 'catholic' perspective in response,

More recently, Psephizo has a delightful post on the virtues of a liberal catholic C of E parish, posted by Ian himself, a conservative evangelical. There is much to ponder in this post about what makes a church fruitful, including that challenging matter of connecting with men.

In difficult days for the 21st century church I concur 200% with Ian's observation that excellence in what we do matters.

Closer to home. Recently a friend observed of some posts of mine a week or three back, that perhaps I was being somewhat doomy and gloomy about our church. Fair point.I wouldn't want to over-egg some dispiriting features of church life because there is much which encourages and enlivens me. But there is a but. Some things are simply discouraging. Bishop Kelvin Wright's post about the next step in his diocese's journey to find not only a successor bishop but to determine how much of a bishop they can afford is both fearlessly honest and completely sobering. It forces readers to consider that our smallest pakeha diocese is facing real change because of real decline in participation.

Here is the question for ACANZP in the 21st century: is the Diocese of Dunedin the canary in the mineshaft of 21st century secular NZ?

Where is my 1 July post???

Hello.

A few weeks ago I promised or at least seriously indicated intention to publish something on "the (new) way forward for ACANZP, responding to our Archbishops' invitation for people to make suggestions.

Obviously that hasn't happened since today, as I write, is 6th July.

I plead busyness and the like. I am hoping that next week which is "diary-flexible" I can find the space to think and the time to write.

In the meantime, below are some links to some articles by way of "preamble". I may add more links if I find some worth following.

Oh, yes, and as a political junkie I have been somewhat distracted by international political events in the last week :)

Here.

Review

Authority.

You may comment, respectfully, thoughtfully, graciously on SSM/SSB ... my "ban" for June is now lifted. I likely will not engage with your comments in order to carve out the space and time I need for my own thinking.

Johannine Evangelism for 21st Century Anglicans, and More on Trinity ...

The Living Church has an article on "Come and See" evangelism. What do you think?

Lewis Ayres has some telling points to make on Trinity/Complementarianism here.

One of those points should be taken to heart by every evangelical exegete of Scripture (including myself):

"I suspect that many of those involved in this debate assume a distinction between literal and allegorical/figurative/symbolic exegesis, but I think they may think the category “literal” far more obvious than it actually is. It is important to recognize that reading “the letter” of the text for early Christian interpreters frequently, and perhaps essentially when discussing texts which describe the character of divine existence, is accompanied with frequent exhortation to recognize the limits of human knowledge. In such contexts, Patristic interpreters frequently call on their readers to reflect constantly upon the consequences of the condescension into human speech that is involved in God speaking to us of the divine life. As one reads these texts “literally,” “according to the letter” one recognizes that they speak to us of that which is revealed as mystery. “The letter” of the text thus does not always sit at the same point on the axis that runs between clarity and obscurity. I have not seen these questions reflected on in any great detail in the small sample of pieces from this debate that I have seen. This is not to say that they are not reflected on in detail in places that have escaped my attention – but it is to say that it seems odd that these issues are not constantly recognized. Is this because of particular dynamics in the ways that evangelicals talk about Scriptural authority?" (My bold)

In other words, take care not to presume from the "condescended" speech of God re Father/Son relationships in the Bible that we have the last word on the mystery of communion between Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

Best quote on the Trinity in the past week I have come across is from Karl Barth:

"In His own freedom, God above all willed and determined Himself to the be Father and the Son in the unity of the Spirit." (as Tweeted by @k_barth - sorry no more precise reference than that).

Finally, for today, Mark Woods has a go at Grudem and co, here.