I have realised that a potential key to understanding, and therefore, praising, critiquing, and improving the Jerusalem Declaration on interpretation of the Bible, is the meaning of the word 'canonical' in the phraise 'plain and canonical' in clause 2 (see post below).
Here I observe that 'canonical' could mean, either or both of:
(i) "of the canon (i.e. agreed books) of Scripture" - any interpretation of one part of the Bible should be consistent with the overall reading of the whole of the Bible (i.e. not reading one part of Scripture repugnant with another);
(ii) "of the rule (i.e. 'canon') of the church's faith" - any interpretation of any part of the Bible should be consistent with the theology of the church (here defined in terms of clauses 3 and 4 of the JD (i.e. councils, creeds, Thirty-Nine Articles).
So, one question about clause 2 is whether it offers clarity about the meaning of 'canonical'? I think its meaning is not clear and this is a weakness in the clause which could be tuned up. Potentially 'canonical' offers some rich possibilities for how interpretation is understood within the JD. Yet it does not provide for guidance for how the church resolves issues of difference of interpretation within a canonical context of understanding.
More to come ...
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Interpreting interpretation in the Jerusalem Declaration
Recently I have reread the Jerusalem Declaration (made as part of the final statement of the GAFCON Conference in Jerusalem, June 2008). It is a fine statement. If it is not applied too rigorously as 'the' standard of Anglican orthodoxy then it may need no particular improvement. But it needs some tuning, IMHO, if it becomes the standard of Anglican orthodoxy (which, as I read the final statement, is a 'plain' reading of that statement in respect of the tenets of orthodoxy and who holds them and who does not). Here (and it may take a few posts to work out) I offer some thoughts on the JD and the question of interpretation of Scripture.
The relevant clauses are:
"1. ...
2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today."
The strengths of these clauses are (a) the connections made between Holy Scriptures // the Word of God written, and between Holy Scriptures and the 'catholic' faith of the church expressed in the 'four Ecumenical Councils', the creeds, and the 39A; (b) steering clear, in a thoroughly Anglican way, from issues re infallibility/inerrancy (which are tricky to define) while nailing down 'contain all things necessary for salvation'; (c) capturing five important modes of Bible usage (translation, reading, preaching, teaching, obedience) and seeking to articulate the 'how' of this usage in terms of concepts of 'plain', 'canonical', 'historic' and 'consensual' reading.
Yet there are weaknesses, even interesting omissions. The first weakness which concerns me is that these clauses do not give much steer as to how to resolve disputes over interpretation. The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, for example, involves a plain, canonical reading of Jesus' words 'This is my body', respectful of the church's historic and consensual reading. Protestant alternatives involve plain, canonical readings which, at the time of their introduction in the 16th century were not actually respectful of the then historic and consensual reading of the church! A second weakness is a lack of definition of 'plain', for there are certainly parts of the Bible where a 'plain' reading is (so to speak) what everyone reads and parts where different 'plain' readings emerge. For example, within evangelicalism there have been several 'plain' readings around eschatological matters (a-, pre-, post-, pan-millenialism).
Then, finally, for today, I note the interesting omission of the (to me) important concept of 'Scripture interpreting Scripture'.
Soon I will post on my suggestions for fine-tuning the JD on interpretation.
The relevant clauses are:
"1. ...
2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today."
The strengths of these clauses are (a) the connections made between Holy Scriptures // the Word of God written, and between Holy Scriptures and the 'catholic' faith of the church expressed in the 'four Ecumenical Councils', the creeds, and the 39A; (b) steering clear, in a thoroughly Anglican way, from issues re infallibility/inerrancy (which are tricky to define) while nailing down 'contain all things necessary for salvation'; (c) capturing five important modes of Bible usage (translation, reading, preaching, teaching, obedience) and seeking to articulate the 'how' of this usage in terms of concepts of 'plain', 'canonical', 'historic' and 'consensual' reading.
Yet there are weaknesses, even interesting omissions. The first weakness which concerns me is that these clauses do not give much steer as to how to resolve disputes over interpretation. The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, for example, involves a plain, canonical reading of Jesus' words 'This is my body', respectful of the church's historic and consensual reading. Protestant alternatives involve plain, canonical readings which, at the time of their introduction in the 16th century were not actually respectful of the then historic and consensual reading of the church! A second weakness is a lack of definition of 'plain', for there are certainly parts of the Bible where a 'plain' reading is (so to speak) what everyone reads and parts where different 'plain' readings emerge. For example, within evangelicalism there have been several 'plain' readings around eschatological matters (a-, pre-, post-, pan-millenialism).
Then, finally, for today, I note the interesting omission of the (to me) important concept of 'Scripture interpreting Scripture'.
Soon I will post on my suggestions for fine-tuning the JD on interpretation.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Worlds Apart
The Archbishop of Canterbury has published a Pastoral Letter to the Bishops of the Anglican Communion. Its a follow up summary to Lambeth 2008. One paragraph which interests me is this:
"Second, on the controversial issue of the day regarding human sexuality, there was a very widely-held conviction that premature or unilateral local change was risky and divisive, in spite of the diversity of opinion expressed on specific questions. There was no appetite for revising Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998, though there was also a clear commitment to continue theological and pastoral discussion of the questions involved. In addition to a widespread support for moratoria in the areas already mentioned, there was much support for the idea of a 'Pastoral Forum' as a means of addressing present and future tensions, and as a clearing house for proposals concerning the care of groups at odds with dominant views within their Provinces, so as to avoid the confusing situation of violations of provincial boundaries and competing jurisdictions."
This is in line with the line of his final Presidential Address which challenged innovators to justify their innovations.
But a world away, in time zones and in temper, is this announcement from the Diocese of New Westminster:
"The Diocese has taken steps under Canon 15 towards removing clergy who have left the Anglican Church of Canada rather than accepting the decisions of the Diocesan Synod and General Synod.
The Diocese has invoked the provision that returns control of the parishes to the Diocese, an action that was approved by Diocesan Council.
The parishes are St. Matthew’s Abbotsford and St. Matthias and St. Luke, Vancouver. Former diocesan clergy who have continued working in the parishes are Trevor Walters, Michael Stewart, and Don Gardner at St. Matthew’s, and Simon Chin at St. Matthias and St. Luke.
No steps have been taken at present at Good Shepherd, and at St. John’s Shaughnessy, Vancouver, two other parishes where former diocesan clergy remain who have left the Anglican Church of Canada.
In a memorandum to diocesan clergy, Commissary (Acting Bishop) Peter Elliott wrote that implementing this canon is a time consuming process, hence at this time the diocese was only proceeding with two parishes.
George Cadman, chancellor (chief legal officer) of the Diocese, said he hopes that the former clergy will now decide to leave voluntarily and that resort to the courts will be unnecessary, even though the possibility of litigation was raised in letters from the former officials at St. Matthew’s. No communications have been received from St. Matthias and St. Luke since its priest left the Anglican Church of Canada."
I understand that 'legally' the Diocese of New Westminster thinks it is acting righteously: Anglican clergy are bound to obey lawful legislation of the synod and general synod, thus those who disobey may, legally, be moved against. But these clergy (as far as I understand the situation) are protesters against legislation which is contrary to the mind of the Anglican Communion and the guidance of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why is the Diocese of New Westminster not expending time and energy on a revisitation of its own synodical acts in the light of Lambeth 2008rather than pursuing clergy?
These clergy, incidentally, are bound to be found by an 'international Anglican court' (save that we do not have one) as acting in accordance with Anglican polity and practice as conceived through the ages.
New Westminster and Lambeth Palace are worlds apart. We watch to see if these worlds come closer!
"Second, on the controversial issue of the day regarding human sexuality, there was a very widely-held conviction that premature or unilateral local change was risky and divisive, in spite of the diversity of opinion expressed on specific questions. There was no appetite for revising Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998, though there was also a clear commitment to continue theological and pastoral discussion of the questions involved. In addition to a widespread support for moratoria in the areas already mentioned, there was much support for the idea of a 'Pastoral Forum' as a means of addressing present and future tensions, and as a clearing house for proposals concerning the care of groups at odds with dominant views within their Provinces, so as to avoid the confusing situation of violations of provincial boundaries and competing jurisdictions."
This is in line with the line of his final Presidential Address which challenged innovators to justify their innovations.
But a world away, in time zones and in temper, is this announcement from the Diocese of New Westminster:
"The Diocese has taken steps under Canon 15 towards removing clergy who have left the Anglican Church of Canada rather than accepting the decisions of the Diocesan Synod and General Synod.
The Diocese has invoked the provision that returns control of the parishes to the Diocese, an action that was approved by Diocesan Council.
The parishes are St. Matthew’s Abbotsford and St. Matthias and St. Luke, Vancouver. Former diocesan clergy who have continued working in the parishes are Trevor Walters, Michael Stewart, and Don Gardner at St. Matthew’s, and Simon Chin at St. Matthias and St. Luke.
No steps have been taken at present at Good Shepherd, and at St. John’s Shaughnessy, Vancouver, two other parishes where former diocesan clergy remain who have left the Anglican Church of Canada.
In a memorandum to diocesan clergy, Commissary (Acting Bishop) Peter Elliott wrote that implementing this canon is a time consuming process, hence at this time the diocese was only proceeding with two parishes.
George Cadman, chancellor (chief legal officer) of the Diocese, said he hopes that the former clergy will now decide to leave voluntarily and that resort to the courts will be unnecessary, even though the possibility of litigation was raised in letters from the former officials at St. Matthew’s. No communications have been received from St. Matthias and St. Luke since its priest left the Anglican Church of Canada."
I understand that 'legally' the Diocese of New Westminster thinks it is acting righteously: Anglican clergy are bound to obey lawful legislation of the synod and general synod, thus those who disobey may, legally, be moved against. But these clergy (as far as I understand the situation) are protesters against legislation which is contrary to the mind of the Anglican Communion and the guidance of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Why is the Diocese of New Westminster not expending time and energy on a revisitation of its own synodical acts in the light of Lambeth 2008rather than pursuing clergy?
These clergy, incidentally, are bound to be found by an 'international Anglican court' (save that we do not have one) as acting in accordance with Anglican polity and practice as conceived through the ages.
New Westminster and Lambeth Palace are worlds apart. We watch to see if these worlds come closer!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
It ain't easy being evangelical
Get three evangelicals together in a corner and they will hold four views between them. Get four evangelical Anglicans in a corner and one will earnestly tell the others how important unity among evangelicals is, especially 'at this time'.
And our unity is important. But it is under strain on one or two important matters. Suzanne McCarthy, for example, in her blog Suzanne's Bookshelf underlines significant differences over teaching on women in marriage, ministry, and modern life, including this specific report re teaching in a 'hotspot' evangelical Anglican church.
On the one hand evangelical Anglicans' quest for transformation of the overall direction of the Anglican Communion involves standing in solidarity with such 'hotspot' parishes. On the other hand we find ourselves acknowledging some significant points of differentiation. Suzanne McCarthy, for example, battles for 'egalitarianism' and against 'complementarianism', and in that general battle it can seem as though it is a 'debate' and not a 'dialogue'. For evangelical Anglicans, in the context of our quest with respect to the Communion, it is vital that we find a way to exchange views with each other rather than fire views at each other. (Incidentally, in that exchange of views re women in the church, we will find that there are complementarians, egalitarians, and those who are neither ... and among those who are neither there will be further nuances of difference!)
The variety of views on women in ministry, marriage and modern life held by evangelical Anglicans, and the sharpness of difference between some of those views, also draw attention to the ways in which evangelicals interpret the Bible. My general argument is that evangelicals can read Scripture evangelically and draw different conclusions on some matters such as women in the church. A particular argument is that the recently published Jerusalem Declaration offers an inadequate recognition of the issue of interpretation of the Bible. I am an unabashed critic of the JD because it is very important in the long term that such declarations are as perfect as humanly possible. In this case I am hopeful that the JD is seen as a work-in-progress that needs some fine tuning; rather than as 'the' statement for a long time to come for defining Anglican orthodoxy.
In sum: we have work still to do on areas of our evangelical life, and one of those areas is our teaching on women in the church. It ain't easy being an evangelical, IMHO, because unity on that subject (and on others) is not proving easy to achieve.
[This is a revised version of an earlier posting under the same heading].
And our unity is important. But it is under strain on one or two important matters. Suzanne McCarthy, for example, in her blog Suzanne's Bookshelf underlines significant differences over teaching on women in marriage, ministry, and modern life, including this specific report re teaching in a 'hotspot' evangelical Anglican church.
On the one hand evangelical Anglicans' quest for transformation of the overall direction of the Anglican Communion involves standing in solidarity with such 'hotspot' parishes. On the other hand we find ourselves acknowledging some significant points of differentiation. Suzanne McCarthy, for example, battles for 'egalitarianism' and against 'complementarianism', and in that general battle it can seem as though it is a 'debate' and not a 'dialogue'. For evangelical Anglicans, in the context of our quest with respect to the Communion, it is vital that we find a way to exchange views with each other rather than fire views at each other. (Incidentally, in that exchange of views re women in the church, we will find that there are complementarians, egalitarians, and those who are neither ... and among those who are neither there will be further nuances of difference!)
The variety of views on women in ministry, marriage and modern life held by evangelical Anglicans, and the sharpness of difference between some of those views, also draw attention to the ways in which evangelicals interpret the Bible. My general argument is that evangelicals can read Scripture evangelically and draw different conclusions on some matters such as women in the church. A particular argument is that the recently published Jerusalem Declaration offers an inadequate recognition of the issue of interpretation of the Bible. I am an unabashed critic of the JD because it is very important in the long term that such declarations are as perfect as humanly possible. In this case I am hopeful that the JD is seen as a work-in-progress that needs some fine tuning; rather than as 'the' statement for a long time to come for defining Anglican orthodoxy.
In sum: we have work still to do on areas of our evangelical life, and one of those areas is our teaching on women in the church. It ain't easy being an evangelical, IMHO, because unity on that subject (and on others) is not proving easy to achieve.
[This is a revised version of an earlier posting under the same heading].
Communion, Canterbury, Covenant (1 John 3:4-10)
Resuming a very irregular meditation series on 1 John and the Anglican Communion, our next verse is 1 John 3:4:
"Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."
The main message of 1 John 3:4-10 is straightforward. The one who abides in God, who has seen or known the Son of God, does not keep on sinning; thus the one who keeps on sinning, despite appearances and claims to the contrary, is of the devil and not of God. Right at the end the apostle adds a coda which clarifies that 'sinning' is lovelessness as well lawlessness: "whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother" (v. 10).
The challenge for the Communion is also straightforward: since there is no Communion with God and between believers where there is continuing sin, it is imperative to discern rightly what is sin and what is not, both in terms of 'righteousness' or 'lawfulness', and in terms of loving one another. Perhaps a particular challenge of this passage is to confront the question of discerning sin: some Anglican talk at this time is about 'listening' ... to one another, to Scripture ... hermeneutical projects and the like ... but such talk pulls back - for all sorts of understandable reasons - from 'deciding'.
Here I note, returning to verse 4 above, that the apostle John rigorously defines sin as 'lawlessness'. That interests me because John otherwise in this epistle appears little interested in the Old Testament (though shortly, in 3:11-15, he will recall the story of Cain and Abel). Invoking the 'law' takes readers back to the Old Testament. The coming of Jesus Christ has an appearance of 'newness', but his coming is in complete continuity with the past of God in relation to humanity (cf. 2:7, "I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning.") To go back to the Old Testament, through invoking 'law', also takes us back to covenant - God's commitment to fellowship with God's people - and from there we might consider aspects of current Anglican life.
One aspect is the apostle's insight on the importance of the past for understanding the present situation of the church. If we embark on a similar backward's look, thinking in terms of lawlessness, commandment, and covenant, we recall that the great moment in Anglican history of the English Reformation involved a quest to discern what was sin or not (Henry VIII's troubled mind on the lawfulness of his marriage to his brother's wife). This quest (however ambiguous and laden with sinful desire) brought forth to the light of day the gift of God of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Through Cranmer the Church of England re-formed itself in harmony with Scripture. The covenantal aspect of the re-formation took some years to 'settle', the vicissitudes of testing the spirits (1 John 4:1) of Mary Tudor's Catholicism and others' Puritanism needing to be passed through. Thus the post-Reformation Anglican church is a church embedded in a history, not simply based on an idea. There is therefore a case for any version of Anglicanism wishing to be a continuing Anglicanism to be an Anglicanism in communion with the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In such communion we testify to the peculiarity of our life as one shaped by history and not merely by an idea.
The temptation to break communion with Canterbury is strong at this time, for both the 'left' and the 'right' of current issues. From both sides, for example, a 'post colonial' critique emerges of Canterbury and the Church of England's role in the Communion. Autonomous Anglican churches founded in the colonies of England which bend, even slightly, towards the authority of Canterbury, are vestigiously colonial, and this should cease. But this would be a mistake. The peculiarity of our life as one shaped by history includes all that is unfortunate about colonialism. But the response to that unhappy history does not necessitate rupture with Canterbury or the Church of England. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, as we deal with the injustice of colonial disruption to Maoritanga, including currupt dealing over land and taonga, we deal between Crown and Maori. We do not dissolve the Crown and then, somehow, work between Maori and some new reality of government which has not historical continuity with the Crown.
At the heart of communion with Canterbury lies a thankfulness for what Canterbury has meant to the Anglican church, first in England, and then spreading through the world: in the vision of Cranmer the church was re-formed in a godly manner, with new strengths and without old weaknesses. In terms of 1 John 3:4-10, the lawfulness of the Anglican Communion flows from the great work of Cranmer (and, of course, many others). A clear and present danger of breaking communion with Canterbury is the possibility of lawlessness - in the sense, at least, of becoming a set of ever dividing churches claiming in various degress to be "Anglican".
"Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."
The main message of 1 John 3:4-10 is straightforward. The one who abides in God, who has seen or known the Son of God, does not keep on sinning; thus the one who keeps on sinning, despite appearances and claims to the contrary, is of the devil and not of God. Right at the end the apostle adds a coda which clarifies that 'sinning' is lovelessness as well lawlessness: "whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother" (v. 10).
The challenge for the Communion is also straightforward: since there is no Communion with God and between believers where there is continuing sin, it is imperative to discern rightly what is sin and what is not, both in terms of 'righteousness' or 'lawfulness', and in terms of loving one another. Perhaps a particular challenge of this passage is to confront the question of discerning sin: some Anglican talk at this time is about 'listening' ... to one another, to Scripture ... hermeneutical projects and the like ... but such talk pulls back - for all sorts of understandable reasons - from 'deciding'.
Here I note, returning to verse 4 above, that the apostle John rigorously defines sin as 'lawlessness'. That interests me because John otherwise in this epistle appears little interested in the Old Testament (though shortly, in 3:11-15, he will recall the story of Cain and Abel). Invoking the 'law' takes readers back to the Old Testament. The coming of Jesus Christ has an appearance of 'newness', but his coming is in complete continuity with the past of God in relation to humanity (cf. 2:7, "I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning.") To go back to the Old Testament, through invoking 'law', also takes us back to covenant - God's commitment to fellowship with God's people - and from there we might consider aspects of current Anglican life.
One aspect is the apostle's insight on the importance of the past for understanding the present situation of the church. If we embark on a similar backward's look, thinking in terms of lawlessness, commandment, and covenant, we recall that the great moment in Anglican history of the English Reformation involved a quest to discern what was sin or not (Henry VIII's troubled mind on the lawfulness of his marriage to his brother's wife). This quest (however ambiguous and laden with sinful desire) brought forth to the light of day the gift of God of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Through Cranmer the Church of England re-formed itself in harmony with Scripture. The covenantal aspect of the re-formation took some years to 'settle', the vicissitudes of testing the spirits (1 John 4:1) of Mary Tudor's Catholicism and others' Puritanism needing to be passed through. Thus the post-Reformation Anglican church is a church embedded in a history, not simply based on an idea. There is therefore a case for any version of Anglicanism wishing to be a continuing Anglicanism to be an Anglicanism in communion with the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In such communion we testify to the peculiarity of our life as one shaped by history and not merely by an idea.
The temptation to break communion with Canterbury is strong at this time, for both the 'left' and the 'right' of current issues. From both sides, for example, a 'post colonial' critique emerges of Canterbury and the Church of England's role in the Communion. Autonomous Anglican churches founded in the colonies of England which bend, even slightly, towards the authority of Canterbury, are vestigiously colonial, and this should cease. But this would be a mistake. The peculiarity of our life as one shaped by history includes all that is unfortunate about colonialism. But the response to that unhappy history does not necessitate rupture with Canterbury or the Church of England. Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, as we deal with the injustice of colonial disruption to Maoritanga, including currupt dealing over land and taonga, we deal between Crown and Maori. We do not dissolve the Crown and then, somehow, work between Maori and some new reality of government which has not historical continuity with the Crown.
At the heart of communion with Canterbury lies a thankfulness for what Canterbury has meant to the Anglican church, first in England, and then spreading through the world: in the vision of Cranmer the church was re-formed in a godly manner, with new strengths and without old weaknesses. In terms of 1 John 3:4-10, the lawfulness of the Anglican Communion flows from the great work of Cranmer (and, of course, many others). A clear and present danger of breaking communion with Canterbury is the possibility of lawlessness - in the sense, at least, of becoming a set of ever dividing churches claiming in various degress to be "Anglican".
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Challenge to NZ Anglican bishops
Who said this?
"As I understand it the Anglican Church, in this province [ie. ACANZP], recognises two ways of life. One is marriage, which is between a man and a woman. And the other is celibacy."
Bishop Victoria Matthews said it in a newspaper interview published today in NZ. She is right. This is the standard for sexual relationships for people in licensed ministry in our church, as agreed by our bishops.
The challenge for our bishops is this: to live by their own agreement. Further, to embrace the necessary dimension of being bishops of a catholic church which means (a) no unilateral actions (b) abiding by the teaching of the church (c) making the onus of proof for innovation fall on the innovators ... to say nothing of embracing the necessary dimensions of a reformed church which means accepting the authority of Scripture as greater than tradition or reason, though both tradition and reason contribute to our understanding of Scripture.
Anyway, welcome to Down Under, Bishop Victoria!
Clearly Bishop Victoria is well informed about what is what and what is not in our church, and our hopes are high that she will underline the catholic and reformed character of our church in meetings of the bishops.
PS for those readers who look up the whole interview, I am passing over, in dignified and diplomatic silence, her disagreement with my bishop!!!
"As I understand it the Anglican Church, in this province [ie. ACANZP], recognises two ways of life. One is marriage, which is between a man and a woman. And the other is celibacy."
Bishop Victoria Matthews said it in a newspaper interview published today in NZ. She is right. This is the standard for sexual relationships for people in licensed ministry in our church, as agreed by our bishops.
The challenge for our bishops is this: to live by their own agreement. Further, to embrace the necessary dimension of being bishops of a catholic church which means (a) no unilateral actions (b) abiding by the teaching of the church (c) making the onus of proof for innovation fall on the innovators ... to say nothing of embracing the necessary dimensions of a reformed church which means accepting the authority of Scripture as greater than tradition or reason, though both tradition and reason contribute to our understanding of Scripture.
Anyway, welcome to Down Under, Bishop Victoria!
Clearly Bishop Victoria is well informed about what is what and what is not in our church, and our hopes are high that she will underline the catholic and reformed character of our church in meetings of the bishops.
PS for those readers who look up the whole interview, I am passing over, in dignified and diplomatic silence, her disagreement with my bishop!!!
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Innovation
Lovely to hear our Bishop, Richard Ellena - yes, he of 'Lambeth most expensive exercise in futility' fame - reporting back to his clergy last night. Some fleshing out of the reasons for feeling extremely frustrated were given in Bishop Richard's wonderful warm, humourous, and passionate manner.
Some citations of Archbishop Rowan's presidential addresses prompted me to a reflection or two. Particularly I want to underline here the challenge given in the last address to those seeking innovation:
"And this is not by any means to say that a traditional understanding and a new one are just two equal options, like items on the supermarket shelf : the practice and public language of the Church act always as a reminder that the onus of proof is on those who seek a new understanding."
In my mind I connected this with my previous posting on Jeremiah: the new covenent of God involves a new method (so to speak) of receiving God's revelation but does not involve a new content. It was good to check the comments on that post for moderation and to find a reminder of Jeremiah 6:16, "look to the ancient paths"!
It has been said by people such as Graham Kings and Kendall Harmon that (in my words) the tragic flaw in TEC's position is that it has pushed for innovation without offering theologically coherent reason for doing so. (At best it has offered, 'our canon law does not forbid it').
But here in ACANZP we have a related flaw in some thinking among our leadership. We have embarked on a seven year series of hermeneutical hui ('conferences') in an endeavour to find a common mind in our church. But I am now thinking that the presupposition here seems to be, "a traditional understanding and a new one are just two equal options, like items on the supermarket shelf". Archbishop Rowan has exposed the inadequacy of this. The onus in the seven years is on the innovators to advance for examination the case for theological justification of innovation.
As I understand some thinking going on re the blessing of same sex relationships (and the consequent possibility that a person in such a relationship may therefore be deemed 'chaste' and thus satisfy our canons on ministry standards if accepted for ordination) there are pragmatic, pastoral reasons being advanced: compassion demands we do not withhold such blessing ... with such blessing partnerships are strengthened ... acceptance of committed partnerships provides a better 'option' than a forced singleness which may find expression in promiscuity.
But the quest for theological coherency in the case is a quest for something more from a church which normally acts with, and not against, the grain of Scripture and its interpretation worked out and received as the church's tradition. Questions I do not see being answered, in TEC or in ACANZP, include:
- what Scriptural basis authorises the church to bless a sexual relationship apart from a marriage between a man and a woman?
- where, in the long history of Israel and the church, both as written down in Scripture, and recorded through Christian history, does the tension between faithful marriage and committed singleness of leaders of Israel and of the church extend to the possibility that God calls leaders who are in committed same sex partnerships?
- given the fact that the situation in Western society now is such that the quest for 'acceptance' of homosexuality includes a growing agenda (gay, lesbian and bisexual and transgender; same sex couples rearing children with the aid of a third person as biological father or mother), where is the 'positive' basis in Scripture and the tradition of the church for acceptance of the whole agenda being advanced?
- how is the church to theologically sustain either of the following situations: being a church in which ministers may teach that the blessing of same sex partnerships is wrong and ministers may live in a blessed same sex partnership OR being a church in which both ministers may live in a blessed same sex partnership and ministers may not teach that such blessings are wrong?
If it is doubtful that Scripture authorises the blessing of same sex partnerships, it is incomprehensible that Scripture forbids ministers of the Word from teaching that such blessings are wrong! That is, the onus is on the innovators to demonstrate that the previous sentence is wrong!!
Some citations of Archbishop Rowan's presidential addresses prompted me to a reflection or two. Particularly I want to underline here the challenge given in the last address to those seeking innovation:
"And this is not by any means to say that a traditional understanding and a new one are just two equal options, like items on the supermarket shelf : the practice and public language of the Church act always as a reminder that the onus of proof is on those who seek a new understanding."
In my mind I connected this with my previous posting on Jeremiah: the new covenent of God involves a new method (so to speak) of receiving God's revelation but does not involve a new content. It was good to check the comments on that post for moderation and to find a reminder of Jeremiah 6:16, "look to the ancient paths"!
It has been said by people such as Graham Kings and Kendall Harmon that (in my words) the tragic flaw in TEC's position is that it has pushed for innovation without offering theologically coherent reason for doing so. (At best it has offered, 'our canon law does not forbid it').
But here in ACANZP we have a related flaw in some thinking among our leadership. We have embarked on a seven year series of hermeneutical hui ('conferences') in an endeavour to find a common mind in our church. But I am now thinking that the presupposition here seems to be, "a traditional understanding and a new one are just two equal options, like items on the supermarket shelf". Archbishop Rowan has exposed the inadequacy of this. The onus in the seven years is on the innovators to advance for examination the case for theological justification of innovation.
As I understand some thinking going on re the blessing of same sex relationships (and the consequent possibility that a person in such a relationship may therefore be deemed 'chaste' and thus satisfy our canons on ministry standards if accepted for ordination) there are pragmatic, pastoral reasons being advanced: compassion demands we do not withhold such blessing ... with such blessing partnerships are strengthened ... acceptance of committed partnerships provides a better 'option' than a forced singleness which may find expression in promiscuity.
But the quest for theological coherency in the case is a quest for something more from a church which normally acts with, and not against, the grain of Scripture and its interpretation worked out and received as the church's tradition. Questions I do not see being answered, in TEC or in ACANZP, include:
- what Scriptural basis authorises the church to bless a sexual relationship apart from a marriage between a man and a woman?
- where, in the long history of Israel and the church, both as written down in Scripture, and recorded through Christian history, does the tension between faithful marriage and committed singleness of leaders of Israel and of the church extend to the possibility that God calls leaders who are in committed same sex partnerships?
- given the fact that the situation in Western society now is such that the quest for 'acceptance' of homosexuality includes a growing agenda (gay, lesbian and bisexual and transgender; same sex couples rearing children with the aid of a third person as biological father or mother), where is the 'positive' basis in Scripture and the tradition of the church for acceptance of the whole agenda being advanced?
- how is the church to theologically sustain either of the following situations: being a church in which ministers may teach that the blessing of same sex partnerships is wrong and ministers may live in a blessed same sex partnership OR being a church in which both ministers may live in a blessed same sex partnership and ministers may not teach that such blessings are wrong?
If it is doubtful that Scripture authorises the blessing of same sex partnerships, it is incomprehensible that Scripture forbids ministers of the Word from teaching that such blessings are wrong! That is, the onus is on the innovators to demonstrate that the previous sentence is wrong!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)