tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post6373930062349777214..comments2024-02-13T11:11:28.246+00:00Comments on Bishop Alan’s Blog: Encouraging what engagement? How?Bishop Alan Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-32837851242752017692010-11-05T18:44:24.920+00:002010-11-05T18:44:24.920+00:00My biggest problem with the Covenant is that it gi...My biggest problem with the Covenant is that it gives the conservative Pharisees authority over Gamaliel - something which, in contrast, the Anglican Communion has been historically very good at. Rather than allowing God to be the arbiter of whether innovations are holy or not, we are proposing a committee of wise men, and if it goes through, TEC won't be the only church to be ushered outside of the city wall.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-55467003392858108952010-11-05T16:17:23.620+00:002010-11-05T16:17:23.620+00:00Alan said:
"At exactly the time the Holy Spi...Alan said:<br /><br />"At exactly the time the Holy Spirit is breaking down the lines of Victorian deominationalism by raising up new non-denominational Churches in the UK, the dear old C of E comes puffing up the hill turning itself into a new model denomination! Why?"<br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br />I think someone somwhere - or maybe quite a lot of people everywhere - have forgotten whose church we are and what we are here for.<br /><br />The Covenant as a mechanism for promoting worldwide unity among Anglicans is about as successful as the Titanic was in raising standards of shipping safety.<br /><br />There is lesson the Titanic - the more waterproof you think you've made something, the more susceptible it is to unexpected events. <br /><br />If God wants us to have a Covenant for some reason, we'll get one. But who knows? Maybe that reason won't be to keep the ship afloat but to capsize it once and for all.Pam Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03952001402591649389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-88055268759538253402010-11-05T15:56:24.502+00:002010-11-05T15:56:24.502+00:00Peter
The bible is quite explicit about its stance...Peter<br />The bible is quite explicit about its stance on divorce and usury, and yet all churches have found a way of reconciling their ideas of orthodoxy with charging interest.<br /><br />As far as I know all churches in the Anglican Communion accept divorce, many will even remarry divorcees and some will have divorced priests.<br /><br />If those apparently anti-Scriptural moves did not break the Communion, why should the current batch of disagreements?<br /><br /><br />My issue is indeed that TEC will not fit into the framework of the Covenant. Nor will Canada and a number of other provinces. Who knows, in a few years time the CoE might find itself outside its boundaries too.<br /><br />That is one of the big problems with excluding the more liberal members of the Communion. The balance shifts towards the conservatives, those who are currently middle of the road become the new liberals by default, and in the next round of disagreement they are the ones who will be forced to comply or take their leave by the Instruments of the Communion.<br /><br />This is not a real unity nor does it lead to a healthy Communion.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-34173422291369396962010-11-05T15:17:17.866+00:002010-11-05T15:17:17.866+00:00I think that if it were possible, Peter to pick up...I think that if it were possible, Peter to pick up some of the slightly stray points in this discussion it would really help to move it forward. I just want to congratulate everybody on having the most intelligent discussion I have ever heard on this subject, way more concerned with the real issues than the last college of Bishops which mulled over the details of text but no more.<br /><br />As far as Catholicity goes I think of it as being a mark of the Church. Baptism moves us into the Church, and is inherent in the reality we confess in the creeds. You can't be more or less Catholic. Either you are in the ark or not, and I am very much with Augustine about whom you reckon in.<br /><br />There are people for whom an engaged expression of this reality requires a beefier structure, if I can put it that way. But there are also people who think the glory of the present ecclesiology is that we can share in fellowship easily and naturally in all kinds of informal ways precisely because we travel light for institutional baggage. At the time of the reforation the C of E did not envisage turning itself into some kind of global denomination — simply that it was to be the Church for this country, which prayed for "all Christian kings princes and governours" without trying to prescribe their alignment with a denominational norm.<br /><br />It has to be said that over the past forty years the beefiness of our glopbal institutions has increased considerably (primates meeting ACC etc.) Has this made us more aware of our Catholicity or less? You could say "One more heave and we'll be there" if pro Covenant, or you could say, if anti, we've already got a whole suitcase of slightly self--important sounding global committees we didn't have fifty years ago, and their activities have by and large not brought us together as effectively as mission agencies and common service and informal links have. The more our relationships get bogged down in formal committees, the more bureaucratised and unsatisfactory they become, sometimes!<br /><br />And then, actually, why be a denomination? Where does that whole concept sit with the NT concept of Church — nowhere, surely (I speak provocatively to aid the discussion) What, in NT terms is a denominartion? At exactly the time the Holy Spirit is breaking down the lines of Victorian deominationalism by raising up new non-denominational Churches in the UK, the dear old C of E comes puffing up the hill turning itself into a new model denomination! Why?Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-35594371974266284192010-11-05T15:13:31.788+00:002010-11-05T15:13:31.788+00:00Let me try and answer your questions.
i) I draw t...Let me try and answer your questions.<br /><br />i) I draw the line at what the Bible says. I'm quite happy to accept that some things are not explicit and we can disagree on them. Others are explicit AND have soteriological implications if we get them wrong.<br /><br />ii) If you're talking about the Anglican Communion, there has not, until now, been major differences in theology and practice. Almost all the AC churches draw on the Cranmerian reformation and its expression in the 39 Articles. They have also all shared a Lutheranesque theological basis. Since the ordaining of women that consensus has been slowly broken and we are now at a point where there are significant differences of a kind we have not seen in 150 years.<br /><br />iii) See above. The problem is that we haven't had differences before of the gravity that we have them now. For some in Africa what TEC is doing is unthinkable because it (a) utterly contradicts what they teach, (b) has soteriological implications and (c) has missiological implications.<br /><br />iv) I actually see the Covenant as a way of keeping together as large as possible a Communion of churches based on a common heritage. I suspect your issue with it is that TEC might not be able to even fit into the generous manner that the Covenant is being framed.Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-22603082136764597502010-11-05T14:42:43.547+00:002010-11-05T14:42:43.547+00:00So the question now arises, which matters of consc...<i>So the question now arises, which matters of conscience can a Christian respect and which can she not? How do we decide? Is there a Biblical principle, or are we going to use a determinator outside of Scripture? If so, what?</i><br /><br />With regard to Scripture, I have two principal touchstone passages. From the Hebrew Testament, Micahs words, "What does the Lord ask of you O mortal, but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly before your God?" And from the Gospels, Jesus' words on the two Great Commandments, to love God with all our hearts, souls, strength and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves, which commandments contain the whole law and the prophets. Others have their touchstone passages of choice. <br /><br />You can probably find passages in the Bible to back up most any opinion you want to hold, but the two above are core passages for me when I make moral decisions.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-56677951142168126732010-11-05T13:50:30.743+00:002010-11-05T13:50:30.743+00:00Peter
my point is that we have never had what you ...Peter<br />my point is that we have never had what you would call "catholicity", we have always had a varied nation churches doing things that others would have thought was profoundly unorthodox.<br /><br />My favourite example of what we should do is the Church of England, which is a shining example of how widely different groups of Christians can live together without constantly having to tell the others that they are wrong, unorthodox, un-Christian.<br /><br />I propose that we learn from this example.<br /><br />I would also be grateful if you could answer some of the points in my previous post.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-73676607018584067852010-11-05T12:55:24.067+00:002010-11-05T12:55:24.067+00:00Alan and Erika,
The issue is whether the Covenant...Alan and Erika,<br /><br />The issue is whether the Covenant will help to encourage catholicity. If not, what other method do you support? What are the limits to "just getting along with each other"?Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-49385475587147330512010-11-05T12:48:01.119+00:002010-11-05T12:48:01.119+00:00Peter
FiF use the same argument to say that the Co...Peter<br />FiF use the same argument to say that the CoE or even the Anglican Communion did not have the right to vote for women priests because not all the world’s Christian denominations have come to the same conclusion at the same time.<br /><br />The question then becomes whether we believe that discernment is a monolithic thing that a particular majority or a particular group has to approve and where we draw the line.<br />You are not a Roman Catholic, so I assume you agree with the principle that not all Christians everywhere have to reach the same decision at the same time in order for discernment to be valid.<br />So where do you draw the line and why?<br /><br />Why was the discernment of national churches acceptable until now, even when it produced different practices and theologies in the different churches, and why is it suddenly not acceptable any longer?<br /> <br />Why were we able to live with difference until now and suddenly it should be absolutely unthinkable that a church in America does something different to a church in Africa? <br /><br />And do you really believe the Covenant will do anything other than create a smaller church that is slightly “purer” for the time being – until the next disagreement?Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-29331264633676610672010-11-05T12:00:29.648+00:002010-11-05T12:00:29.648+00:00dear Peter, I think the money shot in our conversa...dear Peter, I think the money shot in our conversation was the point about conscience and its uses (which Abraham illustrates even better) rather than the grammar of the verse.<br /><br />As to the covenant, and taking a slightly devil's advocate view for the purposes of argument, in a centralised Imperium like the RC Church there is a head office top down ecclesiology maintained by the Papacy. We are just not that kind of Church, neither did they exercise authority in that way in the early Church.<br /><br />How would, say the Sydney stuff "be decided" at Communion level? Surely they do it anyway, they'll carry on doing it, whatever a committee says is Anglican or not. A think tank could advise them of the implications, I suppose, but it has, as the covenant itself points ut, no enforcement powers anyway. So all it turns out to be could be what we've already got now, but less flexible? Or is there some x factor that everybody's missing?<br /><br />Some people can't see yet how this proposal would have helped any renewal movement in the Church positively, say the Evangelical revivals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, or the Missionary or Oxford movements. The most our new model committee could have done is decide they represented innovations (and thus were presumably un Anglican?) What use would that have been?Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-21659317064957022872010-11-05T11:45:24.248+00:002010-11-05T11:45:24.248+00:00Alan,
I'm quite happy to have a conversation ...Alan,<br /><br />I'm quite happy to have a conversation about hiphil and moloch, but let me get home to my library first!Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-63929906920841408402010-11-05T11:44:23.616+00:002010-11-05T11:44:23.616+00:00Erika,
No one's arguing that TEC has to chang...Erika,<br /><br />No one's arguing that TEC has to change its polity, but then if the Anglican Communion as a whole changes its polity, why shouldn't that be respected as well? We are semi-autonomous at the moment because we choose to be - equally we can choose not to be (and some can choose still to be while others are closer).<br /><br />What the Covenant provides is a manner of handling innovations and discernments that would mean that *if* such an innovation were of God it could be accepted by the Communion as a whole. It's a way of handling the holiness of sexual practice issue as much as it's a way of handling the Sydney Diocese lunacy of lay presidency. And the reason why these things should be decided at communion level is not because of "unity" but because of holy apostolic catholicity.Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-72077044473898131192010-11-05T10:40:01.521+00:002010-11-05T10:40:01.521+00:00Peter
In the context of the Covenant we are not ta...Peter<br />In the context of the Covenant we are not talking about individual moral decisions that may or may not be valid.<br />We are talking about national churches that through their own processes of discernment and supported by a large body of serious theology have come to a new decision about topics that present a moral dilemma in many countries all over the world and in all walks of life, and that are therefore not as spurious as someone feeling they would like to kill their child. Although, you’re right, positions on life and death issues certainly form part of the moral dilemmas we have to deal with. <br /><br />By what right do we suddenly claim that the polity of a sister church is no longer valid because we happen not to like what it came up with? That the theology they developed or applied is inadmissible because it does not happen to support our own view? When there is a long history of “innovations” that either became mainstream or, like women priests, became part of some traditions and not of others. <br /><br />Isn’t the real question why something that always used to be discerned at national church level should now be subject to an international majority override for no other reason than “unity”? Because forcing people to comply or kicking them out doesn’t exactly result in genuine unity either.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-3555952721166255812010-11-05T10:29:41.137+00:002010-11-05T10:29:41.137+00:00Thanks, Peter for taing us to thte heart of teh Ab...Thanks, Peter for taing us to thte heart of teh Abraham question. I think it's important on that one to remember that a bronze age conscience would have had few problems about Moloch, but ours would, partly because God provided an alternative. The Hiphil is, however, directly causative and relates, I would say, to the ambiguity of the whole OT tradition about High Places and what went on there, and in the valley of Hinnom.<br /><br />On conscience it has always seemed to me you can't absolutize what it says because conscience is like a radio set that needs tuning and the result analysing before you can evaluate whether or not to follow it.<br /><br />However, it is the set we have to receive the good signal from God... so always respect, I'd say, but not uncritically.<br /><br />The other observation I'd make is that everybody's got one. People who tend to go on about theirs sometimes forget this, and that never helps.Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-59570073106060834442010-11-05T09:56:10.568+00:002010-11-05T09:56:10.568+00:00In response to everyone else's comments since ...In response to everyone else's comments since my comments yesterday, I think we have firmly established that we all accept that we cannot absolutely always respect people's consciences. The very fact that you find hideous the idea of me being allowed to kill my child and that you wish to oppose it demonstrates that it is right to not respect my conscience in this matter.<br /><br />So the question now arises, which matters of conscience can a Christian respect and which can she not? How do we decide? Is there a Biblical principle, or are we going to use a determinator outside of Scripture? If so, what?Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-3927098398907173922010-11-05T09:51:51.793+00:002010-11-05T09:51:51.793+00:00Alan,
I think you've positioned the question ...Alan,<br /><br />I think you've positioned the question in a manner that misses out some of the thrust of what's going on in Ezekiel 20. The first act is the rebellion of the people against God. This then leads God to instruct/allow them (though the Hebrew is not clear is it? Is it less a case of God directly instructing them and more a case that he just lets them to do more of their rebellion and "helps" them in it? - shades of Romans 1) to continue their rebellion, leading the people to commit detestable acts which further bring God's judgement. I would argue that God simply lets them get on with a framework of sin and then lets them reap the consequences. There is then the call to repentance in verse 30 which sums up as "This is where your fathers' sin led them - what are you going to choose to do?"<br /><br />Perhaps you're better asking Abraham this overarching question as to whether God would ever be right in asking someone to kill their son?Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-56256434232509846292010-11-05T01:00:51.555+00:002010-11-05T01:00:51.555+00:00Peter just a question from the sidelne, as a Cambr...Peter just a question from the sidelne, as a Cambrudge Hebraist, that interests me from your interesting line of questioning: I'm sure you'll remember there is actually a curious Biblical tradition (Ezekiel 20:26) that God did give Israel statutes that were not good for them, and cause them to offer up their firstborn by fire (Hiphil) in the wilderness (Moloch). This leads me to ask, in no facetuous sense, If God asked you to do this, would you have done this, in conscience?Bishop Alan Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13879516755776951638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-18143303717624295272010-11-05T00:32:44.250+00:002010-11-05T00:32:44.250+00:00Peter, surely there is a difference between an act...Peter, surely there is a difference between an action which involves infringement of another's freedom and an act which, though one might think it wrong, harms primarily those who consent. And there is also a difference between trying to persuade people to change their views through debate and threatening them if they do not change behaviour which they do not regard as wrong.<br /><br />In fact, Anglicans have long managed to live with one another despite profound differences of conscience on matters as important as whether war (which in the modern world frequently does involve killing children) can ever be right. To some, the call to love one's enemy and treat others as one would want to be treated would rule out participating in or supporting a war, while others take a different view. <br /><br />Sometimes it takes time and patience to reach a common mind, and disciplinary measures can hinder rather than help this.Savi Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-90469732741833262842010-11-04T22:19:11.263+00:002010-11-04T22:19:11.263+00:00The Biblical issue is with the sexual expression o...<i> The Biblical issue is with the sexual expression of that (valid) love. </i> <br />Peter: In seeking to apply what the bible is saying for us today there is always a transposition to be made, however explicit the biblical pronouncements might seem. It was, I think, Leonard Hodgson who expressed it thus: "What must the truth be now if people who thought as the biblical writers did, put it like that?" <br />Perhaps the truth for us now includes the possibility of a lifelong committed sexual relationship between two people of the same sex - whether or not we call it marriage.DaviGosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10847764561754658767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-7010338735434276142010-11-04T20:00:09.483+00:002010-11-04T20:00:09.483+00:00"if my conscience told me it was acceptable t..."if my conscience told me it was acceptable to kill my child, why should you intervene?" -<br />To save the child's life. <br />If I am in a loving consensual relationship with my same sex partner, why should you intervene?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-6818514308357594972010-11-04T19:48:46.955+00:002010-11-04T19:48:46.955+00:00Peter
Scripture says nothing directly about smokin...Peter<br />Scripture says nothing directly about smoking just as it says nothing directly about committed same sex relationships for people who are not heterosexual.<br />But let's leave that aside.<br /><br />I would also like to leave your abstruse example aside because you know as well as I do that no-one is advocating anything that seriously harms another person.<br /><br />Let's just talk about a Christian framework for moral decisionmaking. And there, I would say that we have to acknowledge that there is a huge, higly intellectual and scholarly corpus of pro-gay theology just as there is a huge, highly intellectual and scholarly corpus about women priests. The theology in both cases has been done.<br /><br />The fact that not everyone agrees is not relevant. Relevant is that it is clearly possible for Christians to disagree with integrity.<br /><br />That means that I don't object to your Christian conscience in the matter, but I expect you not to object to mine either.Erika Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812376497361267014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-90582113146191629672010-11-04T19:43:53.371+00:002010-11-04T19:43:53.371+00:00On what grounds are you going to object to my chri...<i>On what grounds are you going to object to my christian conscience in this matter?</i> <br /><br />Peter, we speak from the vantage point of sharing a core morality to which the majority of people who call themselves Christian would adhere, therefore, I'd object on the grounds of doing mortal harm to another, which Lesley has already mentioned, and I'd move to stop you if I could.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-71677134528213731452010-11-04T17:58:44.267+00:002010-11-04T17:58:44.267+00:00We're not analogising the morality of the two ...We're not analogising the morality of the two acts, we're examining the idea that respecting other people's consciences is always a good thing.<br /><br />The legal argument Erika makes is pointless since I don't think she would argue that killing a child would be acceptable if it were legal. The law might be a reflection of a society's judgement on what morality is but it is not the prescriptor of morality.<br /><br />The smoking analogy doesn't work because the Scriptures say nothing about smoking do they? One might argue that the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit might lead one to looking down on smoking as an activity, but it's hardly as explicit an argument as sexual practice.<br /><br />So let me ask the question again because I don't think it's been answered properly - if my conscience told me it was acceptable to kill my child, why should you intervene? For the sake of argument, let's assume that I live in a country where child murder is legal based on a recent national referendum. On what grounds are you going to object to my christian conscience in this matter?Peter Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653736283239812968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-51580120748451102952010-11-04T16:09:44.699+00:002010-11-04T16:09:44.699+00:00Peter, what a sorry analogy - killing a child and ...Peter, what a sorry analogy - killing a child and two men having sex. That's a quick way to stop people from taking you seriously. <br /><br />Thanks Erika and Lesley for stepping up.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7132206171945839649.post-74787058864961258972010-11-04T14:03:48.957+00:002010-11-04T14:03:48.957+00:00Just a quick comment,
Peter, with your first poin...Just a quick comment,<br /><br />Peter, with your first point, the difference is that harm is being caused to another person, so our moral duty is to step in. If two people are making love and say that it is consensual, then it is our moral duty to respect their boundaries and to but out. <br /><br />Please, please can an evangelical tell me what they think Jesus meant by 'Do not judge' - I get asked this quite a lot as an ex-evangelical, and I don't know the answer. (That is a genuine question).<br /><br />LesleyLesleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17228191583982936566noreply@blogger.com