In particular, we affirm the following:
3. That there has been no sustained debate on this matter in the Church. Twelve years ago a group of British academics published ”˜The St Andrew’s Day Statement’, a non-polemical document identifying some of the important theological matters raised by the Church’s response to those living in same-sex relationships. As recently as this past January, one of the document’s authors, The Rev. Professor Oliver O’Donovan, maintained that the Statement has been largely ignored. Bishop Ingham’s assertion that the Church ”˜stands in need’ of a better theology of sexuality is itself an affirmation that the doctrinal character of this matter is something that has yet to be worked out. For him, this would involve ”˜of necessity an entire reappraisal of Christian tradition, going right back to the Bible itself’. It is true that consultations have been held on the St Michael Report across the country. But, with the exception of the ”˜Faith Seeking Understanding Conference’ held at Huron University College this past January, most of these consultations have been given over to hearing points of view and not to a critical exchange of ideas. Quite simply, what is lacking is a biblical and theological justification for changing the Church’s teaching.
—A Pentecost Letter to General Synod Delegates and Others from Concerned Theologians and Scholars
Over and over again I ask this question: Where is the authority for change?
The Episcopal Church, The Anglican Communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury all claim they have no authority, so no authority for change is needed. Right?
Archbishop Hutchinson called for the Synod to use “our baptismal covenant, our consciences and the Holy Spirit” (see here http://northernplainsanglicans.blogspot.com/2007/06/following-is-posted-at-diocese-of-south.html) as sources of authority on the SSB discussion.
Scripture is out of the mix, and the appeal is to “authorities” that can be rendered vague or numinous.
The baptismal covenant has been stretched to mean “politically correct opinion” rather than the presentation of baptism in the New Testament.
Individual conscience, as the Scripture teaches, can be “seared” beyond use by false teachers.
And the Holy Spirit, if we follow the Scriptures, is not going to contradict the will of the Father revealed in Christ.
By excluding the Bible that they (at least the ordained leaders) swore to believe in as “The Word of God, containing all things necessary to salvation”, these leaders jettison any kind of doctrine in favor of desired entitlements for groups they favor. The church becomes a club, where there are no values except who is liked and disliked by the inner circle.
Of course, you have to get rid of Scripture to get to the desired result.
This is just a rehash of the Windsor Report.
Seriously, what good will more conversation do? It will simply put off the inevitable. As (First World) society in general becomes more liberal in its views toward sexuality and the authority of the Church, the number of dissenters in TEC will dwindle. The AC certainly goes against the grain with such a large majority of people opposed to these innovations. However, all these movements peak and wane. Take, for example, the Roman Catholic Church whose adherents differ strongly from its leaders. In traditionally RC countries they are not passing laws for unions, but actual laws for marriage. To delay the inevitable is foolish. Let’s see if it is a movement of the Spirit or an abandonment of God.
But a deep, serious look at human sexuality is called for. I personally believe homosexuality is a deviant, addictive behavior and that the rules we have for monogamy or celibacy are good and have to do with obedience, not nature. But reading these boards give me the creeps. Some people remind me of naughty little boys peeking in windows. There is a real need to “grow up” about sex.
To enable the foolish is enable death, Brian. Is Christianity just a movement for you? Why are you so interested, then? What’s the eternal value for you if you aren’t made different from a foolish world that takes the Divine and ignores and rejects it while lifting up the intrensically disordered life and if it were life and Divine creation? Your religion is void. Is it too early after 2000 years to say it’s abondonment of God?
Surely local option is NOT the way to handle this is it is as important as so many of the speakers today have said.
#5 Brian from T19:
I would fundamentally disagree with one characterization you made in your comment:
(emphasis added)
I would argue that differing from “the leaders” of one’s church on a matter considered a part of the magisterium of that church, even if simply viewed from a purely linguistic perspective, very strongly demonstrates the reality that one is, by definition, NOT an adherent of that church[†].
Identifying oneself as an adherent to a cause no more makes it so than does identifying oneself as a Christian make one a Christian, or than does identifying oneself as in the majority make one a part of the majority.
——————
[†]: adherent: (noun), a person who follows or upholds a leader, cause, etc.; supporter; follower.
A deep anxiety of mine is that we don’t know anymore what counts as a theologian or a theological discussion. At least Rome and the Orthodox have a take on that. We’ve spent our capital on “itching ears” to the point that we don’t even have a clue about what makes for a proper theologian or theology.
Albany is correct in this matter. Part of the debate in the present synod revolves around words that have been misused so much they have lost much of their meaning. The have lost their denotation and have become snarl or purr words, used to tell us something about the speaker’s attitude and little about his putative subject. “Gay” is an obvious case in point. Think for a minute how absurd the attribution is to homosexuality. And now the word cannot be used except in this tortured sense.
As bias pursuades the agenda-driven to take common words with accepted meanings and slide them into new meanings, not by redefinition, but by continually placing the common into juxtapostion with agenda-driven purposes until frequent use conflates one with the other. And then meaning disappears because the genus, necessary for clarity in definition, has been altered so that it includes associated but incompatible elements. A clear example is “to tolerate” which now is taken to mean “to sanction” or “to encourage.” This is not legitimate language alteration. The result is that “to tolerate” can be used in its original context but denote something quite different. When one distorts language enough in the fashion, rational debate loses much of its semantic clarity, and the boundaries necessary for clarity are obscured beyond reclamation. Once again, I note that all denotation requires the establishment of a genus, inside which all subclasses carry such distinctive differentiae that language itself may single out, by these differentiae, the one meaning proper to the word being defined. In short, the process of exclusion – the distinctions of differentiae – is essential to all that knowledge which is essentially verbal. The process cannot be scouted if linguistic clarity is the goal.
If is NOT the goal, then we have TECspeak in which words are deliberately left shifted into boundarylessness, standardlessness, and one result is a woman who can maintain that she is both Muslim and Christian without any concern for the meaning of words. And this bring us to Albany’s conclusion, that we can not longer know that those whose job is to know, know or do not know. And that is the question, if I may coin a phrase. Language has been prostituted to an extraordinary degree; we cannot be surprised that here are now so many who pander to these perversions, and that there are so many semantic whores. LM
Does anyone else have the problem of the comments above stretching into the tool-bar across on the right? or is it only me?
I can only read the comments if I highlight them so that the black covers over what is in the right hand column
$12 MargaretG,
Not I.