The question we must ever face is not “What errors do we see in our opponents position?”, but “What values do we discern in our opponents position, values that our
own position may not be stressing as fully?” And we need to see these questions not as ones simply to be asked in a formal way, but as expressing an attitude of a path of shared discovery on which we are willing to embark, within the debate in which we are participating.
And so concerning the current ”˜troubles’ in our communion:
· We might ask that the debate be shaped in terms of values rather than policies or strategies
· We thus ask each Province to express the values it sees being expressed in it present position, relating these to values within our scriptural and traditional
inheritance
· We note that as a metaphysical ”˜fact’ values clash and that this creates a significant space within which a variety of good options can be considered .
· We seek to articulate this ”˜space’ as an area within which diversity can be accepted, as being paths that seek to live in the light of Christian values, noting
that this limited variety is not ”˜anything goes relativism’.
· We do not expect total agreement, but we seek to circumscribe an acceptable pluralism. In doing do we reflect the recommendation of Aristotle, only to expect
that degree of precision (akribeia) of which the subject admits.
· Each Province admits that no one will in their life have achieved a total and full expression of the Divine demand, but each with due humility and repentance
offers its life to God and to the other Provinces.
To approach in this way is to accept, in Kuhn’s terms that we may need a paradigm shift in perspective, or in Goldmann’s terms “a conversion”, for a world in which values clash, is a very different world from one in which these values are potentially in harmony.
Scots are usually more direct and incisive in the comments.
The bishop is neither direct nor incisive nor does he define the “chasm” separating orthodox Anglicans from the radical secularists co-existing in the Anglican Communion.
You can speak of commonly held “values” all you want but please remember that two of the 20th Century’s most notorious and bloody dictators “value[d]” selected small children. Did this “valu[ation]” or love of these certain small children give them common ground with Christians?
Certainly not.
perhaps we should not ask why the titanic is sinking- but consder how nicely we might live from now on with this hole that is getting bigger……..glug
It’s difficult where to begin with this article. Just when I thought I had found an error worthy of commenting on, another more serious one cropped up.
I was going to comment on the false dichotomies throughout the article, for example in the first sentence, the foolishness of the statement
(Of course, he omits from his list — which I have omitted — matters referring to Christiology, soteriology, epistemology, and the nature of revelation which I see as the most fundamental differences between reappraisers and reasserters). But if all of the assertions have an element of truth, what good is it focussing on just one?
Then I came across
with no discussion of whether that is good or bad, and how we can tell.
Then there was this
There is no attempt here to define good and bad. I have always regarded good as defined by God’s will and purpose; which is self-consistent. Thus there is never a clash between good and good – although we might have difficulty in resolving which is which. If, and when, Christian values clash with the world’s values then as a Christian I have to say that the Christian values are good, and the world’s values, however appealing, bad.
But then I came to this statement
But as there is only one God, there is only one good. If believing this makes me blinkered in the eyes of Isaiah Berlin, then so be it.
Then we had
We must be talking about a different Jesus.
OK, so we are talking about a different Jesus. Yes, Jesus is fully human, but I see no acknowledgement, direct or indirect, in this article of the fact that he is also fully divine. The working assumption seems to be the contrary. Which is why I hold that Christiology is one of the keys to our differences.
We fail in our Christian obligations, but that is because of our weakness, not because they are contradictory.
But this is what left me utterly shocked
Differences yes, between the persons of the trinity, but painful? Differences in values? Differences in will?
My understanding of the Trinity (and I hope that others would correct me if I am wrong) is that there is one common will between the three persons of the Godhead, while Jesus as the incarnate son has two wills, one human and one divine, with the human will in perfect submission to the divine. At Gethsemane, the human will in Christ submits to the divine. Yet the Bishop of Edinburgh seems to be implying that there is conflict within the divine will; between the three persons of the Godhead.
I am simply astounded that a Bishop could write this.
Or, more succintly, “‘Come into my parlour’, said the spider to the fly.”
[i][b]King of Swamp Castle:[/b] Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue over who killed who. [/i]
Aside from this being a gross oversimplification of the deep exegetical and hermeneutical differences which are dictated by biblical theology vs. those who hold to a lower view of scripture (e.g. it’s a witness to a fine fellow of Jewish origin who may or may not have existed in time and space and who may or may not have died on a cross, and who may or may not have physically risen from a particular tomb) this is a flacid and tawdry excuse for a unity which does not exist. He also tries to sanctify his view by making it sound erudite, in the misappropriation of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn’s own view would dictate that presuppositions are made before hand, and that given a certain paradigm, certain other things necessarily follow. In this instance the paradigm in question is whether one hold’s to the bible as the very word of the Infinite God of the universe or whether your paradigm is that the bible is a nice collection of inspirational literature on par with any number of other interesting historical documents, like the recently fashionable poetry of Jallaludin Rumi or the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Tao Te Ching. So, if you want to talk about Kuhn and paradigms driving one’s exegesis and orthopraxy. . . .then the shift in paradigms which needs to take place is the one which acknowledges the bible as God’s word, apriori. Perhaps you recall the phrase Credo ut intelligam ? I believe in order to understand. To place the so called “understanding” first, is to put the cart before the horse, and that we will not do, as we are submitted to the comprehensive Lordship of Jesus Christ even in our study of His Word. . .any “unity” which pretends to patch folk together without a shared paradigm of the Holy Scriptures will simply not hold together.
“What values do we discern in our opponents position…”
I just can’t get past King Jesus’ words….”brood of vipers”. That’s a pretty valuable description for me of our opponents’ position.
Choir Stall. . .here here! amen, amen I say to you.
See “Lavish Grace” below (more to come soon):
http://carloarturo7.googlepages.com/
This is largely and openly Isaiah Berlin rehashed. Of course, like Berlin’s own work the problem this paper raises is how value conflicts are rationally resolvable at all.
The baleful influence of Hegel on modern theology. What we need is a return to the theological assumptions that guided Christian speech about God from the second to the eighteenth century.
Let me add one more thing – Berlin’s analyses, of course, have no foundational place for sin, salvation or right relationship with God. Surprisingly the Bishop seems relatively uninterested in such things too. But unless one thinks how Christians live is an inessential matter – as is now, following the Righter trial, the apparent de facto official doctrine of TEC – then Christians are unlikely ever to be as sanguine about the fact of fundamental value pluralism as Berlin would like pluralist liberal democracies to be.
Thus I suggest a paper that seems to be appealing for a realism (people disagree, get over it) is profoundly unrealistic about the psychology of foundational ethical and theological views.
It’s stuff like this that leads some people who are friends of the Anglican Communion and/or the Episcopal Church to nevertheless think that we now don’t have much gravitas.
Let me propose an alternative model. I suggest one cannot discuss ethics rationally unless one has some measure of agreement about ends. As Aristotle says – practical judgment concerns discussion of means not ends. Of course, ends may be discussed from time to time in ethical matters, but in the light of higher ends on which, once again, there is at least relative agreement. In other words – one needs some at least minimal agreement on what is the good in order to have the kind of rational discussion that the Bishop is suggesting.