For some, [blessing non-celibate same sex unions] is a communion-breaking issue. Those who feel this way say that others have departed from the authority of the word of God, and from the orthodox expression of the faith and tradition of the church’s teaching on sexuality. They are so convinced of these things that they feel compelled to leave the national expression of the church to which they belong.
For others, however, this is not a communion-breaking issue. It is certainly controversial and has created strained relations within the church. But many people remain convinced of the need for continuing conversation. They are committed to principles of intentional listening, mutual respect, constructive dialogue and a capacity for tolerance of a variety of theological perspectives on this matter. For a great number of people, the conversation centres on being faithful to the word of God.
Many say, as a group of Canadian Anglican theologians have said, “the interpretation of Scripture is a central and complex matter and that, at times in the church’s history, ”˜faithful’ readings have led to mutually contradictory understandings, requiring ongoing dialogue and prayer towards discernment of the one voice of the gospel.”
For some, the conversation needs to be expanded to include the benefit of scientific research. For some others the critical question is: What constitutes loving and responsible pastoral care of gay and lesbian couples who desire to live in monogamous, life-long, committed relationships?
Controversial issues have often tested the principle of autonomy on the part of national churches that are bound together in the global Anglican Communion. So the question becomes: Is unity the ultimate value transcending all others, even at the risk of not acting on what we believe to be a gospel imperative in a local context? Or is action on a gospel imperative the ultimate value that transcends all others, even at the risk of not maintaining unity?
I believe this question is critical to our conversations at Lambeth.
“a gospel imperative in a local context”. An interesting concept. Can the good archbishop (or anyone on this blog) provide us with a compelling example of a (principled dogmatic rather than ad hoc pastoral) “gospel imperative”, preferably one actually to be found in the gospel, which categorically commands a non-trivial action in one context and categorically forbids it in another? I’m drawing a blank in thinking of a Catholic example. But if we can find one, does that confirm that this Anglican God, like this Anglican gospel, speaks with a forked tongue? If so, we arrive at an intriguing picture of that God, redolent of rich symbolic echoes, reminiscent of another well-known religious figure….
“But many people remain convinced of the need for continuing conversation. They are committed to principles of intentional listening, mutual respect, constructive dialogue and a capacity for tolerance of a variety of theological perspectives on this matter.”
Blah, blah, blah…
That might just have a kernel of truth in it if it weren’t for the fact that the reapraisers have already acted. They have done the deed. They weren’t committed to “mutual listening” when they completely ignored the Communion wide concensus resolved at Lambeth Conference 1998: Resolution 1.10 Human Sexuality. If they were committed to listening and dialogue…why did they act unilaterally?
No, this is a dodge to make try and justify that which cannot be justified. In short…it is a LIE.
“No, this is a dodge to make try and justify that which cannot be justified. In short…it is a LIE.”
Should read: No, this is a dodge to try and justify that which cannot be justified. In short…it is a LIE.
There you go, nuancing things again. Wha IS the mater with you ha ha ha ha Larry
#2 puts his finger on it. “Conversation” in the Left’s lexicon means keeping reasserters talking while doing whatever they please.
Fred’s suggestions might have more reliability if they were not belied by actions.
[i]For others, however, this is not a communion-breaking issue.[/i]
IMO, it should be noted that those doing the communion breaking actions RARELY see those actions as ‘communion breaking actions’, and just can’t see why no one else sees it the same way, and then insist that all that is needed is a listening process for everyone to come to their conclusions on the matter. Any who disagree after that are just plain intolerant and should leave. 🙄
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
This is another example of Red Fred being a ventriliquist’s dummy. This piece is well ordered and has all the earmarks of cogent arguement. Fred’s own statements are rambling and incomprehensible.
In the end, though, Ingham and his ilk will do whatever they want because there is no-one left in the ACoC to stop them.
[blockquote] Many say, as a group of Canadian Anglican theologians have said, “the interpretation of Scripture is a central and complex matter and that, at times in the church’s history, ‘faithful’ readings have led to mutually contradictory understandings, requiring ongoing dialogue and prayer towards discernment of the one voice of the gospel.†[/blockquote]
Many parishioners across Canada will understand from this that Canadian Anglican Theologians have found contradictory readings of scripture on the topic of same-sex blessings – after all that is Hiltz’s clear implication. The truth is that scripture provides no contradictory readings on this subject, and I have yet to read a theologian trying to defend SSBs from scripture. The liberals defend if from science (as Hiltz also suggests) and from a desire to be “nice” (as Hiltz also suggests) but not from scripture.
[blockquote]They are committed to principles of intentional listening,…[/blockquote]
What is “intentional listening?” Yes, I am being somewhat sarcastic, as someone opposed to double-speak in general. But, seriously, if someone from the inclusion side can address and answer this for me, I’d ever be grateful. I guess one could argue that accidentally overhearing another’s private conversation, if you’re really not trying to listen in, is “accidental” or “unintentional” listening….
[blockquote]Is unity the ultimate value transcending all others, even at the risk of not acting on what we believe to be a gospel imperative in a local context? Or is action on a gospel imperative the ultimate value that transcends all others, even at the risk of not maintaining unity?[/blockquote]
Well, I thought this was decided, at least in the US. “If you must choose between heresy and schism, take heresy” (undoubtedly somewhat misquoted). One slight problem. Heresy is cancer inserted into the Body of Christ by the Evil One. And to believe I used to be a parishioner in his honor’s diocese. Unreal.
Intentional listening is a cant phrase, TEC jargon, and it means, not deliberate listening, but listening with approval of the speaker’s intentions. It is made to seem to mean “objective listening” but it really means nothing of the sort. AS most here are well aware. LM