There is another subtle subtext to this message. The Archbishop has implicitly described the dispute as a North vs South dispute. The imaginary conversation sounds like a conversation between TEC and the African churches. There is an implication that Africans and others in the global South are in a pre-critical cultural context and that those in the global North are dealing with the complexity of a post-critical situation with a more enlightened and nuanced understanding of homosexuality. This is inaccurate and an oversimplification. Among other things it misses the massive disagreement and division in North America and fails to register the sophistication of the scientific and theological objections to the homosexual agenda in the church that cuts across the global North-South divide. The Archbishop’s statement sadly implies that all who resist the homosexual agenda in the church have not engaged seriously the cultural and scientific issues.
A final disappointment is the Archbishop’s failure to grasp the degree to which in North America and among North Americans the dispute is far deeper than over the proper response to homosexuality. The uniqueness and divinity of Christ are very much at play in our setting. The Archbishop is right that it is easy to judge too sweepingly and too harshly but his statement does not really register the worry that many traditionalists have in North America about fidelity to basic Christian doctrine on the part of the leaders of their churches. It is not the case that traditionalists are making judgments on the basis of the homosexual question alone. Statements by key leaders in the Episcopal Church contradict the most basic teachings of the faith including the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What is even more worrying is the use of the traditional language of faith with a very different intention and meaning by many of our leaders. I think traditionalists in North America would like this concern to be truly heard by the Archbishop and the Lambeth meeting and not implicitly dismissed as prejudiced or over-reaction.
True, the ABC simply does not understand the severity of the crisis. Nor that this new plan has already been responded by the Anglican Provinces in North America. Can we say too little too late? Way too late…..
I don’t know….I get the feeling he may understand far greater than he think that he does. Yes, he may have given a broad gerneralization of both sides, but I do agree with his point. If we are to continue together, we need to put down our swords and seriously consider the sacrificial steps that need to be taken. In all honesty, I don’t know if either side has the courage.
Sorry, it should read……. I get the feeling that the ABC may understand far greater than WE think that he does.
I think ++Rowan’s address was spot on. Did it say everything that one might hope? No, because in the end we all play the Monday morning quarterback on these things, and we all would have done things differently. I remember a great Brett Farve commercial a while ago for Mastercard when he is doing this to other people (a paper grocery bag busts open on a person walking and Farve says “I would have double bagged it.”) I digress.
In the end I thought the address was brilliant. I think it describes quite accurately what is happening, and to do that in a 20 minute address (or so) is to be commended.
I agree with shebbers. Let’s start living into the sacrificial call of Christ. Let’s see where we can find connections and Christ and move forward.
Disagree strongly with Peré Phil about the speech being bloody brilliant. This is a modification of I wrote at Leander+’s site:
—
The liberals can squeeze out the Anglo-catholics by forcing women bishop oversight. They have done this in America and are going to do it in England. They also know precisely how to force out the evangelicals. With each new outrageous action, the Evangelicals place becomes more untenable – Gene Robinson mugging for yet another interview, gay marriage with full orchestra at St Bart’s, London. They have to be somewhat creative on how to top the previous affront, but they have shown themselves to be quite resourceful in this regard. And each time the Evangelicals message is further compromised to finally the point of ridicule.
Simply put, their is no via media between liberalism and Evangelicalism. The Global South understands in a very literal way that liberalism is death to Evangelicalism. The Integrity crowd understand this and are using it to the hilt. It is sad that Rowan Williams can’t see this.
—
So no, Pere Phil, the speech is a sad and irrelevant Rodney King-like invocation, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
[i]we need to put down our swords and seriously consider the sacrificial steps that need to be taken.[/i]
I, and my friends in Uganda, shall [i]not[/i] put down our “swords,” for [b]”it is the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God”[/b] especially given that those swords were drawn in self-defence.
It is the repeated tactic of American leftists to say “Let’s stop fighting and talk.” particularly when they are losing. There is no interest in concessions or compromise, only the relief pressure long enough to regroup.
Ask George Bush how it worked for him to create a “new tone” in Washington. He gave the left nearly all they wanted on education, senior drugs, and several other things. The left gave nothing in return … and re-doubled their attacks.
There is not one shred of evidence that ECUSA will make a single compromise, to say nothing of even inching towards repentance. Their entire objective at this point is to squeeze past Lambeth, and then pour on the pressure
ECUSA should not be allowed to talk itself out of something it has behaved itself into, consistently, for more than a generation. If that is “compromise” … to hell with it, where it belongs.
#2, I don’t think it’s a question of courage. I think it’s more a question of desire or lack thereof. Evangelicals have no desire to compromise their faith for sake of unity with the innovators. Likewise, I doubt the innovators desire to compromise their agenda for a faith to which they do not ascribe.
The Anglican Communion needs a recognized teaching authority(with juridical power) for faith and morals. It’s comical how allergic Anglicans are to admitting that the issue is authority. Anglican identity is so tied to being a counter to Roman Catholicism that it can’t admit the truth to save itself.
#6……the sword that I was speaking of was not in reference to the Holy Scripture. The sword I meant are those agendas and hurtful words/actions/divisions that each side has said or caused to the other. We are ALL guilty for wanting our own way and wanting it now. We lack the desire because we are more interested in taking our ‘toys’ home because the other will not play like we want, then we are in helping each other see Christ. A question that we might ask ourselves is “Do even know how to live into the sacrificial call of Christ?”.
#9,,,
“Do we even know how to live into the sacrificial call of Christ?”
It would be too passive. We are a people of action!!
Robroy,
So how do you propose we go forward? It’s clear to me and to all of us that what has been going on isn’t working. Anger, resentment, hatred of those who disagree are clear on both sides of this mess. These things aren’t of Christ. To just say this won’t work is keeping on as things are, and that is a losing proposition for all involved.
I don’t have the answers, but what I heard in the ABC’s address was closer to anything that I’ve heard in a long time.
Peace,
Phil
#11, Pere Phil, Gafcon is going forward. That is a solution. It may take a long time, but the lack of theology and lack of a commitment to based mission on love of the Lord by the reappraisers in the Anglican Communion will ultimately kill that wing. The carrying out of the Great Commission, the commitment to love the Lord first and then our neighbors of Gafcon (as opposed to the idolatry of the MDGs from reappraisers) will ultimately mean that Gafcon’s movement will become the Anglican Communion. That is what is happening, and, that is why Ab Rowan is so upset with Gafcon and why Pb Schori called the Jerusalem Statement an “emission.” They are fearful of its power and they know their relativistic doctrine is not bearing fruit in any corner of the world, just the opposite. They know their days are numbered as things now stand and that Gafcon will only shorten the number of days left for them.
Pere Phil writes,
[blockquote]So how do you propose we go forward?…I don’t have the answers, but what I heard in the ABC’s address was closer to anything that I’ve heard in a long time.[/blockquote]
What the ABC is proposing is [i]not[/i] moving forward. It’s “living in the tension.” It’s carrying on the same thing we have had for the past five years. And that has been so salutory for the Communion! Living in the tension, as I said, is lethal to Evangelicals. GAFCon is indeed moving forward. The old ditherer will then have to decide, as we all will.
The ABC said, ‘I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be — a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way). I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration.”
I’ve not followed enough about GAFCon to know what it proposes. But the idea of the covenant, to move together forward is our call as disciples of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals need to be reminded of the real physical need in the world which is so often forgotten. Liberals need to be reminded of a deep centered spiritual life focused on the revelation of the Triune God in Scripture.
But it seems evident that unless either side gets all that they want, then no one will be happy. And that, friends, is a stalemate.
Anger, resentment, hatred of those who disagree are clear on both sides of this mess. These things aren’t of Christ.
Pere, this is a grotesque and frankly dishonest characterization of the conflict. It is typical of the liberal and so-called moderate attempt to frame this as a conflict of personalities and of personal likes and dislikes, rather than what it is; an ideological battle over doctrine, over truth, over the Gospel.
There is nothing Christian in sacrificing what you believe. Jesus and the apostles sacrificed their comfort and their lives. They NEVER sacrificed the truth. I would have no repect for the liberals if they sacrificed what they truly believed for the sake of the comfort and safety of staying together. We are not asking that of them. We are asking for repentance and conversion. What we are asking of the church is some deliberation as to whose Gospel is the correct one. What we refuse is any agenda that is based upon the idea that it doesn’t matter all that much.
Remember the letter to the church in Laodacea. They were neither hot nor cold. They were not commended for living into the tension. They were threatened with being spit out of Christ’s mouth. Those who strive for unity at the expense of the truth of the Gospel will share the same fate.
If you think our Gospel is wrong or distorted, fair enough, but you must identify what that distortion is and what the correction is. We are identifying the falsehood of the Schori/Robinson Gospel, and they are much clearer in how they disagree with our Gospel than is Rowan in describing the Gospel of either side.
It’s about truth.
Bart Hall #6, thank you! Well said.
5 Robroy – the problem is that liberalism and evangelicalism come from the same tradition. They have, whether you or I like it or not, the same root in their implicit challenge of received authority. Liberalism just made universal (a critique of all authority) what Evangelicals knew in particular (a critique of the Catholic church). There was a time, as my professor Brian Gerrish noted, when liberalism and evangelicalism was the same thing.
Chris Hathaway makes some assumptions that a thinking reappraiser would not. The belief that homosexuality is not “disordered” is a belief that I have before reading the scriptures. It is in the category of believing the earth is round. Another example: Scripture might be pretty clear that the patriarchs lived 900 years, but I am skeptical about most human beings living beyond 115. I assume – due to my instransigent “liberal” beliefs, in geological time, the big bang, and evolution. For me, “disorder” falls into this category. I don’t mind arguing this, but it is an extra-scriptural discussion.
Second when Chris says, “who’s gospel is correct” he implicitly creates a false dichotomy. Imagine a venn diagram: there is some set of overlapping beliefs – say, in the empty tomb, in the cross, in the divinity of Christ, in what exemplifies the fruit of the spirit. I would hope that there is some overlap.
Chris invites me to say “his Gospel” is wrong or distorted. I don’t know how I would say such a thing. I would hope that Jesus saved him from God’s wrath. Is he denying this? Is it his Gospel in the first place? My main hope is that Chris actually pays attention to what “his” gospel actually says. It says “judge not” and “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” and “Do not be afraid” and “it is better to marry than to burn” and “Peace be with you.” I assume that this is part of his gospel. It may not be. But I’m assuming that it is.
What I’m not sure about is this Manichean / marcionite / gnostic world view that divides the world so easily into two camps. I tend to think that Jesus is warning everyone. Personally, I tend to think I’ve got a lot to work on first before worrying about my gay brothers and sisters.
And let me tell you, Chris, I love you as a Christian. I don’t think you have the wrong Gospel, for you. You need, it seems, to have a God that really believes what you believe about gay people. I’m completely indifferent about what you need, for yourself. I don’t think the wrath that you want God to feel for Gay people is how Gay people experience the risen Christ. They experience the risen Christ differently than you do. Or do I. I would hope that we share the idea that we experience the risen Christ. As far as doctrine goes, I think church teaching has been wrong before, and may be wrong again (say, Usury, for example. Although personally, I think it was right….)
What you are right about is that liberalism is inherently lukewarm if liberalism is all you believe. But a good liberal allows him/herself to believe all sorts of things passionately, knowing that all beliefs can be scrutinized….
John Wilkins, you are making the statement that we Traditionalists think that the state of being homosexual is sinful. That is not what we say at all! We say that homosexual sexual practice is sinful! There is a world of difference, and one of the problems with liberals is that they don’t seem to be able to see that difference. It does indeed make a difference what one believes, and it is not ok that “whatever you believe is ok, just so long as you are true to your belief”. That kind of statement is rediculous on its face. It’s true that we are not to judge each other, but that applies to what is in our hearts; it is also true that we are Divinely appointed fruit inspectors: Jesus told us that “by their fruits you shall know them”, and brother, the fruits that I’ve seen borne out of the actions of the TEC leaders is indeed sour fruit.
desertpadre
desert padre –
1) i’m not sure what homosexual sexual practice is. The way most reasserters describe it, it is a pr0nographic fantasy. The way reappraisers describe it, it is an example of a shared household economy.
2) Nobody is saying “whatever you believe is OK.” this is a false representation of a coherent reappraising position. Promiscuity, envy, rivalry, dissension, these are not OK. Alas they are common in heterosexual relationships. Nor do we say you should just be true to your belief. We are saying that gay people have encountered the risen Christ and found God likes them, and that knowing God in this fashion has allowed them to be open about their pilgrimage in God. Repentance means not being afraid of God, when they had lived in fear of God’s judgment.
The lives of gay people who live in open monogamous relationships bears much greater fruit – and exemplifies self-control than the place reasserters want to keep them: in secret. As Paul said, it is better to marry than to burn. Gay people who are ashamed of their desires do much worse damage than those who are liberated.
John, I think that God gets to say what is sin, not you.
I love the imaginative (and no so imaginative ways) that reappraisers like to re-define terms. For instance, John Wilkins loves to do that. In #19, for instance, “homosexual sexual practice” for heteros is “pornographic fantasy?” I thought it was anal and oral sex, and stuff like that, between persons of the same sex. Who knew there was more? And for reappraisers, it is “shared household economy.” Boy that doesn’t sound like much of a sex life among homosexuals. I guess there goes my “pornographic fantasy” imagnination again. And what about “repentance?” Who knew it only meant “not being afraid of God.” Here all this time I thought it had to do with confession of sins and resolution to lead a better life in Christ. And did you know that reasserters wanted to keep gay people a secret? Not that we could if we wanted to, what with +VGR being all over the country and the world, pleading his cause, other than just being the Bp of NH, like he promised at GC 2003. But that was a new one on me … wanting to keep homosexual people a secret. And I don’t know any reasserter that asks anyone to be “ashamed” of his desires – hetero or homosexual. It’s the acting on them that seems to be the problem for both, with which reasserters seem to have a problem. But John apparently doesn’t have that problem with homosexuals, so long as the homosexual activities are open, monogamous and liberated. Good to know the “coherent reappraising position.”
John Wilkins is the epitome of the swine that Jesus told us not to cast our pearls before. There is no desire to even engage with the issue without distorting the terms. It is all futility. The best we can do is leave him to Satan and let the emptiness of that existence wake him up, if he ever desires to wake. But he does clearly illustrate the need for us to separate from these heretics who use our vocabulary but not our doctrine or essential logic.
Well in a sense I admire his honesty. His conclusion is not that Scripture teaches that non celibate same sex relationships aren’t sinful. His conclusion is that Scripture does teach it but is simply in error. I think the claim is that it has been falsified by extra Scriptural data. Thus the progressives are nothing but the Galileo’s of this age.
Of course, the truth is that Galileo didn’t think Scripture was in error and wanted to avoid the church making a pronouncement of something that he thought would give ammunition to the enemies of the faith. He merely thought that, as truth is single, Scripture had been misinterpreted.
It seems to me a category error to think that a scientific discovery (say that a certain combination of genes increases the likelihood that you will self identify as gay, or be imprisoned for violence, or commit adultery) can falsify Scripture’s teaching on virtue and vice.
Of course one might want to make the argument that “faithful” same sex relationships exhibit the church’s traditional pattern of holiness, but this is to assume an answer to the very thing being discussed. It should throw us back to Scripture and Scripture, as he has honestly admitted, teaches that such relationships do not exhibit the kind of holiness demanded of the faithful. If it doesn’t throw us back to Scripture then how can we know anything of the shape of lives patterned according to God’s creative will.
John, in #17, you state in your next to last paragraph “I don’t think you have the wrong Gospel, for you. You need, it seems, to have a God that really believes what you believe about gay people”. I certainly read that as saying that whatever you believe is right for you, but not for me. Is that an example of reappraiser “pluriform truth”? You contradict yourself, sir.
desertpadre
Hi brother michael, you are right – neither you or I know what is sin: we are both sinners, but fortunately the grace of Jesus has redeemed both of us.
Dsertpadre, I said what I said. I did not say whatever you believe is right, but not for me. I’m trying to be charitable (which, in my view is not a pluriform activity but required by both of us). You seem to need a God who hates gay activities. I don’t need such a God. I don’t think your God is correct, but I’ll live with it – because my God also requires me to be charitable. I think God is a bit more imaginative than I am. And that is not a pluriform truth, that is the truth, absolutely. God will find a way to bring you salvation. I know that. I hope you know that. He’s found one for me. Absolutely. Even though you can’t imagine a God that is generous toward gay people, I am absolutely sure he exists. Not in a pluriform way. However, I don’t think you know that God, but God does not need you to know him in that way. It is enough that you know your salvation. That’s all.
Perhaps you should worry less about other’s salvation but concentrate on your own.
Now, John, is that what Christ says? I seem to remember something about being my brother’s keeper, and a Great Commission in there somewhere, too. God bless you John, you’re going to need it.
desertpadre
On the contrary, John. Scripture gives us a pretty good idea of what God considers sin. You just choose to ignore it like Eli’s sons.
#26 – I admit, desert padre, I’m amused that you think I’m going to need anything. It’s all in God’s hands. I trust Him. What else can I do? Trust me? Trust you? I’m all for the great commission. And I do trust I will help gay Christians know that they are not hated by God. For in my book, God is a God of love. They should know that.
#27 well – scripture does give us an idea of what he thinks of Sin. He does warn us about those who judge. If you think you are a judge, you are a sinner, just like what you think a gay person is guilty of. Imagine: the amount you hate gay acts is the amount you also sin.
The concepts ‘gay’ LBT, etc. are hypothetical constructs, part of an idiom manufactured for prohomosex propaganda. Same-sex attraction is a symptom of disoriented and confused identity, self-concept and a conditioned emotional response. There is no such thing as ‘gay’. Only two identities are Scriptural, regenerate and unregenerate, and two orientations, penitent and unrepentant. I Corinthians 6:9-11 does not differentiate, excuse nor exclude any from God’s ability to overcome. God is very inclusive in his commands and everyone is on level ground at the foot of the Cross.
Pigs, gentlemen. Pigs and pearls.
John, we have been through this. You deliberately confuse correction with judgment. The reason the error is pointed out is so that the person in error can amend his/her behavior and avoid judgment. In fact that was your point to me in your post.
John thinks those who are reappraisers have shut off part of their mind — the part that allows critical thinking — or one would become a reappraiser! Which is just not true, whereas the opposite is. 😉
But at least, as driver8 states, he is honest about his unbelief in orthodox Christianity, even if he has a skewed and inaccurate version of what orthodox Christians (or reasserters, if you prefer) believe.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
oopps, that should have read:
John thinks those who are [b]reasserters[/b]….
sorry for the confusion.
JE <><