The last question and the way it is answered embody the challenges facing the AC:
[blockquote] Q: Are you putting a squeeze on the American Church to get into line?
A: I am saying that the current policy … well I won’t say the policy of the American Church, but some of the practice of dioceses, certain dioceses, in the American Church continues to put our relations as a communion under strain and that some problems won’t be resolved while those practices continue. I might just add perhaps a note here that one complication of discussing all this is the assumption readily made that the blessing of a same sex union and/or the ordination of someone in an active same-sex relationship is [i]simply[/i] a matter of human rights. I am not saying that is a claim by people in the church, but you hear that from time to time. You hear it in the secular press. And that’s an assumption that I can’t accept, because I think the issue about what conditions that the Church lays down for the blessing of unions have to be shaped by its own thinking, its own praying. Now there is a perfectly serious theological reflection on this in some area. I am not saying there isn’t. But I don’t want to short circuit that argument by saying it’s just a matter of rights. Therefore to say that the rights and dignities of gay and lesbian people, as people in society, is not what we’re disagreeing about, I hope and pray anyway.
[/blockquote]
I notice that the ABC lists only “thinking” and “praying” as means for the Communion to make decisions, but omits reference to the Bible or tradition. How would Richard Hooker view this statement? It makes me nervous and, frankly, suspicious of the process.
As to thinking and praying…. I sometimes wonder if I’m the only one who still supports reason as a part of our shared Anglican tradition. (FWIW, amongst the Holy Scriptures, tradition, and reason, I think praying might fit in under reason, provided reason is seen as a spiritual as well as intellectual dimension….) While it’s now obvious to all that reason can lead you off a cliff *when*misapplied* (in this case intentionally, to achieve a desired end), reason, properly applied, I contend, is one way that those who’ve simply made a grave error could be lead back into all truth by the Holy Spirit (with prayer).
I’ve seen so many laughers-of-a-sermon from the PB, among others, that I wonder if intentionally poor schooling isn’t a large part of all this. One of my earliest instructions in homiletics was, “never go looking for bible texts to quote in order to prove the point you’re trying to make. Instead, you must search the concurrency of the Scriptures first to learn what they are telling you is the Truth.” We must be willing to be proven wrong by Holy Writ if we are to preach and teach the truth. The revisionists are going into their whole exercise with their minds already made up.
The last question and the way it is answered embody the challenges facing the AC:
[blockquote] Q: Are you putting a squeeze on the American Church to get into line?
A: I am saying that the current policy … well I won’t say the policy of the American Church, but some of the practice of dioceses, certain dioceses, in the American Church continues to put our relations as a communion under strain and that some problems won’t be resolved while those practices continue. I might just add perhaps a note here that one complication of discussing all this is the assumption readily made that the blessing of a same sex union and/or the ordination of someone in an active same-sex relationship is [i]simply[/i] a matter of human rights. I am not saying that is a claim by people in the church, but you hear that from time to time. You hear it in the secular press. And that’s an assumption that I can’t accept, because I think the issue about what conditions that the Church lays down for the blessing of unions have to be shaped by its own thinking, its own praying. Now there is a perfectly serious theological reflection on this in some area. I am not saying there isn’t. But I don’t want to short circuit that argument by saying it’s just a matter of rights. Therefore to say that the rights and dignities of gay and lesbian people, as people in society, is not what we’re disagreeing about, I hope and pray anyway.
[/blockquote]
I notice that the ABC lists only “thinking” and “praying” as means for the Communion to make decisions, but omits reference to the Bible or tradition. How would Richard Hooker view this statement? It makes me nervous and, frankly, suspicious of the process.
As to thinking and praying…. I sometimes wonder if I’m the only one who still supports reason as a part of our shared Anglican tradition. (FWIW, amongst the Holy Scriptures, tradition, and reason, I think praying might fit in under reason, provided reason is seen as a spiritual as well as intellectual dimension….) While it’s now obvious to all that reason can lead you off a cliff *when*misapplied* (in this case intentionally, to achieve a desired end), reason, properly applied, I contend, is one way that those who’ve simply made a grave error could be lead back into all truth by the Holy Spirit (with prayer).
I’ve seen so many laughers-of-a-sermon from the PB, among others, that I wonder if intentionally poor schooling isn’t a large part of all this. One of my earliest instructions in homiletics was, “never go looking for bible texts to quote in order to prove the point you’re trying to make. Instead, you must search the concurrency of the Scriptures first to learn what they are telling you is the Truth.” We must be willing to be proven wrong by Holy Writ if we are to preach and teach the truth. The revisionists are going into their whole exercise with their minds already made up.