Throughout the course of the LFF project, Andrew Goddard has provided a series of analyses of various aspects of it. His latest article on the Psephizo website is the last of a three-part set, but first for context here are links to the preceding two items:
There has been some discussion, both on TA and elsewhere, of what form(s) of “differentiation” might be attractive to those dissenting from the proposals for action that have now emerged from the LFF process. Andrew now discusses these possibilities in considerable detail in this article:
Its an excellent piece, but with one obvious omission in his final analysis of options.
There is the option of a new structure within the Church of England. (For some reason the term “Province” seems to inflame people – the label is really not the key issue. Call it a Diocese, call it what you like. It just means having autonomous orthodox bishops available).
What matters is that a new structure could emerge. It looks vanishingly unlikely but deadlock is the only other realistic option in the medium term.
And then what happens when the next contentious issue arises (and it surely will)? Do you keep adding wings to the building so that every group can isolate to its own suite of rooms? How long before the whole edifice collapses from the weight?
This is the same issue in TEC with the Communion Partner Bishops. One wonders how long they will be given latitude, but CFL’s new bishop got consents. I don’t see an edifice collapsing unless what you mean is massive decline in attendance leading to collapse.
I think what I mean in the analogy is that eventually there so many wings to the building that the central structure is empty.
For the uninitiated, ‘CFL’ is…?
Probably Central Florida
Central Florida is one of the US dioceses in Communion Partners. You have your counterparts in Canada. I posted the link sometime back. And was lambasted for doing so! Sunday blessings.
Even if there were an equivalent on the horizon (and I can’t at present see one), the underlying causes would be the same: the role of biblical authority and church tradition. That being so, surely a third province or equivalent would do multiple duties? (And I say that as a firm believer that sacramental marriage should be available to all couples currently able to marry civilly.)
Perhaps…but what happens when you have a controversy that splits the con-evos?
Presumably, parishes would be able to move to and from this new potential ‘unit’ (for whomever it was created) if, following prayerful thought, it was found that they needed to, or that it was not for them? It would not be a ‘choose once’ decision?
I have no idea. The current issue is bishops.
It seems to me that, if differentiated bishops is to be achieved via a new unit, the question I asked is fundamental to the issue of getting those bishops.
People should always have the opportunity to change their minds – under the current PEV arrangements, a parish can opt in or out of the alternative arrangements if the mind of the PCC changes over time.
When there is only one out bishop, and I think he claims to be celibate, there would surely need to be appointments to balance those additional conservative bishops you want. Are conservatives really going to welcome the appointment of bishops who are married and sexually active?
A settlement would mean walking apart.
A corporate body of autonomous orthodox bishops would stand apart from those bishops who wish to see a progressive agenda advanced. It would be a matter for progressive bishops to decide what they did and who they appointed.
And you don’t define two separate groups of bishops who do not work together, meet together, vote together as two separate churches?
The Church of England is a denomination not a church.
Denominations can and do contain separate corporate bodies.
Nobody is saying it’s a great idea.
It may be better than the alternatives.
Peter, would it also be fair to say that the Church of England is not really a body corporate, as such, but is in effect an agglomeration or confederation of what are often somewhat disparate legal corporations and charities, most of which are very small, but which has a doctrinal and central administrative overlay? As such, it could be argued by some that the inclusion of additional corporations or structures which would have a relationship (perhaps only a distant relationship) with the administrative ‘overlay’ could therefore be accommodated within, or as an addition to, the present agglomeration. The argument made… Read more »
You make a really good set of points. I think my answer is that there is a difference between an organisational business case and a settlement. A business case is four hundred pages of options, schedules, risk assessments and wildly optimistic benefit promises. I am confident you have read a few of them in your time. I have written a few myself. A settlement is an exchange of bottom lines. “You can keep the house if I can keep my pension”. We are surely in the world of settlements. “Let us have some bishops and we will get out of… Read more »
You clearly have never read a divorce agreement–they frequently run to reams of pages.
So, then, how do you define “church”?
The New Testament defines the Church.
orthodox = believing in the doctrines of the Creeds not opposed to gay marriage. All the bishops i know in the C of E are orthodox. (Apart from at least one believing in subordinationism which as you know is a heresy akin to Arianism).
Peter, Andrew Goddard has set out some specifics as to how his suggested options would look. You are continually unspecific. You assert regularly the importance of CEEC in this process: both Andrew Goddard (who wrote the piece) and Ian Paul, on whose blog it appears, are listed as CEEC council members. Clearly you are not content with what they have published, which suggests that there is not a complete unity of view on CEEC around the ideas which you assert, but have so far not explained. In terms of specifics you might want to consider how to explain to us… Read more »
To be clear, I am a member of the laity.
I have no licence, belong to no organisation and have nothing useful to say beyond my general observation that the Church of England is a divided House that will now fall, and that orthodox people in the Church of England want and need autonomous orthodox bishops.
Nobody is interested in my opinions on how such a group of orthodox bishops should go about their duties and nor should they be.
Orthodox people already have orthodox bishops. What you mean is that opponents of equal marriage want bishops who agree with them.
Peter are these ‘orthodox’ bishops going to be members of the House and College of Bishops? Are they going to be allowed to be in communion with other bishops? Members of General Synod?
The reason Andrew doesn’t include this option is because he knows it actually isn’t an option – whatever name it has.
You would have to ask the bishops in question – should they ever be allowed to take office.
It really won’t do, Peter, to imply that bishops who don’t hold a certain view on same sex marriage, or LGBT issues in general, aren’t ‘orthodox’. Those who assent to the Creeds are orthodox. We can’t keep redefining ‘orthodox’ to mean ‘those who agree with me’.
Since bishops are claiming (rightly or wrongly) that they were confused as to where responsibility for dealing with safeguarding disclosures lay, it’s hard to argue convincingly for more episcopal complexity.
The meaning of the term orthodoxy comes up with depressing regularity in direct responses to me, not least on this thread. I am distressed by the fact the Church of England is a house divided which cannot stand. I think some kind of settlement would mitigate harm. However, it takes “two to tango” and a settlement will not happen unless both sides engage with each other. That is the only reason I comment on this site. Telling people what vocabulary they are allowed to use achieves absolutely nothing. Conservatives such as myself will use whatever vocabulary we see as appropriate… Read more »
Maybe you could try acknowledging that your claims of desiring engagement sound pretty hollow when you misuse terms like “orthodox”?
I trust you’ll have no objection if I refer to those who support equal marriage as “True Christians” and those who oppose as “Gospel Deniers” in future?
Well, engaging with people who think differently from you will not progress very well while you label them ‘unorthodox’. Since you know that using this language upsets people, why do you continue to do it?
I thought the entire point of his comment was the opposite. “Progressives will and should do the same” that is, call yourselves as you wish. He did not call anyone ‘unorthodox.’ He is only articulating his view of his side of this matter. I am unaware of him labeling anyone on the other side.
I do not know the people on this site personally. I have no grounds for making definite statements about them personally. Also nobody on this site owes me a duty of care.
Bishops are a different matter. They are supposed to look after me. If they state publically they want to change marriage they are accountable. They are also not orthodox.
I am indignant towards the Church of England bishops and have every right to be angry.
I bear no general sense of disapproval towards the people who comment on this site.
Peter. The bishops are not proposing to ‘change marriage’. The prayers on offer are very carefully distanced from the cofe marriage service for that very reason. Nor are the present discussions around changing the doctrine of marriage. It is not on the table. So the bishops are still ‘orthodox’ after all then?
David. I think there might just be a deal to be had in which a group of orthodox autonomous bishops stay within the Church of England. Conservatives would then get out of the way of progressives. I post on this site only in the perhaps forlorn hope that there are progressives out there – somewhere – who might be interested in the possibilities. If a person cannot get past such a group of bishops calling themselves orthodox, they will never entertain the deal I wish would be considered, and which motivates me to comment on this site. I hope that… Read more »
I wish you well too Peter. I still remember you defending me on a conservative blog site when I was being ambushed by some ultra conservatives! As to your idea. By ‘orthodox’, of course, you mean those opposed to blessing same-sex relationships or marriage. I too am orthodox and biblical. I have just come to different convictions on this issue from studying the same texts. My question is what theology or scriptural teaching supports a model of church where everyone picks their own bishop on the basis of single issues and concerns? It sounds to me like the very thing… Read more »
I remember that time. When we lose our sense of common decency towards each other we really are in the abyss. I am glad I was of help to you. I take your point about the lack of direct theology in the settlement ideas. The current position is a complete shambles, David. I know there is no theology in that observation but it is an honestly held view by a good number of people. If a settlement happens – and that is an enormous “if” – it would be a work of grace. I’m not sure I can go beyond… Read more »
I am not Peter, of course, but church division is already widespread as a reality on the ground. There is a sizable literature that seeks to comprehend this based upon various figural possibilities in the scriptures of Israel (notably, the division of the kingdoms). The reformers and the catholic church appealed to these (remnant; Judah as the Catholic Church; the 12 tribes of Israel; and so forth) when ecclesial division was emerging in the 16th century. The NT does not envision denominated Christianity in the manner that has emerged. If one believes that this exists in the Providence of God… Read more »
Thank you for this. Some helpful perspectives. Yes division is widespread already – from different histories and perspectives. How might I see the essay, if I may? In terms of scripture there is also Jesus’s own strong focus on unity of course.
It will appear in a volume honoring Professor Radner. If you would like a copy of the essay from my desk directly, you can contact me at christopher.seitz@utoronto.ca He wrote his Yale dissertation on Jansenism. You can see that volume and other books on ecclesiology at Amazon. He contributed the final essay (“The Absence of the Comforter: Scripture and the Divided Church”) in the volume I edited, Theological Exegesis (Eerdmans, 1999). Yes, church division is not in line with Jesus’ desires for His Body. The essays referred to don’t disagree with that but try to understand it within the Providence… Read more »
Those who quote Canon Law to make a point might usefully consider Canon A8 (which was clearly written by a previous generation):
A 8 Of schismsForasmuch as the Church of Christ has for a long time past been distressed by separations and schisms among Christian men, so that the unity for which our Lord prayed is impaired and the witness to his gospel is grievously hindered, it is the duty of clergy and people to do their utmost not only to avoid occasions of strife but also to seek in penitence and brotherly charity to heal such divisions.
The ‘other side’ as you put it of orthodox is heterodox (unorthodox) isn’t it? Rather like the ‘other side’ of those who bizarrely call themselves ‘Communion Partners’ are, by implication, those who are not partners of the communion. Whereas of course the reality is that those who are communion partners are all the members of the Anglican Communion, which is nothing less than a partnership. As others have right said, orthodoxy is not defined by one particular issue and never has been. One only needs to look at Chalcedon Nicaea and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to find what the Church finds… Read more »
I’ve never heard anyone worry about the name Communion Partners. Bishops in TEC know that these bishops identify strongly with the larger Anglican Communion. Not all want that to be a priority. It’s akin to you saying no one in the CofE knows or cares about the AC. Fair enough. That is a fully legitimate position. It lines up with the independent national church model. And, it may represent the future of the CofE as such.
Christopher I think I am not alone in worrying about the concept of Communion Partners. This link from an earlier date on Thinking Anglicans is ample evidence of that
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/3759-2/
Mr. AG, I did not see a single Bishop of TEC referred to.
Did you read my comment?
“Bishops in TEC know that these bishops identify strongly with the larger Anglican Communion. Not all want that to be a priority.”
I was speaking about the Communion Partner Bishops as they exist in 2023. My statement stands.
I have no interest in sideshows. The situation in the CofE is calling for remedy.
Lots of people in the CofE desire a separate, independent, national church polity. Nothing wrong with that.
Others desire more interdependence.
These are facts.
Christopher I think the concern about episcopal differentiation is always the same, as that thread from a few years ago amply shows. When one group of bishops – the Communion Partner group in your case and – but GAFCON, GSFA, and so on all prove the point, what we get isn’t different polities from which people may freely choose, but rather politics and power grabs which foster and ferment the very side shows that you say don’t interest you. The issue here isn’t really polity at all however. It’s about human dignity and whether those who experience same sex attraction… Read more »
I am sorry that a name used in a North American context has upset you. I can only repeat my initial comment. “Bishops in TEC know that these bishops identify strongly with the larger Anglican Communion. Not all want that to be a priority. It’s akin to you saying no one in the CofE knows or cares about the AC. Fair enough. That is a fully legitimate position. It lines up with the independent national church model. And, it may represent the future of the CofE as such.” I believe the way forward is for those who want independent national… Read more »
Christopher I think it is clear from what I have said that it is not the name but the implication that is troublesome. And the link I posted to the initial responses after your formation of the Communion Partners would make that clear also. Yes indeed we are all trying to find a way forward. But this is not a matter of independence or interdependence vis a vis the Anglican Communion. My point – let me stress again – is that one can not base an entire polity or a differentiation or settlement based on one issue in human sexuality… Read more »
14 years ago is not “several years.” My sole point on this topic is that you are in error when you said that people were as worked up about a name in North America as you, for some reason, are. You were one who angrily decried the name as somehow declaring others to be non-communion partners, or whatever. And I can only repeat. “I believe the way forward is for those who want independent national churches as a priority, choose that and nurture that model. Those who want more interdependence in a Communion choose that, or maintain it.” You think… Read more »
I respect the fact you have your own reasons for seeking privacy, however my belief is that you are a scholar. My plea – which meets with deaf ears for the most part – is for a group of autonomous orthodox bishops to be accepted as the price for conservatives getting out of the way in Synod. You may well disapprove of such an idea but I wondered what your view as scholar is of such an outcome ? (Note – I am constantly admonished for using the term orthodox. I think Foucault was at his worst in his determination… Read more »
Peter, the polity of the established church of England will perforce make the resolution take a specific form. In TEC, conservative dioceses were given leeway to operate according to their theological convictions, and if same-sex marriages were requested in certain parishes, a bishop — agreed to by the Diocesan — would be designated to have scope in this limited area. That is, to a certain extent, due to the diocesan integrity that goes hand in hand with the formation of states in the USA, historically speaking. There was a time when the ‘presiding bishop’ remained a diocesan bishop, for example,… Read more »
Hi Christopher, Thank you for your reply. I am a trustee of small christian studies charity. (Melvin Tinker was a previous trustee, and things have been very quiet since we lost him to glory). Would you be interested in doing an article for us ? I would need to clear it with fellow trustees but I hope it might interest you. We might see if Simon Sarmiento would publish it in one of his weekly digests. He might prefer to take the “short cut” and just publish an article from you directly ! I am as guilty of this as… Read more »
I see that the Diocese of Ohio has withheld consents for the bishop elected in the Diocese of Florida. I suspect Holt will not get consents. I have worked alongside and have known Goddard for decades. He was part of the working group at ACI. This kind of analysis is his chosen métier. The archive of ACI is housed at Wycliffe College in the University of Toronto. The amount of material produced is staggering, but the times were such that outcomes were still in the balance. That is far less so now. The sides are well delineated. TEC has become… Read more »
Forgive my rather cheeky request for a “letter from America”. I quite see your point about the weight of existing comment. I was ungenerous in my comment about Goddard. He has been a conscientious chronicler of the struggle for the heart of the Church of England these past decades. A group of serious minded people such as Goddard, who were able to span our divisions, would probably rescue us from our current predicament. I see no evidence of such a group and we are now six months past the Bishop of Oxford’s lamentable intervention calling for a redefinition of marriage.… Read more »
I agree, Peter. Mr. Sarmiento is consistently fair minded and without any side swipes, such as I often experience here. I would hope and pray that what you do not see now, does not mean the seeds are not in place. You are a conscientious Christian and will know that God has all times in his hands. He will know how to bring about what he wishes for his body. Speaking personally, I had to accept that if God was sifting and judging his Body, it was best to let Him be about His work. All we can do do… Read more »
Thank you, Christopher.
Your words are a consolation and I wish you every blessing in your own walk with the Lord in the face of the joy and adversity of this current age.
We look to a better place where a room has been prepared for us and He will welcome us home.
Christopher I wish that we might sit down over coffee or sherry to discuss this rather more civilly than this type of exchange allows. Peace on your house as well. 14 years is the blink of an eye in the way the C of E and the Anglican Communion operates. It is a very few years ago indeed. It was of course expected by many that the proposed Anglican Covenant would prevail and that TEC would be largely outside of the Communion. But the Covenant hasn’t prevailed and the current Archbishop has made it clear he does not wish to… Read more »
I am glad you like the idea of civility.
14 years is a very long time.
Professor Seitz
‘Telling people what vocabulary they are allowed to use achieves absolutely nothing.’ Right, but no one here has the authority to tell you what vocabulary you are allowed to use. What we do have is the right to argue with you about it. Calvinists who were trying to be clever used to argue that God’s predestination of some to salvation did not mean God predestined others to damnation. I never bought that. Neither do I buy the argument that calling some bishops orthodox is not saying that others are not. A group of people is saying ‘We want orthodox bishops… Read more »
The one word I have seen very rarely in this thread is LOVE. Jesus said to his disciples: By this shall all people know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. The same kind of love that God has for us, while we are still sinners. This love is not sentimental, does not only mean enjoying the company of those who agree with us, but being able to live with difference, as did the first disciples and Christians. Since then we have become very intolerant, excluding, vilifying, even executing those who disagree with us. Orthodoxy, but not… Read more »
I don’t know if the admins will allow me to share a link to a YouTube video from the secular world. I hope so. This is from today. https://youtu.be/a7-xU3D7mC4 The gay couple are married and are posting about a friend of theirs who attempted suicide last night because of anti-gay messages on social media. How much more hurtful if people saying things like that claim to be speaking for God? Their response? Exactly what you say – LOVE. It’s only a minute long. I really do recommend it and that people remember that telling gay people they are wrong or… Read more »
Thomas.
You direct your comment to me so I am replying.
I have vilified no one on this site.
If it was CofE only; I believe that all those multiple options would be appreciated, and ultimately it would to be the will of the General synod, approved by Parliament to solve the issue. Considering that all the global Anglican Communion is in the state where she is right now, I believe that the unique really viable option right now would to be “soft schism” like the current one on the Methodists. This should have been solved far before LLF. It wasn’t. Now, let it be with the less rancor possible, the faster the better. Sadly the “final” word on… Read more »
Does anyone want to discuss the various options presented by Andrew Goddard? Are any of them desirable or possible?
That is an excellent idea. I speak from a conservative perspective obviously. Deadlock in his first possibility. Awful in every possible sense for everybody. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is his second possibility. Nobody can live with themselves on that basis for very long. “Reject and resist”. That is the current conservative stance. (Note to Andrew G and David R – yes, I know not all conservatives). This is costly and has no clear end point. It cannot be sustained for more than a limited period. “”Walk away”. The probable outcome for a significant number of orthodox clergy and congregations. My… Read more »
I didn’t really find any of them convincing but I have two observations. Firstly I don’t at all accept the notion that there are degrees of communion. That suggestion too easily implies that a particular bishop is tainted. You either are in communion or you are not. If you are not in communion, then there should be no expectation that a diocesan bishop would, for example, license or provide for a Priest to serve in the parish which has indicated it is not in communion. We need to remove any hint of what might look like ‘taint’. Secondly I’d like… Read more »
Andrew,
Could I press you to comment on Goddard a bit more ?
All of his various “scenarios” are actually happening right now. One or two will surely emerge as the main direction of travel.
Which do you think they will be ? It’s a genuine enquiry.
Peter
Peter I have to be honest and say that I think it is one of the most confused and confusing articles that I have ever read. And I have read a lot. I don’t actually think Andrew offers any genuine possibilities in his article at all beyond a rather imprecise rambling. It’s all over the place.
That is a reasonable view.
He is a meticulous commentator, to be fair, but he is working with awful material.
Maybe it is too early to see the shape of it all.
One of the problems is that the level of concern varies amongst those who are concerned; they may want different forms of “differentiation”.And dioceses vary. Canterbury where I am does not seem to have the same level of opposition to the proposals as London.
Possible? Eh, maybe. Desirable? Obviously not. If you’ve declared yourself no longer in communion with your bishop then, guess what? You’ve left the CofE. Everything after that is paperwork. What this comes down to is conservatives wanting all the benefits of schism (doing whatever seems good to them without recourse to the rest of the church) without losing the benefits of being the CofE (pensions, housing, social prominence, to a lesser extent buildings). By all means make your case in Synod against changes with which you disagree. By all means try to have decisions you disagree with reversed. But, ultimately,… Read more »
Actually, this is not new on the whole Christianity. Here in the Roman Catholic Church we have that going forward for long ago. There are special non territorial dioceses for the Armed Forces, there is the Opus Dei movement which enjoys its own Prelate with worldwide autonomy to oversee them all worldwide and then there are the Jesuits which are a reality of their own really. And I’m not talking here of the 22 Eastern and Oriental Catholic Rites out there. All possibilities seen here are right and actually used at a large scale on Christianity as a whole! The… Read more »
Jo, I think you have got a bit carried away there.
Nobody thinks that communion with a bishop is the definitive feature of belonging to the Church of England.
My recollection is that you are a student of the Book of Common Prayer.
Peter, I realise you may not be fully conversant with the SSWSH and the beliefs of its members, but as I understand them, being in communion with a particular set of bishops is absolutely a definitive feature of their position.
Hi Simon,
I take your point.
SSWSH can decide the terms of membership of their Society, but not the terms on which people belong to the Church of England.
Simon, it occurred to me as I was peeling a potato for supper that I had missed your point !
Clearly some people do think communion with a bishop defines their position.
I overstated my own comment. Apologies to you and Jo
Thanks, Peter, I take your point. My “everything else is paperwork” remark was meant to convey that breaking communion with your bishop is de facto separating yourself from the body of believers who are in communion with them and each other, whatever canon law or the BCP might say. Outside of excommunication is there any situation where priests or lay people have been out of communion with their bishop and considered to still be part of the church?
I suspect that conservatives also want to exert an influence over church schools and is ultimately why most won’t leave.
One would have thought that the question of the meaning of the word “orthodox” in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion had been settled by the Lambeth Conference in 1888, with its adoption of the Lambeth Quadrilateral. The Quadrilateral states the basis of orthodoxy as assent to the content of four Articles. It does not specify any particular interpretation of any of the Articles as being a necessary consequence of assenting to the authority of any of the Articles. So any claim that a particular interpretation of Scripture, or of the Creeds, or of the meaning of the… Read more »
Note particularly the use of “sufficient” in relation to the Nicene Creed – the accretion of Shibboleths and tests of “orthodoxy” beyond that are not Anglican.
Yes, precisely. The Quadrilateral establishes a context for theological conversations among Anglicans about the meaning of the documents and practices listed by the Quadrilateral as defining the core faith of orthodox Anglicans. Any effort to define one side of such conversations as orthodox and the other side as other than orthodox is at best disingenuous.
Goddard’s analysis is not as interesting to a wider audience as I personally expected. The Bishops only current ambition is to get from one GS meeting to the next and they are clearly in no mood for Hegelian dialectics. As for the rest of us, an appeal for a settlement only really rests on a “mitigation of harm” claim. “The “avoidance of pecuniary costs” claim does not really work because it’s too soon. Maybe it will be expensive to rupture but maybe not. “Immediate mutual advantage” seems to have no traction because those who seek change believe after so long… Read more »
Avoiding harm to whom? The biggest present harm is vulnerable LGBT people, frequently young people, who feel so pressured into suppressing their sexual orientation or gender identity that they attempt suicide or suffer long-term mental distress and illness. Even if they survive those ills, they might be driven from a belief in God. The second most harmed group are clergy who have to suppress their sexual orientation or hide – or simply avoid – their relationships and marriages. And those Christian same sex couples who cannot marry in church. The third most harmed group are those clergy prevented from ministering… Read more »
Kate,
You make the very point which was my general conclusion.
Those who seek change do not accept that the mitigation of harm is a valid claim which warrants settlement concessions.
A settlement is not an endless repeat of the same rebuttal/counter-rebuttal.
It’s an agreement, (or at least an attempt to find an agreement) to stop trading rebuttals and just find a way out of the conflict.
Those who seek change are not, as far as I can see, going to do that.
That ends the matter, until and unless there is a change of view.
Andrew – someone I really like – is disingenuous with his use of ‘The Global South’ for the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA). The South to South Encounters of the 1990s brought together those who were struggling to gain a non colonialist voice in the Anglican Communion. They came from 31 Provinces of the then 36 (including TEC dioceses in the Global south such as Haiti and Taiwan). From 2003 many were excluded as they were not ‘orthodox’ and others left. The present GSFA has few Anglican Provinces signed up. I have several friends who are bishops in the… Read more »
Thank you Phil very much for that insight. Some conservatives are claiming that GSFA represents a huge proportion of the Communion, but I suspect the picture you give is more accurate.
The question of the ‘orthodoxy’ of advocates of same sex marriage/same sex blessings appears on this thread as it has on previous ones. More than one person has commented on this aspect. I’m particularly intrigued by the observation of John N. Wall from a day ago: “So any claim that a particular interpretation of Scripture, or of the Creeds, or of the meaning of the sacraments, or of the historic Episcopate is of necessity ‘orthodox’ as opposed to other interpretations is at best disingenuous. ” I’d be interesting in hearing more from that perspective. In the nineties in Canada we… Read more »
““Maker of heaven and earth”. What is meant by this statement said within the context of a world view informed by modern physics? “…incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” In regard to the first statement, I am completely ready to believe that the phrase from Genesis “Let there be light” is a primitive mind’s understanding of what we now call “the big bang”. In regard to the second, I am enough of a spiritualist to understand that there are some things that are just mysteries beyond human understanding. Science has yet to really pin down what it… Read more »
Thank you for your reply. I have no doubt your view is one widely shared. For my part, I would take imagining in a different direction. I can appreciate biblical authors using their imagination to create stories unencumbered by evidence and categories unknown to them. The difficulty arises when imagination, ancient or otherwise, is at odds with empirical reality in a way that causes difficulty for those who do not fit the interpretative mould. Whatever one values in the Genesis stories, they cannot be used as a basis for assigning binary heteronormativity based on the mythological figures of Adam and… Read more »
‘However we now know that there is no such thing as demonic possession.’
How exactly do we know this?
M. Scott Peck certainly disagreed with you, and he was very familiar with psychopathology.
“How exactly do we know this?” How do I know there are no ‘wee people’ living amongst the pines off my walking trail? I’ll come back to this. Around the time of Stephen Hawking’s death, I heard an interview with an astrophysicist who had worked with him in early years. One of the interesting things about this interview was that the interviewee was a person of religious. He mentioned this; but the interviewer was not biting. I’ve just finished reading a book by ecology scientist Robert E. Ulanowicz titled: A Third Window: Natural Life Beyond Newton and Darwin. In the… Read more »
Rod, I was a member of Anglican Essentials in the 1990s and early 2000s. Many, but not all, of my friends who were part of that movement are now part of the ACNA/ANiC movements. Frankly, I miss them. We had many, many things in common – more so then, when I was a lot more conservative than I am now, but even today, my personal love for evangelical Christianity has not changed. It’s just that, for many people, I’ve been defined out of it. Which I regret, as there are lovely things in evangelical Anglicanism that I’ve rarely found anywhere… Read more »
Thanks for this Tim. I will reply to the second para of your comment in a response to your later one joining my comment about demons and psychopathology. Being defined out of something, or being an object of attempts at the same, is a painful experience. Our perspectives on issues are related to community. There is a grief process connected to exclusion and to changes in relationships we have valued and felt valued within. I have a lot of regard for evangelical Christianity. I’m a member of a group called Canadian Association for Baptist Freedoms (see link). There is actually… Read more »
View this as a reply to everyone commenting on this section of this thread. I have been, for the past 25 years or so, an advocate of Stephen Jay Gould’s view of “non-overlapping magisteria”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Thanks Pat. I’m too rusty re Gould to comment on his proposals; but the article you’ve linked is a helpful reminder about the various approaches to the issue. I like Bernard Lonergan’s distinction between theory which relates things to each other and mythology which relates things to us. A modern person anxious about the onset of symptoms for an illness would see a physician and consult diagnostic imaging for diagnosis and prognosis. In antiquity a person alarmed by changes in their well being might consult a guy who reads goat entrails in order to divine a person’s future. I think… Read more »
“…I think your comment adverts to something crucial i.e. one adopts a framework in order to tackle the issues.”
Exactly. One does not apply the spiritual to the physical (which is where I think Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Scientists make their mistake). Similarly, “thoughts and prayers” are never sufficient, without actual work to resolve the problem.
Certainly agree with your final statement. Right on.