Earlier this month, AKM Adam wrote a highly pessimistic blog article entitled How Would We Know in which he said:
I’ve been surveying the usual suspects, web sites that comment on the present unhappy controversies in the Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion. Although I respect and sympathize with Archbishop Rowan Williams, I have the sinking feeling that his hopeful outlook may not be as well-founded as he seems to think.
This was a reference to RW’s Advent Pastoral Letter. AKMA continued:
I wish I thought we Anglicans could keep together. I will be overjoyed to find that I’m wrong, and I will grieve deeply if “churches will go their different ways, even to the point of competing with one another.” What causes me unease lies in the tone of the observations I find on the various contending sites, and especially on the unwavering confidence the various speakers reflect. I’m especially uneasy when I ask myself, “How would we (or ‘they,’ however ‘we’ and ‘they’ get constructed) know if we (or ‘they’) were wrong?”
For it seems, on the face of things, that of two people saying mutually-contradictory things, one or the other will probably have erred. And if I’m right, if there’s no evident way one or the other party discerning that they might be wrong, how would either recognize their error and seek correction? The disapprobation of the preponderance of Anglican provinces won’t demonstrate that the (majority of the) U.S. church is wrong about sexuality, any more than it demonstrated that the (majority of the) U.S. church was wrong about ordaining women. Since the Windsor Report seems to treat the process leading to the ordination of women (which has become at least a tolerable difference) as exemplary, the U.S. church has some reason to think that its course leading to the consecration of Gene Robinson may mark a parallel path.
But if the (majority of the) U.S. church has gone fatally astray, how are they to know it? One can’t simply repeat that the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals is non-biblical; plenty of what has become common practice was once deemed unbiblical. One can’t invoke the Vincentian canon quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (“that which is believed everywhere, at all times, by all”), not unless one wants to roll back the ordination of women and the possibility of remarriage after divorce (to name but two prominent non-universal points). And even the Windsor Report allows the possibility that the Spirit might effect radical change in the church’s course. That concession obviously doesn’t require that anyone think sexuality constitute such an instance of Spirit-led radical change; at the same time, it evidently holds open the possibility, the mere possibility that the (majority of the) U.S. church’s understanding of sexuality does represent such a surprising change. That being the case, what would count as a reason for the (majority of the) U.S. church to reverse course?
Very recently, the Anglican Communion Institute has recently published a new lecture by Philip Turner, former Dean of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale. This was delivered to a meeting in the Diocese of West Texas.
“THE WINDSOR REPORT: A “SELF” DEFINING MOMENT FOR ECUSA And The Anglican Communion”
(published 23 December)
(Dr Turner is also the author of Shall We Walk Together or Walk Apart? (published 10 November), a talk which has considerable overlap of content with the later version.)
Although Dr Turner holds views which are unequivocally on the conservative side, he is a strong supporter of the Windsor Report:
As my colleague, Oliver O’Donovan, said recently, when placed along side most Anglican Documents, the Windsor Report is decidedly “up market.” In contradistinction to a number of contrary judgments, I agree; and the burden of my remarks will be designed to show that, despite certain omissions and errors (some serious) the report provides a credible way forward both for ECUSA and the Anglican Communion as a whole.
And he has some strong criticisms to make of extremists on the right as well as of those on the left, which bear repeating here in full:
It has become painfully clear to me in the past months that there are those on both the left and the right who, though they would probably deny it, have made a choice to walk apart. The prophets on the left claim the backing of divine providence that has placed them ahead of the pack. They are content to go it alone and simply wait for others to catch up. The prophets on the right claim to be the champions of orthodoxy—charged with maintaining a faithful church in the midst of “apostasy.” They are content to go it alone and await the vindication of God. WR maps a more arduous and painful way forward - one that seeks to create a space in time within which very serious divisions within this portion of the body of Christ can be confronted and overcome.
My starting point is that of WR. I want to map a way forward that keeps Anglicans together as a communion. I want to show what it might mean for ECUSA to make a choice for communion rather than denominationalism and federation. I am consequently saddened by the reaction of those on the left - one that expresses regret but makes it clear that they will motor on despite the wreckage they may cause. I am saddened also by reaction of those on the right who seem to exert more energy thinking about a way forward after ECUSA rejects WR than it does seeking to bring ECUSA to a considered and charitable response to what I believe to be an extraordinarily fine ecclesiological statement.
And again, when discussing the WR’s account of the Anglican “communion ecclesiology” that has shaped recent Anglican ecumenical dialogue, he says:
From my perspective, one can only hail this starting point if for no other reason than the authors of WR feel bound to the ecumenical commitments of the Anglican Communion; and in so doing do not (as is now so common) act as autonomous agents utterly unencumbered by either history of social ties. Nevertheless, it must be noted that many on both the left and the right do not begin their ecclesiological discussions here. Many on the left begin with the church as a prophetic vanguard commissioned to fight within various political systems for the rights of those who are disadvantaged by those systems. Many on the right view the church primarily as the guardian of certain saving truths contained in Holy Scripture and in various creedal or confessional statements. These perspectives, different though they are, lead those who hold them to similar visions of themselves; namely, as advocates and/or guardians who must, before all else, hold to principle.
Where, I wonder, are the leaders, on both the “left” and the “right” in ECUSA, who are able and willing to listen seriously to each other and find a way forward?
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 26 December 2004 at 4:03pm GMT | TrackBackPerhaps its because some people recognise, or have concluded, that if there is sincere disagreement, unless we can allow both positions to have parity of place, then one 'side' or another is going to be viewed as 'winning'
And i'm not convinced that there is really the space to allow such different opinions to both be regarded as equally valid.
Posted by: Merseymike on Sunday, 26 December 2004 at 11:09pm GMTI liked the WR. It at least had the right tone about reconciliation. We should walk in love. But I'm not seeing any willingness for concession either. If winning is the objective, we've got it all wrong!
Posted by: Annie on Monday, 27 December 2004 at 2:54am GMTI *try* to listen fairly to Dr. Turner. But then I come to this statement:
"I am consequently saddened by the reaction of those on the left - one that expresses regret but makes it clear that they will motor on despite the wreckage they may cause."
I extend my hand in friendship---companionship, _within_ the Body of Christ . . . yet it is slapped away. But it is *_I_* who have "caused wreckage"? How am I to understand those who *define* my life/my love as a wreckage (presuming to declare that their _own_ definitions are _Biblical_ ones) . . . a disaster, moreover, that somehow blunt-force impacts *them*?
If we come, *together*, to the foot of the Cross--- _looking_ for answers---that's one thing. But to be _commanded_ "First, *admit you're wrong*: then we'll talk (around the altar)" is quite another.
Back to AKMA's question: how would we know we were wrong? Well, I'd have to see (read, mark, learn, and inwardly-digest) that the Bible says I'm wrong. Note: the *Bible says*, not "(I say) the Bible says." Now, being that the words on the Scriptural page aren't going to change (though, of course, one can always pray that Biblical translation plumbs new depths of accuracy and Truthfulness), there is ALWAYS going to be an "(I say) the Bible says" involved.
So, is my mind irreversible? Not at all. But to have my conviction on what the Bible says reversed, I need need to be persuaded, first and foremost, that the one doing the persuading *demonstrates good faith*.
That is:
- *No smears*
- *No straw men*
- *No imperial ignorance*, and last but not least
- *No erasing-my-own-subjectivity-to-pretend-to-God's-objectivity*. That is, instead of "(I say) the Bible says", I MUST hear a fully-transparent "*I say* the Bible says".
_Take responsibility for your subjective interpretation!_ If it comes from a wise, practice-what-you-preach, _fair-minded_ place (compared to *my* _admittedly all-too-often_ foolishness, hypocrisy and prejudice), then I'll see that my interpretation is the one lacking (more of, this side of heaven) *the Truth*.
Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Monday, 27 December 2004 at 6:22am GMTI'm not a cradle Anglican--actually I'm a fairly recent transfer from the Lutheran Church. The major Lutheran writings are, of course, focused on justification by grace through faith and the implications thereof. Thus, the major works by the great Lutheran writers and thinkers are works of and on dogmatic theology (using the term with no negative connotations).
One of the very first things I noticed upon starting to look at the classical Anglican texts is how different the focus is. Hooker's great work is _Of the Lawes of *Ecclesiastical Politie*_. The majority of the Tracts for the Times are not about the Sacraments, Rituals, nor the Church Year (though these are dealth with) but about ecclesiology and the structure of the church.
While I pray for unity, I recognize that the diversity of the various limbs of Christ's church aid one another in seeing parts of the orthodox truth that each by itself would have missed. The Lutherans do well to remind us of justification. Our contribution seems to be an enduring reflection on ecclesiology necessarily tied to our principle doctrine of Incarnation. The Windsor Report is another step in our unfolding witness to the rest of Christ's church as well as a gut-wrenching wrestle about who we are. We struggle to discern if the same words of salvation convey the Word of Salvation in the Global North and the Global South. We must continue not merely for our own sake but also for the edification of those who observe.
Posted by: Derek Olsen on Monday, 27 December 2004 at 3:45pm GMTThe Orthodox Christian News Service has recently published a 1937 article by Nikolai Berdyaev, entitled, "Concerning Fanaticism, Orthodoxy and Truth." The full article can be found at:
"http://www.orthodoxnews" under the "Editorials and Opinion" heading.
Berdyaev contends that, when we surrender ourselves to competing "orthodoxies" and draw our lines in the sand, we neglect the ultimate orthodoxy, the ultimate truth that "Man", -- including those persons on the other side of the argument, -- "is the Image and Likeness of God."
"If the Pharisees put the Sabbath higher than man and were denounced by Christ for this, then also every man, who puts an abstract idea as higher than man, in effect confesses a religion of the Sabbath, which was repudiated by Christ. It is all the same regarding this, whether this be an idea of churchly orthodoxy, or of the state and nationalism, or the idea of revolution and socialism."
We Anglicans, of the left and right, are guilty of trying to establish "a religion of the Sabbath" when we move to exclude one another in the name of Orthodoxy, whether under the guise of the authority of the Scripture or the authority of the Spirit.
Far better would be to live with our disagreements while we continue together in our search for and service to Truth -- especially the Truth that, in each other, we see the Image and Likeness of God. When we turn from that essential Truth, we no longer deserve to be called Christians.
Joseph Farber, Norman, Oklahoma, USA
Posted by: Joseph Farber on Monday, 27 December 2004 at 7:09pm GMTIf all reading is equally interpretative, and all interpretation is equally subjective, then it's important that we should close down all universities at once, since there is no such thing as the pursuit of knowledge, no criteria for identifying an advance in knowledge.
But if everything is really that uncertain, then why state the principle 'Everything is subjective' with such certainty either? That principle too would be just as uncertain as anything else.
Posted by: Christopher Shell on Wednesday, 29 December 2004 at 1:09pm GMT"If all reading is equally interpretative, and all interpretation is equally subjective, then it’s important that we should close down all universities at once, since there is no such thing as the pursuit of knowledge, no criteria for identifying an advance in knowledge."
_Au contraire_, Christopher. You should open up the universities as widely as possible . . . because it's always the *next* subjective interpretation which, this side of heaven, gets you that much closer to the Truth!
To often, the "pursuit of knowledge" gets translated into "(authoritatively) tell me when I know enough, such that I don't have to learn any *more*" (Sort of like asking the professor "What do I need to do to get an A?" God doesn't grade that way: He says "Come and die" . . . including dying to our concepts of a _Good Enough_ Orthodoxy.)
We're here for eternity: we have to start *learning* for it, too.
Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Thursday, 30 December 2004 at 7:49am GMTSure - but the point is: if what we are learning might be wrong, then that isn't 'learning'. Do you really buy into radical subjectivism - or where do you draw the line?
I'm not about "ism" labels, Christopher.
I just believe in having some humility before God (the One who "draws the line"). I judge "rightness" or "wrongness" only by ALL the info I can get (recognizing I know more than I did yesterday, less than I will tomorrow).
. . . which is why, I can't be sanguine (unlike too many on both "sides") about "you go your way, I'll go mine." I *need* +Peter Akinola's viewpoint---his membership in Christ's Body---even as *he* needs +Gene's (maybe even mine?).
At the end of the day (the end of all my days, and _The_ End of Days), I'm (we're) still not going to have The Whole Story 100% Right. But I have *faith* that God's Truth will more than make up for any of my (our) errors.
If Christians will just focus on "loving others as Christ loves us," I truly believe that orthodoxy will take care of itself. I *don't* draw a line: I follow a Lord, bearing my cross.
Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Friday, 31 December 2004 at 5:42am GMTHi Annie
'If winning is the objective...'
In one sense, winning is always the objective. Don't misunderstand this. It doesn't matter (a) which person 'wins' an argument, or (b) whether I or you happen to be on the winning side or the losing side. But it does very much matter that (c) the truth should 'win out'.
Sometimes people turn up for a debate imagining that a fair result will involve equal 'concessions' to both parties. This assumes that both parties have a precisely equal number of good arguments on their side. Which is not only (a) an unwarranted assumption, but in fact (b) a most unlikely assumption.
Posted by: Christopher Shell on Friday, 31 December 2004 at 10:55am GMTYes, but... we are really very unlikely to learn anything so earthshatteringly new about humankind, God or the foundations of Christianity that they would affect most of the issues of disagreement between liberals and conservatives.
J.C.Fishers posts sound to me to be saying "I want you to discuss with me using my (liberal post-modern humanist) concepts and discourse". Is that much different from a fundamentalist who says "show me where it says that in the King James version"?
He who controls that discourse controls the arguement of course, but if you want to understand, communicate and persuade, rather than bludgeon and intimidate, you both have to learn to accept and understand each other's ways of expressing things.
..has the battle for truth become just a battle over words?
Posted by: Dave on Friday, 31 December 2004 at 6:14pm GMT{sigh} My hair turns grayer by the second, when I see the endless looping going on here (my howls in the wilderness lost in the _Sturm und Drang_?)
My first comment on this thread:
"I extend my hand in friendship—-companionship, within the Body of Christ . . . yet it is slapped away. But it is I who have [citing Turner] “caused wreckage”?"
Then we come down to Dave, responding to my posts:
"if you want to understand, communicate and persuade, rather than bludgeon and intimidate"
. . . and once again, *it's all about the language of victimization!*
How do I make this clear? All around the world, *gay people are actually bludgeoned*. Gay peoples' battered bodies are turned into *wreckage* (a reality which prompted the ABC's recent Advent statement). My own state's constitution was just amended, to *intimidate* me: "your civil rights are abridged, because your love is second-rate (at best)."
And yet we LGBT people constantly get this language of victimization thrown back in our faces: we, this tiny minority, are wrecking, and bludgeoning, and intimidating everyone else . . . merely for *existing*, unashamed to be the people God made us to be!
[Once again, my blood pressure---rising, from constantly having to defend myself to *Them That's Got the Power*---dictates a Time Out from this board {sigh}]
Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Sunday, 2 January 2005 at 2:42am GMTJCF makes the point much better than I, but here it is again: GLBT people are *actually* being persecuted (yes, as in persecuted in the *real* world, in *real* ways). The "orthodox" are not, they are simply being disagreed with.
This distinction bears bears repeating. Disagreement != Persecution, and to claim that it does is horribly disrespectful to those who suffer from *real* persecution. Please get over yourselves.
Posted by: David Huff on Monday, 3 January 2005 at 1:32am GMTHi JCF and DH. Aren't those posts exactly what I'm talking about ? Trying to attack me by suggesting that I'm not sympathetic to LGBT people who are persecuted or victimised?
I, like you, would always try to defend EVERYONE who is persecuted, regardless of whether I agree with, or approve of, what they are persecuted for. Suggesting otherwise is not helping understanding, communication or persuasion. However, also like you, I would think that it is ridiculous to assert the "equality" of everything I disagree with (for instance neo-nazism or communism) or everything I disapprove of (for instance incest or polygamy).
Many people and groups around the world are intimidated, second-class citizens, persecuted, hated and rejected by the societies in which they live. GLBT people are put in prison or worse in some countries, and even in the UK some men (particularly) react very aggressively to gay men. Attacks on homosexuals because of their sexuality is a reality! However I believe the attack in London was one is a series perpetrated by some youths - including on some elderly women. So the motivation may not have been hate of homosexuals.
As DH says, surely as Christians we can Disagree without Persecuting, or feeling Persecuted. So let's try to get down to the disagreement...
I think that homo-sexual relationships are sinful for several reasons. For instance: lifelong male-female relationships are held up as God's intended norm in both the NT and OT; men having sex with men is always condemned; relationships are societal and generational, not just personal and sexual; our bodies are made heterosexual.
You believe that your sexuality is how you are made to be (by God). So presumably you think that heterosexual marriage is not the only norm and that the Bible's writers were condemning something other than what you do, or didn't understand about homosexuality, or were just plain wrong.
Maybe in that area we might get a useful level of understanding, communication and persuasion. Or are we just going to end up throwing "P" words around ?
Posted by: Dave on Monday, 3 January 2005 at 6:11pm GMTDave, not that it matters much, but I'm a happily married, straight, middle-aged guy with a family.
And no, I wasn't necessarily saying that *you* were "not sympathetic to LGBT people who are persecuted or victimised." I had no idea what your feelings were in that regard. I was simply trying to shed some light on the liberal use of the language of persecution by the "orthodox" when they speak of how they perceive themselves to be treated during the current unpleasantness. In most cases, these folks have no idea what *real* persecution is, as being members of the powerful, socio-political majority, they've never been truly subject to it.
I can't help but hear Monty Python flashbacks in my head when they complain of this..."Help, help! I'm being persecuted!"
Posted by: David Huff on Tuesday, 4 January 2005 at 12:14am GMTDavid, my sexuality isn't relevant to the claim of God in Christ on me and my whole life. My ideal is to become like Him; to live in the way that He and His apostles taught us to live (sex included).
What I'm saying is that you can want to protect LGBT people from persecution, while not believing that LGBT sexualities are good!
Posted by: Dave on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 at 12:50am GMTI enter this dialogue with some trepidation since I have so often battered my head against this wall. Dave I can totally agree with your statement about your ideal. I too, as a gay man seek to be like Christ and live as He demonstrated and as I witness His followers struggling through issues. One of the instances which gives me hope is the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts in which the decision was made to carry out two branches of ministry: one with the Jews headed by Peter and one with Gentiles headed by Paul. We need to understand that Gentiles were every bit as repugnant to the Jerusalem Jews as Gays are to conservative Christians.
I also assume that your earlier post on why you think homosexuality is sinful is a brief comment and not the whole of your thinking. I have read and heard fuller statements about those points and can understand that they are honestly and thoughtfully held opinions. However, I have quite different honest and thoughtful opinions based on scripture about the points you make, and the model of life I see demonstrated in Jesus. If you have not heard or read an expansion of those points, I'll be glad to try to share them with you. However, I doubt that my 'take'on scripture will convince you and so far your 'take', if it matches those I've studied, has not convinced me. So does that mean that we two who love and seek to follow Jesus cannot be in communion? If so, I cannot comprehend it.
The only other comment I would make here is that while I am glad you can make the distinction between treating homosexuals with respect, dignity and security and still believing they are sinful, many cannot. The dismissive comments are all that is needed by some to justify the vilest persecution. I wonder if you have found yourself in fear for your life at some point. If so, try to imagine living with that 24/7. I am simply pleading with my fellow believers to truly listen to my, and others, story of redemption and faith before so utterly separating from us. The mystery of our unity in Christ will not so easily be disparraged.
Posted by: Bob Webster on Friday, 7 January 2005 at 6:22pm GMT