| Messages (oldest first): |
[Sort by Newest first]
|
|
Page 3/7 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
|
|
| Bishop Bob Duncan deposed by TEC House of Bishops |
| 25 [8568] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Friday 26 September 2008 - 11:50pm |
| Duncan, I am sure Bishop Bob Duncan did not expect a round of applause. I wonder if he expected, along with many others in TEC, that the leadership of TEC might pause, consider 'what would Jesus do?', and reach out in a spirit of reconciliation according to gospel teaching. If we follow the gospel of Christ seriously in respect of church discipline (notably Matthew's Gospel) we find a schema for conversation before deposition. The conversation might have started with the question, 'What can we do about finding greater agreement among ourselves in the House of Bishops?', and extended to questions such as the question, 'Have we taken a wrong turning somewhere because its mighty strange that this church of inclusiveness has dioceses and bishops wanting to leave us rather than to join us?'
TEC's inflexible persistence in a course of action which is leading to resistance from bishops, clergy, and laity seems incongruous measured against their witness to God who is a god of almost infinite flexibility in accepting changes to Scripture and tradition. |
|
|
|
| Fulcrum Response to Lambeth and GAFCON |
| 26 [8873] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Tuesday 4 November 2008 - 01:50am |
| Hi Roger
I cannot quite follow your logic re primary /secondary status for 'gay marriage'. If I am in the First XI it doesn't matter whether I am no 1 or no 11 in the batting order, I am still in the First XI and not the Second XI. If the Jerusalem Declaration is a statement of primary issues then it makes little difference where on the list one of the issues comes.
I also cannot quite follow you in your assumption or presumption that us Fulcrumites treat 'gay marriage' in one distinctive way.
Mind you, I am not sure what constitutes a Fulcrumite ... but as a reader and occasional commenter on Fulcrum threads I first dispute the validity of the term 'gay marriage' since marriage only refers to the diversity-in-union permanent coupling of a man and a woman. Secondly, because the permanent union of two men or of two women is a concept at least unknown to Scripture, if not outrightly condemned by Scripture, then the possibility of the church taking a decisively different view to Scripture on such a profoundly important matter for human society goes to the heart of the church's relationship with Scripture and its understanding of its authority and implementation. From this perspective, unless we were to say that important matters of human society and/or issues in understanding the authority and implementation of Scripture are secondary to the project of understanding God's will for life, the debate around permanent same-sex unions or (if you persist) 'gay marriage' is a matter of primary doctrinal importance. |
|
|
|
| New Anglican 'Province' in North America? |
| 27 [9101] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Tuesday 18 November 2008 - 06:13pm |
| Graham
Taking up your question! I am loath to see a new province being formed for all the reasons which the Radner-Seitz school have been giving, and for the reason that I see the formation being driven in part by some separatist thinking which shows more in common with Travers than Hooker! I am also concerned with the lack of unanimity in each of the four dioceses in their decisions to depart TEC.
BUT I support the new province being formed by those who in good conscience see no other way forward because I see nothing, not one thing, being offered by the PB, the leading bishops of TEC, and the key bloggers by way of an olive branch, a commitment to find a way forward together, let alone an engagement in the 'broken middle' beloved by the ABC. For example, when recently the democratic process of California said 'no' to 'gay marriage' did we find the liberal power brokers of TEC pausing to reconsider the advancement of their agenda? No. Any recognition that the thinking of +Duncan and co might be closer to mainstream America than their own? No. Has a special convention been called to examine TEC's internal life with a view to reordering affairs to be inclusive of the disaffected Dioceses, rather than exclusive? No. Has any sense been given that the next General Convention will turn the liberal tide to a more centrist vision? No. Has the Presiding Bishop offered a clear and unequivocal commitment to the uniqueness of Christ as the only name by which we may be saved? No.
I admire the commitment of the Communion Conservatives resolutely sticking to TEC - I would probably do the same if I were a member of TEC. But I also know Episcopalians whom I hesitate from afar to give a label to, who have left TEC having given the possibility of staying their best shot. Are they to be denied the blessing of fellowship within the Anglican Communion and with the Archbishop of Canterbury? |
|
|
|
| Diocese of Sydney breaks with Jerusalem Declaration |
| 28 [9170] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Saturday 22 November 2008 - 09:17am |
| I encourage you, Graham, to keep underlining the point about Sydney's breaking clause 7 of the JD.
Chris Sugden's piece, described by another commenter on Stand Firm as 'codswallop, is singularly abject in its failure to acknowledge this point. Of course there are a few other points missing, such as the fact that there are evangelicals - not just anglo-catholics - concerned about Sydney's decision and disagreeing with the logic behind it.
In the end, all the blathering about where Cranmer would have really gone with the C of E if he had had the opportunity, why the plain meaning of the word 'administration' need not be authoritative, and why Sydney is the chosen vessel for an Anglican evangelical insight hitherto unseen for nearly 500 years (except by J. N. Darby), misses the key question at this hour: does the Jerusalem Document have any meaning and will the Primates Council have any teeth when one of the leading GAFCON players blatantly disregards Clause 7. I suspect GAFCON is holed in the water. If so, the torpedo was not fired from another vessel! |
|
|
|
| Diocese of Sydney breaks with Jerusalem Declaration |
| 29 [9193] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Sunday 23 November 2008 - 06:56pm |
| Bob,
To invoke Anglican tradition re word and sacrament is, of course, to also invoke the tradition which recognises distinctions in ministries according to order: bishops ordain and confirm but priests, deacons and laity do not; priests but not deacons join with the bishop in ordaining another priest; the bishop alone ordains deacons; and the developing tradition for a long time now in which lay people are licensed to perform a number of tasks including leading services, preaching, and distributing the bread and the wine, but not presiding.
Nevertheless the question is quite fair why lay people and deacons might be licensed to preach but not to preside. It is also fair to ask (as I understand Sydney to be asking) whether a trajectory begun in the Reformation might have ended up differently if history had taken a different course. That the history of the Anglican church has taken a course away from, and not towards lay people presiding impresses many evangelicals (including myself). Also impressive for me is the point that the priesthood/presbyterate is effectively annulled by authorising lay presidency. (Sydney's case that the priesthood/presbyterate should consist of rectors of parishes is not immediately obvious from Scripture!)
But the main question for me re an argument that word and sacrament imply equal opportunity for lay preaching and lay presiding is whether the ministry of the word is a straightforward equivalent to the ministry of the sacrament? Quite a long answer could be developed! Here I simply offer the brief observation that a preacher can be licensed on the basis of a recognised spiritual gift (1 Peter 4:11) whereas a presider is licensed on the basis of belonging to a requisite order in the church (which, in Anglican tradition, is the order of priests/presbyters).
Underlying such distinction is the question whether the Anglican church is solely biblical in its underpinning of ministry, with no attention paid to the historical development of ministry, or whether it is biblical and attentive to church history in its application of the Bible to its ministry. But to head in the former way has been the route of the Plymouth Brethren who self-consciously distinguished themselves from their Anglican roots. Should Sydney be doing the same? |
|
|
|
| Defining evangelical |
| 30 [9411] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Thursday 18 December 2008 - 01:10am |
| One of the things which never ceases to surprise me about evangelicals is our low capacity for self-criticism. (We are quite good at criticising others, including, perhaps even especially, fellow evangelicals!) By 'self-criticism' I mean our ability to ask questions of ourselves such as, 'why has charismatic experience been so popular amongst evangelicals?' or 'why are so many liberals from an evangelical background?' or 'why are we always a minority in churches such as Western Anglican churches?' Thus questions in the context of Western evangelical Anglicanism such as 'what's unattractive about our theology to most other Anglicans around us?' or 'why are we good at growing large parishes but not at transforming whole dioceses in an evangelical direction?' or 'why do people growing through the 'stages of faith' often leave evangelical parishes to attend parishes of a different character, or even to attend no church?' are rarely, if ever asked in evangelical circles (in my experience, at least).
I suspect one reason why these kinds of questions are not asked is that we get quite anxious if any thought of being driven by 'relevance' or 'culture' or 'popularity' enters into our theological reflection (carefully distinguishing this from our praxis where we are often keen for our activities to appeal to people by being relevant, inculturated, and popular).
Then there is our capacity to act like the Mafia: make one tiny signal that you are not staunch on penal substitution/sexuality/importance of Scripture/etc and you are a candidate for rubbing out (i.e. rubbing off the list of 'acceptable' evangelicals). Are we proud or ashamed, or simply unaware of this capacity to act in a way which appears to share a characteristic of an evil organisation?
Is this a time for gritty civil war on matters such as the precise numerical priority of Scripture ('it should be no 1 on the list of important doctrines ... how dare he put it at no 5 and call himself an evangelical'), or a time to ask ourselves the following questions?
'Even if we could re-find our unity as evangelicals as apparently it once existed in the prime of Stott and Packer, would that be sufficient to transform the Anglican church in the West, and to enable it to re-engage with the missio dei in an effective way?
In respect of any evangelical theology we unite around what deficiency might we need to work on with as much fervour and passion as have when tackling perceived errors in theology?'
|
|
|
|
| Word of God and Women's Ministry |
| 31 [9761] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Tuesday 20 January 2009 - 08:01am |
| Well said, Ian.
It would be good if the confidence shown by those against WO in declaring 'the' meaning of 1 Tim 2:12 could be shown in declaring the meaning of 1 Tim 2:15. Perhaps because no one understands what 1 Tim 2:15 means we could be a little hesitant about the meaning of 1 Tim 2:12!
Either way, the difficulty in understanding 1 Tim 2:15 should highlight the importance of evangelicals acknowledging that Scripture is not always quite as straightforward to understand as we would like it to be! |
|
|
|
| TECUSA pushes the boundaries YET again |
| 32 [9763] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Tuesday 20 January 2009 - 08:13am |
| Worth reading on John's discourses and the Synoptics' pithy sayings is Richard Bauckham's "Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John" (accessible in one of his latest publications, The Testimonry of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John, pp. 93-112).
Just one note from that article: relative to the Synoptics the lengthy discourses of Jesus in John's Gospel do not look like characteristic speech forms of Jesus; but the Synoptics themselves attest to Jesus speaking at length on numerous occasions while only sharing with us several sayings or a few parables (Bauckham notes Mark 4:1 where Jesus addresses the crowd but Mark only goes on to share three short parables with his readers). The pithy sayings of the Synoptics may themselves be distillations of longer discourses of Jesus more than they are characteristic speech forms of Jesus.
None of this proves the veracity of John's Gospel as an eyewitness = videocam type record of Jesus. But it might reinforce the wisdom of the ancient church's decision to receive all four canonical gospels, reject a lot of others, and treat all four as truthful! |
|
|
|
| Charles Darwin: A Fulcrum Appreciation |
| 33 [10173] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Tuesday 17 February 2009 - 09:39am |
| Graham
You are right re Genesis 2 in relation to Genesis 1 and the importance of getting Genesis 2:8 correct (even the Evangelical Standard Version does not have the pluperfect).
The whole creationist project falls over when Genesis 2 is read alongside Genesis 1. Two (hi)stories are told. In Genesis 1, humanity is the culmination of the story; in Genesis 2, humanity is the centre of the story. In both God is creator and humanity is the apex of creation. That neither offers a scientific account becomes obvious when one compares the details (plants before man in Genesis 1; man before plants in Genesis 2). That each story contributes to our understanding of theology and anthropology; and both stories stand together to deepen our praise of God is the inheritance we have been blessed with due to the wisdom of our ancestors in the faith.
It would be a pity to give this heritage away for a mess of pottage! |
|
|
|
| Charles Darwin: A Fulcrum Appreciation |
| 34 [10193] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Wednesday 18 February 2009 - 06:08am |
| Hi Phil
I am not sure why a detailed exegesis of the passages you mention will forward this discussion.
Could you give us a clue?
That might assist any who then care to comment to keep the details down to a manageable length for a comment! |
|
|
|
| Charles Darwin: A Fulcrum Appreciation |
| 35 [10262] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Sunday 22 February 2009 - 01:33am |
| Hi Phil
Thanks for the clarity with which you set up the exegetical challenge, helped by being alerted to your February 14th post which I had missed.
Scripture is trustworthy. Scientific investigation leads to truth. If a combination of texts within Scripture is at variance (say) with fossil evidence suggesting animals killed other animals before the appearance of homo sapiens then Scripture may be untrustworthy.
Or (as I prefer) we may have a new challenge as readers of Scripture in possession of scientific facts unknown to the human writers of Scripture. In the case of the collection of texts you bring together (Gen 1:29-30, 9:3, Isaiah 11:6-9 etc) they may call for a new reading in which (a) we recognise God's preference for a vegetarian diet, (b) acknowledge a gap in our biblical knowledge as to whether the first human beings began to eat meat before or after the Flood, and (c) the future new creation will be vastly different to the pre-Fall creation.
In a comment this is a simplistic response; in a longer response I I would develop something substantial. But what I am not at all inclined to do is to head off in a direction which leads (among other things) to a solution in which God tricks human beings by planting misleading fossils, and/or in which the generally accepted understanding (based on good evidence) of the longevity of the universe and the fact of death at each stage of the development of life is denied.
|
|
|
|
| Charles Darwin: A Fulcrum Appreciation |
| 36 [10272] Posted by: Peter Carrell |
Sunday 22 February 2009 - 10:19pm |
| Hi Phil
Re Genesis 1:29-30 and 9:3.
These passages affirm the (obvious) primary role of plants and fruit in the food-chain of life; and Genesis 9:3 provides a story of divine permission for eating meat. It seems difficult to say more beyond that. Does Genesis 9:3 convey a picture of God giving permission to eat meat before or after the fact of meat-eating? Hopefully it is after because there is a lot of evidence for meat-eating before (whatever global event constituted) the Flood. (Just last night I was viewing a programme here in New Zealand about the ancient Haast Eagle's predilection for tasty meals of our more recently extinct Moa (emu-like bird))! |
|
|
|
|
Page 3/7 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
| Top
|
