|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/250
 Available as PDF document (580K) to
View/SaveOther articles by Andrew Goddard are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 36 comments on this article The Anglican Communion - Mapping the TerrainFulcrum Newsletter, November 2007by Andrew GoddardDear Fulcrum Friends, 1 Introduction: An Earlier Attempt at Mapping
Over a year ago, following the Bishop of Exeter's address to the American House of Bishops, I floated the idea that the current tensions within the Communion could be captured by reference to four quadrants. These were created by mapping views on X-Y axes with the X-axis representing one's attitude to Lambeth I.10 on sexuality (Left to Right from anti-I.10 to pro-I.10) and the Y-axis representing one's attitude to the Windsor Report on the nature of communion (High being pro-Windsor, low being anti-Windsor). What I simply labelled as Groups I-IV were then given labels by Graham Kings: 
While I believe this four-fold categorisation still has value, I am also coming to the view that it has a number of weaknesses in the present situation and that a more complex and nuanced account must now be offered. The two areas of tension remain homosexuality and ecclesiology but I think they perhaps are best treated separately and a more careful delineation of positions offered. On homosexuality, part of the problem is that I.10 contains a variety of statements and some people are very pro parts of it while being very opposed to other parts - Gene Robinson is very pro a listening process, Archbishop Akinola is strongly pro-I.10 in many respects but perhaps not that one. On ecclesiology, there are those whose opposition to Windsor was focussed on its ecclesiology and those for whom the problem was more its concrete proposals in relation to the life of ECUSA/TEC in the current context. Furthermore, there are at least two distinct views opposed to its ecclesiology which the earlier categorisation tended to merge as simply 'anti-Windsor'. I therefore want to propose a four-fold categorisation in relation to homosexuality (§2) and a three-fold categorisation in relation to ecclesiology (§3) before discussing how these inter-relate (§4) and how these relationships and tensions are played out concretely in the life of the Communion (§5). Finally, in the light of this analysis, an assessment can be made of the current state of the Windsor Process (§6). 2 The Anglican Spectrum on HomosexualityAs I've outlined previously in a recent Anvil editorial, I'm not sure how helpful it is to identify simply two camps on homosexuality. While any compartmentalisation is clearly open to challenge given that there is a wide spectrum of views, I think a four-fold distinction may prove helpful. This effectively sub-divides each of the traditional 'conservative' and 'liberal' groupings into a more 'hard' and more 'soft' version. Building on the earlier model it can be seen as moving on a horizontal axis which from left to right ranges from a whole-hearted gospel-based commitment to the full inclusion of same-sex partnered couples at all levels of church life through to an unshakeable conviction that all homosexual practice is sin and suggestions to the contrary must be opposed and rejected. As always, labels are problematic and likely to annoy as much as elucidate but I think the 'conservative' view has those whose stance is more one of rejection and those whose approach is more one of reassertion. On the 'liberal' side, there are also two broad groupings which mirror these two groups and which I've labelled (the more central and paralleling reassertors) reassessors and reinterpreters. 2.1 RejectionAt its most extreme, the category of rejection tips over into 'homophobia' as seen in the written response of one American bishop in 1974 to the formation of Integrity within the American church in order to campaign for full inclusion:
Similar language is sadly still heard and even where such obvious revulsion towards anyone identifying as a homosexual is not expressed, the more moderate rejectionist position is marked by features such as:
2.2 ReassertionThe reasserter position agrees with the rejectionist in relation to the morality of homosexual behaviour. It too stresses the importance of upholding traditional church teaching that in God's intention sexual intercourse is for a man and a woman who are married to each other and thus the church should not commend or bless other sexual relationships or ordain anyone in a non-marital sexual relationship. This view differs, however, in a number of its emphases:
2.3 ReassessorsMirroring the reasserters are the reassessors who believe we need to reassess (or, a possible alternative nomenclature, reappraise) the church's traditional teaching and practice. They are marked by a number of features:
This stance is (in its more moderate form) open to seeing the church entering a period of 'reception' in this area (as it has over the ordination of women). Even if not personally convinced of the correctness of change, many of this view are willing to treat the issues as one of indifference (adiaphora) and tolerate diversity and plurality within church teaching and practice in order to enable discernment of God's will. 2.4 ReinterpretersFinally, there are those Christians - I've called them reinterpreters - who are firmly convinced advocates for the reinterpretation (or revision or reconfiguration) of traditional teaching and practice in relation to sexual ethics. In addition to a strong commitment to the features noted above of reassessors, among the characteristics of those in this part of the spectrum are:
Those at this end of the spectrum would therefore whole-heartedly support the stance of groups like Integrity, Changing Attitude and LGCM and, at the far extreme (mirroring the homophobic rejectionists), some are criticised for lacking or going beyond a distinctively Christian ethic. 2.5 ConclusionClearly these are four groupings across a complex spectrum and they are not water-tight. Individuals will also move between them over time. Even within one category there is a range of different attitudes and approaches. However, most individuals and groupings can be helpfully classified and distinguished in terms of the following spectrum of views:
3 The Ecclesiology ParadigmsRather than simply labelling people as pro or anti Windsor, as in the original mapping, three broad visions of the nature of Anglican life in communion can be sketched.[ii] 3.1 Communion CatholicismThis is broadly the vision of the givenness of our inter-relationships in the body of Christ and the importance of interdependency and autonomy within our life in communion that is set out in the Windsor Report, especially section B where
3.2 Connectional ConfessionalismThis is broadly the vision of inter-relationships in which member churches define themselves on a confessional basis (which may be broad or narrow) and understand their relationships with others as connections made on the basis of that shared confession or, where necessary, broken because of a lack of common confession. It appears to be the vision of ecclesial life found in, for example, the Diocese of Sydney and some forms of conservative evangelicalism and is perhaps also expressed in recent changes to the constitution of the Nigerian church to read (section 3.1):
3.3 Autonomous InclusivismThis is broadly the vision that each province determines its own actions within its own jurisdiction in accordance with its own canons and constitution and the Anglican vision of diversity, comprehensiveness and inclusion is such that other Anglican provinces should honour and respect those decisions and continue to include one another and maintain bonds of communion even where there are significant disagreements on matters of theology, ethics or practice between them. This understanding of Anglican identity finds expression in large parts of TEC and also some of the wider 'inclusive church' networks. 4 The Practical Interaction of Ecclesiology Models and Sexuality IssuesIn one sense there is no necessary correlation between one's place on the spectrum of views on homosexuality and one's ecclesiology. However, there do appear to be certain connections and the Windsor Report clearly spelled out its own understanding of how its 'communion catholicism' vision impacted on the tensions in the Communion over homosexuality. 4.1 Connectional confessionalism and A Rejectionist StanceIn the current situation it would appear that there is often a strong link between a more rejectionist stance on sexuality and the 'connectional confessionalist' ecclesiology. This is, in terms of the old model, the 'federal conservative' quadrant. This is in large part because those who feel strongest about defending the traditional sexual ethic see it as central to Christian confession. It is thus an issue where divergent paths or even moral disagreement in principle leads to impaired or broken communion. While that stance may fit within 'communion catholicism' it is often (perhaps in part because the way Windsor applied its vision to sexuality) connected to 'connectional confessionalism'. 4.2 Autonomous Inclusivism and a Reinterpreter StanceThe mirror image of this first stance is the tendency of those most committed to challenging the current teaching of the Communion in I.10 to embrace 'autonomous inclusivism' - the old 'federal liberal' quadrant. Once again there is here a tendency for a strong stance on sexuality issues to be tied to an ecclesiological vision which enables that stance to find fuller expression and here there is clearly a connection between emphasis on diversity and inclusivity in relation to human sexuality and in relation to life in a communion of churches. As above another pressure towards this correlation may be that the Windsor vision of the implications of 'communion catholicism' are particularly difficult for reinterpreters to accept. 4.3 Windsor's Communion Catholicism and SexualityThe Windsor Report (TWR) set out an ecclesiology - broadly what I have categorised as 'communion catholicism'- and also applied it to the current situation in the communion especially in relation to differences over sexuality and the crisis that has resulted. It applied its vision in three ways: 4.3.1 Listening and DialogueTWR famously refused to take a stance of its own in relation to the spectrum of views on sexuality and the Commission's membership reflected a wide range of views on the issue: 'We repeat that we have not been invited, and are not intending, to comment or make recommendations on the theological and ethical matters concerning the practice of same sex relations and the blessing or ordination or consecration of those who engage in them' (para 43, italics original). Implicitly it therefore held that it was possible for bona fide Anglicans to hold any of the four viewpoints on sexuality sketched above (with perhaps a few exceptions at either extreme). Indeed, the four categories I've offered have some similarity to the four sketched in the report from the subgroup on human sexuality at Lambeth 1998. The existence of different conscientious convictions among Anglicans along the spectrum was not considered in itself a threat to our life together in communion. Nor was this diversity of view a reason for 'walking apart'. Rather, the report stressed the need for further, ongoing discussion, listening and study in this area, most fully in paras 145-146 ('debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion) but also para 26 ('further serious Communion-wide discussion of the relevant issues is clearly needed as a matter of urgency'). This clearly presented a challenge to certain people, especially those in the 'rejection' part of the spectrum. 4.3.2 Constraints on ActionAlongside this 'inclusive' position, however, TWR was also clear (as have been the Instruments) that the common mind of the Communion as a whole on this subject has been stated, notably in I.10. That common mind is broadly in the reasserter part of the spectrum (TWR paras 23-26, 43). TWR therefore concluded that this meant that certain actions were not acceptable given its Anglican ecclesiology ('Communion Catholicism'). As a result, specific requests were made of TEC - an apology for past actions and a commitment to future moratoria. These are clearly major constraints for those who are convinced reinterpreters and, to a lesser extent, for reassessors. This is also where the vision of Windsor is most in tension with that of 'autonomous inclusivism'. 4.3.3 Good OrderTWR also made clear that its ecclesiology rendered it unacceptable for churches within the Communion to act in the jurisdiction of another diocese or province without the consent of its bishop. It therefore sought an end to these interventions. This goal was subsequently sought more directly by the Primates at Dar who even more explicitly recognised that it was the failure in TEC to constrain action which was the precipitating cause for such interventions. This is where the vision of Windsor is most in tension with that of 'connectional confessionalism' and also a restraint on the temptations faced by 'rejectionists'. 5 Agents in the CrisisBefore using this analysis to examine our current situation, its more theoretical and conceptual framework needs to engage with the material and political realities of life in Communion. The life of the Communion has traditionally worked at two levels:
To these now need to be added two more recent developments:
5.1 The InstrumentsOver recent decades the Instruments have had to develop significantly to oversee and facilitate the Communion's common, diverse and often conflictual life. In particular, there have developed both the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the Primates' Meeting (and their respective Standing Committees) with the Anglican Communion Office (ACO) acting as the permanent secretariat of the ACC and facilitating the work not only of the Instruments but also various Communion-wide ministries and self-funding networks. In recent years (and particularly during the current crisis) it has become clear that there are perceived to be tensions or even a power-play between the ACC/ACO and the Primates as to their respective roles and influence within the Instruments. Some see the ACO as too Western and liberal dominated (and point to its reliance on certain sources for funding) and have expressed frustration at the slowness of its processes. Others view the Primates as seeking - through their more regular meetings, their actions at Dromantine (especially in relation to ACC participation) and the role proposed for them in the draft covenant - to take on a more curial role and seize control of the Communion. There is also, of course, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury's staff at Lambeth with some evidence of divergences between their perception and agenda of events in the Communion and those of the ACO. 5.2 Autonomous ProvincesThe slowness and relative powerlessness of the Instruments mean autonomous provinces continue to be a more powerful agent of change in the life of the Communion. It is actions at these levels - such as those in ECUSA/TEC and the appointment of missionary bishops and American missions by some African provinces - which tend to set the agenda to which the Instruments have to respond. 5.3 Coalitions of ProvincesThe establishment - partly out of a frustration that they were not properly represented through ACO and the Instruments - of the Global South grouping of provinces has also added a new dynamic to the politics and discernment processes of the Communion. More recently there has also been the creation of a Global Center grouping. Particularly given the lack of formal regional instruments these intermediary bodies between the province and the Communion-wide Instruments could prove increasingly influential in the creation of power blocs that either fuel or diminish tensions and disagreements within the Communion as a whole. 5.4 International NetworksThe importance of inter-provincial meetings and coalitions is increased because these inter-provincial groupings are often closely related to the various non-provincial but international networks, movements and pressure groups that have been established over recent years and increasingly brief leading bishops and Primates and appear on the fringes of meetings of the Instruments. 6 The Windsor Process: Where are we now and where might we be going?6.1 Where are we now?: JSC's ConclusionFollowing the meeting of TEC's HoB, the Joint Standing Committees of the ACC and the Primates issued a report. Although a minority view was expressed, the majority viewpoint within this was effectively that the second of Windsor's concerns outlined above - the need for apology and moratoria (see 4.3.2) - had now been adequately responded to by TEC. It was therefore argued that, as a result, the focus of the Instruments needed to be turned instead to the other two areas - listening and dialogue on sexuality (4.3.1) and resolving the problem of extra-provincial interventions in TEC (4.3.3) - and the wider covenant process as the next stage in articulating and making a commitment to the Windsor/Communion Catholicism view of our life together as an Anglican Communion. 6.2 Challenges to JSC: Different Assessments & Agendas for the Communion's FutureIn taking stock of where we now find ourselves in the 'Windsor process' post-JSC there are three different levels of potentially serious disagreement:
6.2.1 Is JSC correct?The most pressing issue is, of course, whether JSC is correct to see TEC as now 'Windsor-compliant' or whether in fact TEC has failed to provide the necessary assurances requested by the Primates at Dar. In an earlier article I have explained why I am not convinced by JSC's analysis. If JSC's assessment is, indeed, flawed then the Communion cannot simply focus on listening and ending interventions. Other major questions also remain for the Communion and its Instruments, particularly the in relation to the Lambeth Conference (which I hope to explore in a subsequent piece). The further challenge is that even if the Instruments (5.1) commit themselves to JSC's positive assessment, it is clear that a significant number of the other key players identified above - particular provinces (5.2), the Global South coalition (5.3), and powerful political networks (5.4) - do not hold this view. Furthermore, they are likely to act on the basis of their negative judgment. In addition, it is clear that a good number of American bishops do not intend to act as JSC believe they have committed to act (and that more Canadian bishops are likely to join them). This means that the Windsor moratoria will probably not apply in practice in a number of dioceses, certainly in relation to authorised public rites of blessing. This pressing question is, however, only the tip of the iceberg. It appears that although the three-fold Windsor response outlined above (4.3) continues to have much support (if only as 'the only poker game in town') it is not acceptable to a significant number of Anglicans. 6.2.2 Is Windsor's three-fold response on sexuality and ecclesial order right?The challenges to Windsor apply in each of the three areas - 6.2.2.1 Listening and Dialogue While obviously having the support of those who disagree with the status quo (broadly reasssessors and reinterpreters) there are many within the majority of Anglicans who support the status quo - some reasserters and all rejectionists - who have varying degrees of unease with the ongoing process of dialogue, listening and discernment. For some, the very acceptance of the legitimacy of this range of views within Anglicanism (particularly among its leadership) is inconsistent with the clear statement of Lambeth I.10 (and biblical teaching) and this diversity of belief is the fundamental problem that needs addressing by the Communion. This leads to calls for people (certainly reinterpreters but also, as Rowan Williams discovered on his appointment, in some cases, also reassessors) to repent not simply of actions but of holding and articulating certain beliefs. Those who hold this view -especially if they are committed to or tempted by a connectional confessionalist ecclesiology - will find it very difficult to embrace this part of the post-Windsor process as they hold that differences of belief in this area are so serious that they must lead to impaired or broken communion. For others, there is a concern about the process of listening and dialogue and its implicit agenda. Looking at how such processes have developed in certain provinces, there is a suspicion that this commitment is aimed at moving people to the left on the spectrum of views and creating a position where the Communion may begin to classify this subject as adiaphora and therefore change its stance in the second area of Windsor - 6.2.2.2 Constraints on Action As noted above (4.3.2), this conclusion of Windsor is particularly objectionable to reinterpreters (and to a lesser extent reassessors). This is because it requires them not to act on their beliefs and on what they believe the Spirit is saying to the church. While some from that perspective will hold back on acting because of their ecclesiological convictions and out of a desire for unity, others (particularly if they are autonomous inclusivists) are likely to reject this as an unwarranted and oppressive constraint. It would, however, be wrong to think all on the 'conservative' side are happy with the Windsor proposals here. They (particularly rejectionists but also many reasserters) have a number of concerns of which the five most serious are:
6.2.2.3 Good order Those provinces who have suffered interventions are clearly eager for them to be brought to an end and denied Communion recognition. However, TEC has recently rejected the Communion's attempt to establish structures that would facilitate this (with appeals to what sounded like a more autonomous inclusivist rather than Communion Catholic ecclesiology) and now faces the prospect of not just parishes but dioceses seeking to affiliate with another province of the Communion. Some object to Windsor's proposals in this area because of their different (connectional confessionalist) ecclesiology or because (even within a communion Catholicism mindset) they believe that the demands of mission require a rethinking of this particular aspect of traditional Anglican polity. The more serious, but largely unanswered question, is what situation, within Windsor's own Communion catholic ecclesiology, could justify continuing (or, as sought by the Pastoral Scheme proposed by the Primates at Dar, containing in an orderly manner) the sort of interventions TWR wished to bring to an end and their imminent extension to dioceses realigning. The main possible justifications appear to fall into three (not mutually exclusive) categories:
One major political problem is that although such views in defence of intervention or realignment are held or treated sympathetically by many provinces, many in the Global South network and by certain lobby groups, they have been given little or no attention by the Instruments and are simply rejected outright by reinterpreters (especially those of an autonomous inclusivist viewpoint) and many reassessors. 6.2.2.4 Conclusion on The Windsor Process Although there is probably still a fairly solid consensus behind the Windsor recommendations taken as a whole being the only way forward with integrity, in each of these three areas there are clearly powerful and opposing theological and political forces which are dissenting from this consensus. This makes the current situation and the future of the Windsor Process very fragile. 6.2.3 Is Windsor's ecclesiology one that the Communion should accept?Finally, in addition to the question of whether Windsor has been accepted in TEC and whether its proposals in relation to sexuality are acceptable, there is the yet deeper question of Windsor's ecclesiology. This is now being subjected to scrutiny through the covenant process which, if the Communion can hold together, it is hoped will provide a firmer foundation for its future. Some of the conflict over the proposed covenant relates to specific ways of implementing TWR's vision, especially as it relates to the political institutions of the Communion (eg the role it gives to the Primates). Some conflict also arises because of the effect of the acceptance of the covenant on the dynamics of the sexuality debate where both reinterpreters and rejectionists may believe it will handicap them. Some disagreement and conflict, however, relates to the deeper level of the competing ecclesiologies and visions of Anglicanism which I've categorised above in terms of connectional confessionalism (3.2) and autonomous inclusivism (3.3). Here, although there is little support for either of these ecclesiological perspectives within the Instruments (who are, of course, driving the covenant process), some provinces have at least tendencies in these directions (and these may spread through the development of Global South and Global Center blocs). In addition -perhaps reflecting their own status as autonomous, voluntarist and connectional groupings - there are signs that the various theological and political networks may be being drawn into propagating such understandings and thus resisting the covenant process. 7 ConclusionThere are clearly a number of centrifugal forces currently threatening the unity of the Anglican Communion. The focus of these for many is the issue of the proper response to same-sex unions and here I have suggested there is a wide spectrum of views among Anglicans which can be broadly classified into four groups: rejection, reassertion, reassessment and reinterpretation. Faced with these divisions, the Communion responded by addressing the underlying ecclesiological questions relating to how we live together in communion and maintain our unity in the face of diversity. This produced the Windsor Report and now the Windsor Process (and within it the covenant process). This has articulated a vision of life in communion that I have called 'communion Catholicism' and then sought to apply that to the differences over sexuality. The danger is that this process has, in turn, produced (or perhaps uncovered) further points of tension. At the level of principle there are new fracture lines developing as, competing with the Windsor vision, there are at least two other alternative ways of envisioning our life together - what I've called connectional confessionalism and autonomous inclusivism. These now supplement the tensions over sexuality and (in as much as there is a correlation between these and the two extremes of the sexuality spectrum) they may strengthen and reinforce them. At the level of practice there are those who, even if they share Windsor's vision of life in communion and reject these two alternative paradigms, are unhappy with at least some of Windsor's practical outworkings of this vision in relation to how the Communion should respond to its diversity over sexuality. In addition to these three different levels of tension over more theoretical areas - attitudes to sexuality, visions of life in Communion, the implications of Windsor for sexuality - there is now the added and most pressing concrete question of discerning whether, if one accepts Windsor's proposals in relation to the current crisis, TEC has (as JSC argue)accepted and implemented Windsor's recommendations. Finally, these forces are at play within and between at least four different institutional arenas within the Communion's life - individual provinces and their relationships with other provinces, the Instruments of Communion, coalitions of provinces, and unofficial networks of committed protagonists. Miraculously, for the last five years (since the current high-level tensions really began with the decisions of New Westminster diocese) the Instruments have been able to bring together all the provinces (though at ACC Nottingham, TEC and Canada attended as observers) and facilitate ongoing conversation across these various divides and wide spectra of beliefs and visions for the Communion. It has done so even as inter-provincial relationships and eucharistic fellowship among the Primates broke down. The challenge now is whether and how that achievement can be maintained, especially in relation to Lambeth 2008, and, if it cannot, what sort of viable 'second best' arrangements can be developed or 'amicable separations' negotiated. Yours in Christ, Andrew Endnotes[i] Integrity Newsletter, Vol 1 No 2, Dec 1974. Name of bishop withheld. [ii] A different categorisation has recently been proposed by Miranda K. Hassett in Anglican Communion in Crisis: How Episcopal Dissidents and Their African Allies Are Reshaping Anglicanism (Princeton University Press, 2007). She describes two competing visions of (1) 'accountability globalism' (in which there is a belief that 'the dawning global era calls the Anglican Communion to establish clearer doctrinal standards and more accountability between provinces' (120) so there is a 'worldwide interprovincial accountability to fixed scriptural norms, clarified through intercultural correction, supported and enforced by a global orthodox Anglican majority' (127)) and (2) 'diversity globalism' (in which 'the primary ideal for international communion is diversity in unity, understood as sharing Christian fellowship across differences in culture, experience, and belief' (127) so there is a globalism 'founded on principles of tolerance within a federation of loosely unified provinces' (120)). Earlier she writes that 'northern liberals and moderates hold a vision of the Anglican Communion as embracing diversity within a loose and noncoercive unity of shared heritage and goodwill' (119) which suggests that her 'diversity globalism' is close to my third category of 'autonomous inclusivism'. It appears her account was developed pre-Windsor and (in part because she has two categories shaped by the US conflicts) the parallels between my categories and hers are not exact. Neverthless, I think those in Hassett's 'accountability' vision would broadly fit Windsor's 'communion catholicism' (although some may fall into my 'connectional confessionalism' just as some in her 'diversity' vision could place themselves as Windsor supporting 'communion catholics'). Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Roger Harper Tuesday 8 January 2008 - 09:47pm Another interesting map, this time of the UK Evangelical 'terrain' is in Christianity magazine this month. Andy Peck identifies 7 'tribes' of which 2 are 'Open Evangelical.' One of these specifically includes Fulcrum, and is described as 'Growing numbers within all denominations, especially younger people.' Fulcrumites be encouraged! Posted by: Roger Harper Friday 4 January 2008 - 07:26pm Yes, Pete, I see the reference to US Evangelicals as an aside. If people want to talk about it more seriously, a new thread would be the way. (Or restart an old thread about Christian Zionism - which has been successfully imported here.) The main question is: we have a reasonably good map, we have a fairly good idea of where we are as a Communion, but where do we go from here? I suggest we look seriously at whether ‘gay marriage’ is adiaphora or what. Windsor pointed us to this issue. It is high time it was addressed. Next Fulcrum conference? Any thoughts? 
Posted by: Jody
Friday 4 January 2008 - 04:00pm
well, in answer to Tim's question a few posts ago, I think that the strength that I draw from fulcrum is mostly to do with the CE/OE debate, it always has been, and it was this that led me to fulcrum in the first place. having said that, I guess that there has been such feeling that CEs wish to lump people like me into the 'liberal' category, that sometimes it is confusing as to what is meant when CEs say 'liberal' - for instance rejecting PSA might lose me my evangelical credentials in a CEs eyes. So it might be that the CE/OE conversation is blurred around the edges by these misnomers. I'm not sure about Pete's suggestion that it is only the middle of the road american evangelicals who have had voice over here. I would like it if it were the case, I'm just not sure. Regardless of that, Rob Bell is certainly answering a particular context, which comes across in his writing and DVDs, and so we hear the Religious Right coming through in the background whenever we listen to Rob or Brian McLaren for instance. And example of this would be that Brian McLaren spends a lot of time answering the 'creation vs evolution' question, which doesn't need so much time over here. x Jody Posted by: Pete Broadbent Thursday 3 January 2008 - 09:43pm I don't get the relevance of this link, I'm afraid. The evangelicals from the USA who've made an impact over here have been Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, Rob Bell, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren... whereas the Republican Right have had zilch impact on stuff here. We need to be clear what sort of evangelicalism we're talking about. Can someone explain how the (much to be welcomed) melt-down of Right Wing American Christianity impacts upon our discussions? Or have I missed something? Posted by: Roger Harper Thursday 27 December 2007 - 12:52pm Thanks for pointing us to the BBC piece. Look also at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/magazine/28Evangelicals-t.html It seems the BBC wasn't first on the scene. Thanks, Andrew, for the links to your blog, where you raise a host of questions about what is meant by 'first order', 'homosexuality' etc. I look forward to some, albeit tentative, answers. I think I have already written about my own answers, but could post more here if you, or anyone else thinks it would be helpful. And please can the realist / non realist, resurrection / non resurrection debate move to its own thread so we can stick to the map of the Anglican Communion as regards stances on homosexuality and where we go from here. 
Posted by: Webmaster
Sunday 23 December 2007 - 12:30am
Try this link for the "From Our Own Correspondent" programme mentioned by Tim: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/fooc_sat The item on religion in Kansas is the first one. 
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Saturday 22 December 2007 - 09:47pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7154551.stm may be of interest. I expect someone clever can get a listen again link up Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Saturday 22 December 2007 - 08:25pm Thanks for that. I think L Roberts and I would agree we are visitors here, just providing a different point of view. It is an evangelical discussion area, so my view for sure is other than this. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Saturday 22 December 2007 - 05:10pm Pluralist wrote recently : 'In my view Christianity is a way of talking about people, and I would talk about them in the positive. I don't have to accept Augustine's belief in a fall and original sin, and I don't. The issue for me is whether people are faithful to one another and what they believe in and if it is to the reciprocl good. They don't receive merit badges at the end of their lives or have positions on some cosmic scale. 'What people do at the end of their lives is die. There may well be a higher value to their lives, but it would be one based on gift and not exchange. If so the merit badge approach is not worth the pin it comes with. Anyone who is faithful to the other person, and to the worthy cause, is of the gift. In other words, their value is not negotiated, it just is....' I find this beautiful and moving. For me it goes to the heart of things. 'faithful to one another' is so poignant. I want to be as faithful to yourselves and others as I can manage. I stand convicted and convinced. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Saturday 22 December 2007 - 04:58pm Yes, Pluralist, I too am around this boundary probably --a good image. Well put. I have been at various times in my life, a non-realist troubled by trancendance. & a realist believer (Charismatic, Evangelical, etc) troubled by non-realism as an inteleectual force, I could not avoid for too long. Your idea of boundary is very helpful. I find the Society of Friends and its Worship a very good place to be from both side of this boundary--especially if painfully straddling them and seeking to avoid hernia. A spell time in the *ccu recently has left me feeling rather calm, and with a sense of acceptance about the inevitability of death -- delayed for however long, it may be. (I know it could be a form of denial. ). I do feel the reality of the Ultimate level where there is no coming & going, no Birth & death ... I do feel the ultimate level informs the Historical level. I don't feel that the spirit of the message of the Jesus of the sermon the mount / plain is far from this teaching of Buddha, whiuch is replete with Beatitude for me --and yet beyond explanation, here in the historical level. * coronary care unit I wish i could engage with more posts here, but don't have the understaning, or energy very often. None the less thanks to all who share and / or wrestle to find words for the ineffable, here .... Posted by: Iconoclast Saturday 22 December 2007 - 04:58pm Pluralist, Thank you for responding to my questions but there is still one that you have not answered. You speak about 'Trancendence' and give examples (such as art ) which may point to the existence of transcendence so I get the impression that you have not entirely ruled out the possibility of some kind of after-death reality. But what about you Pluralist? Do you believe that is the end of Adrian Worsfold as a conscious entity? While people may remember you after you die from your works which one might argue is a form of transcendence (however you might argue the Earth will be swallowed up when the the Sun becomes a Red Giant so they won't survive), - is it for you personally - oblivion?
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Saturday 22 December 2007 - 04:47pm
Following Pluralist's confession of faith I have been reflecting about the dynamics of this web forum. A matter of weeks or maybe months ago it was clear to me that our raison d'etre was the renewal of Evangelical Anglicanism through dialogue between OE and CE people - perhaps on a good day the recent WH thread, or discussions on women's ministry typified this. More recently when it comes to the main areas of discussion - stuff about the Anglican Communion, homosexuality etc - there has I think been a shift so that the debate is now between liberals and everyone else. While this may be a worthwhile exercise (although I'm pretty sure Pluralist isn't going to change his spots) it isn't really the same as the original stated aim, is it? Or have I misread the "aims" page? We overlap with lots of other places like ship of fools and TA (can't believe I actually called them places, but YKWIM) and I am slightly concerned that the discussions we are having at the moment are off-focus. Some days I think Pluralist and a couple of other people are deliberately putting spanners in the works, but on more charitable days I feel it is good to have a liberal perspective to keep our heads out of the clouds (and to remind me what it feels like to appear conservative again, relative to some positions recently stated here). I'm not REPEAT NOT suggesting we exclude people, just trying to maintain the stated aims of the community as I understand them. Not very festive but there you go. Tim PS Where's Jody when you need her? Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Saturday 22 December 2007 - 02:47pm To answer some questions: I stand on the uncomfortable boundary between non-realism and transcendence. There are clarly signals of transcendence, and may well point to transcendence. I have some sort of sense of transcendence, in a kind of over-all and blank. Most content transcendence though are signals, pointers, within culture, language and art. No, I do not believe in any physical defeat of death by Jesus. That is to say, I do not think a conscious person died and regained his consciousness in the same physical body. I am not happy about a spirit world: however, there is phenomena of sightings after people have died. There are accounts of people who see a dead person close to them and it comes across as more than a dream, and these experiences tend to be reassuring and reinvigorating. They also interpret this according to the language of the day - would today be spiritualist type language but Jews would use resurrection language. There is a lot of confusion about 'presence'. However, the texts about Jesus seem to be more about the expectations of early Christians about the end time and the general resurrection beginning with Jesus being the first resurrected, connected to the conviction that Jesus was the messiah to shortly return - a conviction that he had given his blessing to leadership and authority by his after-death presence, but was no longer with them (of course) except by a more spiritual director until the end moment. Posted by: Iconoclast Saturday 22 December 2007 - 12:16pm Pluralist You stated "What people do at the end of their lives is die." Could you clarify for us then, whether you believe that there a further existence for people after they die or would you agree with Bertrand Russell when he stated 'When I die I rot'. Oblivion the end of all things for you is it? Correct me if I am wrong but I get the impression that you do not believe that Jesus rose from the in any literal sense at all. Am I right? Even after scanning your own site, I confess myself baffled as to what you actually do believe. Posted by: Phil Almond Friday 21 December 2007 - 05:47pm A reply to Pluralist’s post of 20 December: Though traumatic for most if not all of us, I believe it would be ultimately helpful if the great questions on which there are substantially differing views among those who believe that Christianity is in some sense true (obviously not just Anglicans) were to be debated on the internet. Why? I believe this would help us all towards the truth. It would force us all to understand views we disagree with at their best, and expose our own convictions to the strongest possible challenges. Our convictions may survive those challenges, or we may, in self-critical honesty, be forced to change them. We all know how traumatic and humbling that is. It would also clarify where we all stand and what we all regard as first-order and second-order. This will clarify who we agree with and who we disagree with and would help in any ecclesiastical realignment which might happen. Three observations: 1 It will be said that these debates have been going on for a long time and are going on now, and that the points and counterpoints, the pros and cons of the various views of theologians and pastors are out there in the literature and on the web. This is true. But what is lacking is to bring these together in one place and have direct interaction and challenge, not only from and between scholars, but from and between any ordinary Christians who wish to participate. 2 It is therefore necessary in such debates that leading scholars and theologians participate fully. It is also necessary that the debate is open to ordinary Christians. 3 It will be necessary for the debates to be very serious, earnest, sustained and carefully structured and moderated. I think that the Fulcrum website is as good a place as any to host such debates. The subject I have suggested is of great practical relevance, surely, to most of us. Most of us have relatives or friends or enemies who are not Christians. Most of us probably have a concern about their standing before God.
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Friday 21 December 2007 - 10:41am
Pluralist, are you a realist or a non-realist when it comes to God? If Christianity is "just a way of talking about people", that would suggest to me you don't have a concept of God in the supernatural sense. It would be helpful to me in understanding where you are coming from if you could elaborate please, Happy Christmas Tim
Posted by: Tim Goodbody
Friday 21 December 2007 - 09:35am
Pluralist Are you a realist or a non-realist when it comes to God? You certainly seem keen to impose your particular metanarrative upon those of us (from all over the anglican perspective) who still care to reflect on things such as Phil brought up. Perhaps I would be more keen to go with the God loves ... bit ( e.g. Yancey "there's nothing you can do to make God love you more than he does, there's nothing you can do to make God love you less than he does" from "What's so amazing about Grace?") than the guilty sinners angle, but at least I acknowledge that humans have an eternal destiny. I have in the past called for a forum discussion of annihilationist approaches to the afterlife, but if Christianity is just a way of talking about people then I guess this discussion would hold no interest for you other than to be condescending about what you clearly perceive as outdated theology. That's a bit of a splurge, but you never seem to take these things personally, so Happy Christmas (I presume you do celebrate ...) Tim Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Thursday 20 December 2007 - 10:33pm First of all, what difference does it make if the Fulcrum "leadership" discuss this as opposed to anyone else? As far as I can see, the proposals are born of another time and culture, and strike me with irrelevance. It hits me with meaninglessness. It is a theology of "going to heaven" or not, when this isn't even necessarily an accepted part of Christian believing. In my view Christianity is a way of talking about people, and I would talk about them in the positive. I don't have to accept Augustine's belief in a fall and original sin, and I don't. The issue for me is whether people are faithful to one another and what they believe in and if it is to the reciprocl good. They don't receive merit badges at the end of their lives or have positions on some cosmic scale. What people do at the end of their lives is die. There may well be a higher value to their lives, but it would be one based on gift and not exchange. If so the merit badge approach is not worth the pin it comes with. Anyone who is faithful to the other person, and to the worthy cause, is of the gift. In other words, their value is not negotiated, it just is. Time that we left the seventeenth century to itself. Posted by: Phil Almond Thursday 20 December 2007 - 08:50pm In 2006 I made the following posting. My perception from subsequent postings was that this proposal was declined. As a contribution to the first-order/second order question, I make this proposal again. Could I please invite the Fulcrum leadership to consider again whether this might not start to helpfully clarify some things? ‘I would like to formally propose to the Fulcrum leadership that there is an open debate (on this thread, or on another thread) with the following structure: First, the question: What is the position of people in the sight of God if they are not Christians? is debated. I offer my view: Regardless of age, culture, intelligence, wealth or poverty, suffering or oppression, race, whether or not they have heard the gospel, they are all guilty sinners in the sight of God and faced with his wrath and condemnation, preserved alive, while they remain alive, by his common grace but at the moment strangers to his saving grace. In the debate, my view can be criticised, challenged etc. and other views can be put forward for criticism and challenge. The overall idea is to clarify where there is agreement and where there is disagreement. Secondly, after debating the first question there is a debate on two other questions: What needs to happen, what does God need to do, if anything, what do they need to do, if anything, what does somebody else need to do, if anything, to improve their position (if it needs improving) in the sight of God? and What will happen to these people, now and after death, if the thing that needs to happen or to be done to improve their position (assuming it needs improving) does not happen and does not get done?’ Posted by: Andrew Goddard Wednesday 19 December 2007 - 12:16pm Roger, Your latest prompts me to my first posting on the boards. Apologies for not replying earlier to your comments on this subject. I have for some time wanted to address the adiaphora question but not had the time or energy or clarity to do it properly. I decided to try to break it down and began some reflections on my blog at: http://anglicantheologyethics.blogspot.com/2007/11/homosexuality-first-order-issue-i.html then followed up by: http://anglicantheologyethics.blogspot.com/2007/11/homosexuality-first-order-issue-ii.html As you will see that last post was over a month ago and I've not been able to puruse matters further since then. My next part aims to look at what is meant by 'first order' and 'second order' according to Anglican Mainstream and maybe others (if I can find good examples of people who really explain these key terms). I hope to return to the question further sometime in the new year and look forward to any discussion it generates. Posted by: Roger Harper Tuesday 18 December 2007 - 04:45pm Welcome, User 1494! (You can change to your real name through the 'My Account' tab, I believe.) Sorry not to have responded to you before now. I am an infrequent writer on this forum, partly because other people do not share my sense of what is crucial - particularly the 'adiaphora' question. I was hoping that Andrew G would respond to what I wrote last... But it is still a good fellowship, and I trust that what you and I contribute from time to time makes some difference to our Church! A map of the terrain is helpful, but the main use of maps is to help us to see where we go from here. Rowan Williams seems to think that the way ahead is to not talk about the 'elephant in the room.' (He used this phrase at the Fulcrum Day Conference, which had also avoided talking about the 'Gay Marriage' debate.) I still think it would be much better to address the 'adiaphora' question properly, as has never been done. Does anyone see another good way forward through the terrain? Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Thursday 6 December 2007 - 05:52pm Now I have added my mapping analysis, climbing on Andrew Goddard's back: Go in via the Blog, it is on the main website however, in Learning, Religions, Denominations called Mapping the Anglican Communion. http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/mapping-anglican-communion.html 
Posted by: Graham Kings
Thursday 6 December 2007 - 08:30am
Andrew Goddard has written two further articles which respond to criticisms of his Fulcrum Newsletter for November 2007. He introduced them on his Theology and Ethics site, 5 December 2007: http://anglicantheologyethics.blogspot.com/ The Challenges of Mapping [The Anglican Communion] http://www.ajgoddard.net/webdocs/anglican/mapping.pdf Two 'Conservative' Categories on the Sexuality Spectrum? http://www.ajgoddard.net/webdocs/anglican/conservativeviews.pdf Posted by: Darren Moore Wednesday 5 December 2007 - 09:31am L Roberts (sorry don't know how to address you). Nobody here would think the situation you describe as desirable in any way. It's sickening in fact. I'd be interested to know where those countries are, I suspect all Islamic. The only thing that affects the way those sort of regimes think of us or homosexuals is that the west has lost the plot. However, do you know how many Christians die each day for their faith? Did you know that more died in the last 100 years than previous 1900 put together? Often for holding onto counta cultural positions. Did you know Homosexuals are quite capable of persecution? Last year in Bournemouth an elderly autistic man held up a placard denouncing homosexul acts (most/all of us here would say that was unwise, insensitive, counter-productive etc. - but consider his mental health too). A group of young gay men attacked him, one called the police who arrested the old man, rather than the men assaulting him, saying for breaching the peace. Later that year he died. People need the right to speak and offend. You can't say that in this country that gives you the right to say and do certain things that you wouldn't in others, that others should not be able to say they think you are wrong. Constantly playing the martyer is just verbal power play. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Tuesday 4 December 2007 - 02:11pm 'At that stage, the simple, loud, repetition of what has been said before becomes inadequate. I face this, for example, in discussing the problem of pain in our confirmation group - simply repeating a doctrinal position is inadequate. Experience renders certain answers which might be given temporarily, or permanently, inaccessible. ' Mark Bennett I find these words and indeed Mark Bennett's entire posting (of Monday night) very helpful In fact, I think that in this short comment he has alerted us all to something vital, for Christian thinking, while wrestling with current issues. I value all his comments, but this one is absolutely on the ball. So humane, thoughtful and deeply related to human experience..... Please, please read and pray on what he is expressing, Friends. Posted by: Deleted user 974 Monday 3 December 2007 - 11:03pm Do you relise that you are calm disqisitions are on the lives of millions of real people ? Do you understand that we are routinely executed in 40 countries ? So you know that the negativity you spew out world-wwide puts at risk the lives and civil rights of lesbian and gay people ? Do you actually care ? Or is playing church and 'scholarly' pursuits and church politics all you care about ? History will make a very severe judgment upon you... Posted by: Deleted user 1494 Monday 3 December 2007 - 10:45pm It's a rare thing to find oneself described in a way that feels comfortable by someone who has a different perspective on the matter in hand - so congratulations, Andrew. I feel very happy as a moderately reassessing Communion Catholic, and all the more so if, as he implies, there are some who are prepared to hold differences over same-sex relationships within the church, rather than seeing them as a reason to split it - or as an inevitable accompaniment of a 'universalist and unitarian' theology (cf. the letter in support of Bp Jack Iker by members of General Synod). But I would like to reiterate Roger Harper's question - and I've just joined solely in order to do so. When and how did this question become one of first order importance - when other issues of sexual conduct, such as remarriage after divorce, or polygamy, are not so regarded? And I think linked to that - why is it regarded as sinful even to disagree with Lambeth 1:10 - or at least the parts of it that refer to same sex relationships? To elevate a resolution of the Lambeth Conference to the status of credal necessity is a move that most conservatives would usually denounce, I would have thought. Posted by: Mark Bennet Monday 3 December 2007 - 10:08pm I think that classifications can be helpful. What they miss, though, is the people who fall between the gaps, and I guess they might just be important in all this. You see in the main the people who post on blogs and make statements, and are generally visible, are the ones who have made up their minds, or feel they are on solid ground with something to say. But issues like the current ones tend not to be thought through or argues through at a deep level until they impinge on personal experience. Until then there is no particular reason to work through what one has been told, or what the teaching of the church has been. It is not that 'experience' has some kind of priority (as suggested on one blog comment I saw today), but rather that it raises questions which have not been asked before, and the responses to which have not been digested. Sometimes they are questions new to the Church, sometimes new to a particular person or community. At that stage, the simple, loud, repetition of what has been said before becomes inadequate. I face this, for example, in discussing the problem of pain in our confirmation group - simply repeating a doctrinal position is inadequate. Experience renders certain answers which might be given temporarily, or permanently, inaccessible. I reckon there are people out there who have started to question the presentation of the traditional position, but who have no compass to explore the issues - who are not convinced by the 'knock-down' arguments on either side, and therefore find themselves outside any classification, but trying to work out where they might land. Posted by: Roger Harper Monday 3 December 2007 - 05:40pm Thank you, Andrew G, for your masterly and useful overview of where we are as a Communion, with much reference to The Windsor Report. Yet I think you are missing the significance of the ‘adiaphora’ question. TWR flagged up the need to consider whether same sex ‘marriage’ is adiaphora, or primary, or somewhere in between. TWR contrasted the development of gay ‘marriage’ with the development of women bishops. In the latter case there had been a thorough examination of whether this was an issue about which can ‘agree to disagree’ which concluded that it was. TEC did not ask for, nor wait for, such an examination before going ahead, and TWR criticised them for this precipitative innovation. So, at least by comparison, (and I think my memory is right in saying also specifically) TWR called for common consideration of whether same sex ‘marriage’ is adiaphora. This is as important as TEC expressing ‘regret’ and holding back, Conservatives not crossing borders, and all of us listening to gay people. But it has been sidelined. The adiaphora question may even be the missing piece of the jigsaw. If TEC had been asked to hold back from any further development of gay blessings etc. until the adiaphora question had been settled, they may have had enough patience. But asking them to hold back ad infinitum was, from their point of view, too much. You do not mention the call for consideration of the adiaphora question in your discussion of TWR. You mention that ‘Reassessors’ see same sex ‘marriage’ as adiaphora, but do not specify the views of other groups. Jim Packer, writing and speaking about the necessity for the new Southern Cone Canadian Anglicans, bases his arguments on the understanding that same sex ‘marriage’ is a primary issue, akin to the Reformation issues. But he does not explain his reasons for this assessment, Biblical and otherwise. This is the line that Mainstream has trumpeted, without explanation. ‘This is a primary issue, therefore….’ As far as I can see, no-one has properly challenged this ‘Reasserters’ presupposition, which I, as a ‘Reassessor,’ consider unbiblical. In your terms, Fulcrum is mostly a fellowship of ‘Reassessors’ but we have refused to play our strongest card – calling others to justify their labelling same sex ‘marriage’ primary. Rowan W has also held back from such forthright challenge. PLEASE CAN WE AS A COMMUNION AT LAST ADDRESS THIS CRUCIAL PRIMARY / ADIAPHORA QUESTION, AS CALLED FOR BY THE WINDSOR REPORT? I think it would make a good main item for the Lambeth Agenda. There has been no combined consideration of whether gay ‘marriage’ is adiaphora, or primary. Who better to consider this than our bishops meeting in council? Let us have detailed Biblical discussion of what makes something primary and whether same sex ‘marriage’ fits. It would make an interesting discussion. Jefferts Schori and Akinola, on past pronouncements, would agree with each other, for both see this as a primary issue. Personally, I believe and hope that they would be in the minority. But at least they would have to give good reasons to others that their views on same sex ‘marriage’ take precedence over the clear command to ‘make every effort to maintain the bonds of unity…’ I hope Lambeth will be able to say ‘The majority of us hold to what we said last time about same sex ‘marriage,’ but we have come to agree that this is a matter about which we can follow different practices and remain in fellowship (albeit not as close a fellowship as if we agreed).’ It is possible that Lambeth will say instead ‘The majority of us hold to what we said last time about same sex ‘marriage,’ and we have come to agree that this is for us a primary issue over which we must, if we are to follow our consciences, walk apart.’ Either way, we would all then be able to do what everyone wants – to attend to the real purpose of our Christian lives. Posted by: Philip Wainwright Monday 3 December 2007 - 04:18pm I think Leander Harding slightly underestimates the number of conservatives in PECUSA who are in what Andrew calls the Reasserter position. Here in Pittsburgh, where Leander's seminary is, there are 12-14 conservative clergy meeting regularly because they do not intend to be part of the realignment. Their names are well-known in the diocese, people who have at times been elected as General Convention deputies, members of the Standing Committee etc. They haven't made any public statement and with the exception of the undersigned wouldn't want their names posted on this blog at the moment, but they do fit Andrew's description pretty neatly. If there are this many of us in the diocese of Pittsburgh, there are almost certainly others in other dioceses. It may be that he under-estimates them more than slightly, but I couldn't say that with confidence. The reason why Reasserters aren't more visible in PECUSA is because characteristics 'a' and 'b' among the Rejecters are so strongly held that they tend to view anyone who doesn't hold them as 'closet' Reassessors or Reinterpreters, and Reasserters have been reluctant to risk being described that way. I expect the Reasserter position to become much more visible in PECUSA during the next 12 months. Philip Wainwright Posted by: Philip Wainwright Monday 3 December 2007 - 04:15pm I think Leander Harding slightly underestimates the number of conservatives in PECUSA who are in what Andrew calls the Reasserter position. Here in Pittsburgh, where Leander's seminary is, there are 12-14 conservative clergy meeting regularly because they do not intend to be part of the realignment. Their names are well-known in the diocese, people who have at times been elected as General Convention deputies, members of the Standing Committee etc. They haven't made any public statement and with the exception of the undersigned wouldn't want their names posted on this blog at the moment, but they do fit Andrew's description pretty neatly. If there are this many of us in the diocese of Pittsburgh, there are almost certainly others in other dioceses. It may be that he under-estimates them more than slightly, but I couldn't say that with confidence. The reason why Reasserters aren't more visible in PECUSA is because characteristics 'a' and 'b' among the Rejecters are so strongly held that they tend to view anyone who doesn't hold them as 'closet' Reassessors or Reinterpreters, and Reasserters have been reluctant to risk being described that way. I expect the Reasserter position to become much more visible in PECUSA during the next 12 months. Philip Wainwright Posted by: Ken Sawyer Monday 3 December 2007 - 09:02am Transferring mine also. USA conservative (of various kinds) reactions or responses to Andrew Goddard's piece may be read at http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/8038/#comments Posted by: Deleted user 974 Sunday 2 December 2007 - 10:38pm 'Among my scholarly interests is the theological significance of studies in human development. I can find very few people including previous bishops under whom I have served or more liberal colleagues in the clergy who are faintly interested in really wrestling with the scientific and psychological picture.' L. Hardin Some of us are too busy living out our relationships and lives, ( Godly lives) to have much time in these 'scholarly interests' of his. The fact that they happen to be 'same sex' is no big deal. Why this inordinate (and impertinent) interest in us ? It is certainly not with the intention of being helpful or useful, as far as I can see. I am unimpressed by the language and actions of many so-called 'straight ' detractors. I am far from being alone. The days when the majority could dictate terms to us, without contradiction are slipping away, from you, through-out the civilised world. The US government will catch up. Posted by: Deleted user 1143 Sunday 2 December 2007 - 09:30pm Thanks for starting this thread, Pluralist. I've cut-n-pasted my relevant post. I appreciate Leander Harding's letter too, and note in particular his remark that the dialogue on same-sex issues, in North America at least, does not include those who have experienced healing from same sex attraction. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I think Andrew Goddard offers a very helpful map of the present landscape. With so many variations on the basic perspectives and concerns, it’s a bewildering project to try to make sense of it all, so it’s great that AG has taken the time to think it through so carefully. I’m still not convinced, though, that the ‘communion conservative’ position is fundamentally all that different from what it’s trying to distinguish itself from. To start, the reasserter – rejectionist distinction is somewhat artificial. I don’t doubt that some nuts out there might use the sort of language AG has quoted, but frankly it’s too easy a target. This makes the definition of a ‘moderate’ rejectionism strained: (b) ‘a tendency to insist strongly’ that this is a church dividing issue – as opposed to suggesting it mildly, perhaps?; (c) is AG suggesting that the current conflict has nothing or little to do with the 'culture wars'?; (d) ‘emphasis on a response of “healing”…’ – but given sexual brokenness why would we not want to emphasize healing?; (a) reluctance to consider that it (where 'it' is still unclear) might be wrong is a soft argument because this comes down to style and approach that can be found across the spectrum. Against rejectionism we’re encouraged to consider a plan in which (a) is hard to disagree with, while (b) ‘genuine dialogue’ and (d) listening and learning raise the question of the limits of these activities. (b) A pastoral response which is not focused on reorientation comes close to identifying a real difference, but the worry seems to be about priorities in counseling rather than the overall content, since the possibility of healing hasn't been ruled out. Or has it? I just wonder, because at times our ability to inject nuance into the discussion allows us just enough room to wiggle out of awkward or embarrasing company. If rejection and reassertion are basically the same thing, as I think they are, we have one less justification for the wedge that’s been placed between communion and federal conservatives. Confession and communion cannot exist without each other; the question is: which one has logical priority. Some reformers wanted a prolonged ‘listening process’ regarding the mass, and so made it look as though we could abstract communion from confession. Others clearly understood the papacy to have departed from Apostolic doctrine. Their ‘confessing’ catholicism had confession and communion in the right order without separating them. So here’s what the stay on and ‘work from within’ approach looks like to me: gradually you have less and less to work on, since ‘listening process’ does not come with tools to listen to the process itself, while the ‘inclusive/progressive’ institutionalist can at any time say to the conservative who has stayed on board (and who is useful precisely because s/he allows the institution to display its diversity) ‘you’re raising questions about things we’ve already received as a body’, i.e. keep listening like Erasums and quit kicking up dust like Luther. 
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Sunday 2 December 2007 - 03:28pm
Sent to Fulcrum by Leander Harding: Dear Friends in Christ, I read with interest Andrew Goddard’s latest analysis of the impending realignment of Anglicanism. In the midst of the very heated exchanges on this side of the pond I appreciate the measured tones of this analysis. From my view on this side of the Atlantic there are significant realities that are not registered in this analysis. I write as a parish priest of 25 years standing in The Episcopal Church and formerly the president of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Connecticut. I am now on the faculty of Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge Pennsylvania where I teach Pastoral Theology. Trinity is thought by many to be the center of a great right wing conspiracy and to be awash in funds from the family foundations of ultra conservatives. In any other place in the Anglican Communion and in any other decade the school would be seen as entirely in the mainstream of Anglicanism though particularly oriented toward evangelism and mission. I am still on the look out for the millions from the foundations but have not seen them yet. Andrew Goddard describes four positions on homosexuality and the church. In his scheme there are two extremes. The extremes are unwilling to enter into any dialogue or reconsideration. There then are those willing to have the church enter into a period of dialogue and these are divided between those inclined to defend the traditional morality and those inclined to reinterpret it. In this country actual dialogue on this issue is nearly impossible. The actions of the General Convention and of numerous diocesan conventions since both the General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 make it clear that a majority of the leaders of a majority of the American dioceses are committed to pressing for “full inclusion” which they regard as a mandate of the Holy Spirit. There are eleven accredited seminaries of The Episcopal Church. Trinity is traditionally Evangelical, Nashotah House is traditionally Anglo-Catholic. Other than at these two schools it is very doubtful that a centrist in Goddard’s terms could get an appointment at one of our seminaries. In the majority of our dioceses it would be difficult to the point of impossibility for a candidate who was not perceived as a strong advocate for full inclusion to be elected bishop. There are very few centrists in Goddard’s terms in this country. As he notes dialogue in this country has not meant reasoned debate on theological and scientific grounds but the organizing of gatherings for the sharing of experience by people who self identify as Gay. Those who report healing from same-sex attraction, including members of the clergy are routinely excluded from these gatherings when they take place. Among my scholarly interests is the theological significance of studies in human development. I can find very few people including previous bishops under whom I have served or more liberal colleagues in the clergy who are faintly interested in really wrestling with the scientific and psychological picture. I have published an open letter to the bishops that participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson asking among other things for examples of the scientific literature they found convincing in coming to their decision to risk the unity of the church over this innovation. There has been no answer. I have likewise had an open challenge on my blog for the citation of an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal which argued that same-sex attraction could be understood in terms of simple biological determinism. There has been no answer, though many attacks for posing the issue. Many who are proponents of the same-sex agenda regard the asking of such questions as an example of hostile homophobia. It may be possible to describe a sort of centrist geography where the issue of same-sex attraction could be discussed by faithful members of the church with different convictions. In this country I do not see more than a handful of people in this category. The actual facts on the ground are a massive majority in the bishops and clergy (the laity are clearly more conservative but not empowered despite posturing about a democratic church) who are enthusiastically pushing for what they consider the Gospel ministry of full inclusion and a small minority who are fighting a rear guard action against the new regime. The overwhelming reality which must be taken into consideration in order to understand the American scene is that the dispute is not primarily about the proper theological response to same-sex attraction. It is about the nature of the catholic faith. It is very hard to explain this to those who are not living in this country. TEC has not changed its formularies. The Creeds are still recited in the liturgies Sunday after Sunday. The form is there but in a very massive way the Spirit is not. I think there is a real difference here between the English and American scene. You have in England with your tradition of scholar bishops (which we once had and lost) and with the gravitas of the great Anglican theological faculties at Oxford, Cambridge, Kings and Durham, to mention a few, a kind of theological ballast that the American church does not have. Our boat has tilted to the winds of the age to such a degree that its decks are awash. You have too much ballast for this to easily happen though the example ought to be a cautionary tale. The fight here is no longer primarily about same-sex attraction. The Gay agenda is a done deal and irreversible in the American Church. The fight here is about whether there is any authority, scriptural, traditional, ecclesial, even scientific that trumps the new idol of experience. It is widely thought here that the scriptures are intriguing cultural artifacts of the religious experience of time bound cultures but certainly nothing more than clues to how contemporary people might work out and recreate their own religion. Increasingly it has become clear that the majority who do indeed embrace a new spirit based and experienced based religion are not able to tolerate traditionalists in their midst. Religion is seen by the majority as primarily about “radical hospitality” and “inclusion” and “liberation.” Traditionalists are seen as contemporary equivalents of slave holders and betrayers of the central tenets of the new religion. I find it very hard to make a case on the basis of the revisionist theology as I understand it for the inclusion of traditionalists. Slave holders can be tolerated for strategic reasons but not for moral or theological reasons. We perhaps can be allowed as long as we do not try to extend our influence. In this country people on both sides of the dispute are really fed up. The revisionists are really fed up with the inability of traditionalists to get with the program and the traditionalists are really fed up with the real persecution and marginalization that has become their lot. There have never been more than perhaps a dozen out of more than a hundred bishops who would allow students to attend Trinity. In the diocese of Pittsburgh it has become clear that the best hope of keeping the flock together is to move toward realignment. Otherwise parishes will continue to bleed members weekly and clergy are caught between watching their parishes fade away or leading them in breaking with TEC. It is certainly possible to describe an ecclesial landscape in which there is a large middle ground between extremes. In reality that middle ground does not exist in this country. In my view there can be a real place of discussion and engagement in the church over disputed issues if there is a theological consensus that is based on the catholic creeds and the authority of scripture. Establishing such a common ground is I take it the vision of the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant. Such a vision has been rejected both explicitly and implicitly by the majority leadership in this country. The hope for the communion now is that there be a realignment of the Anglican Communion around the covenant that the Windsor Report envisions. In America there will be only a few scattered dioceses and the continuing Anglican bodies of the Common Cause Partnership that will be willing and able to sign on. The covenant process must go forward quickly if the American scene is to be saved from utter chaos. In Christ, Leander S. Harding, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology Trinity School for Ministry Ambridge PA Posted by: Deleted user 1222 Sunday 2 December 2007 - 02:31am I'll be brief in comment. First of all, some of the labels are not easily descriptive or summarising, so it is easy to get confused regarding such as reassessing, reasserting and so on. Secondly, I am sure there are homophobes but I'm not sure what difference they, and perhaps those who really believe they hate the sin but not the sinner -or stress some interpretations of selected Bible passages above any view of people, have over any outcomes. There is the same resistance, only perhaps a difference in intent and rhetoric, and homophobes are quite capable of hiding their homophobia and employing the other approach to resistance in public. On the other hand, and these are the more important categories, the Communion Catholicism, Connectional Confessionalism, Autonomous Inclusivism are roughly right except that the last category has two groups lumped together. There are inclusivists who are more Catholic and locate the Catholicism in the Churches but still find the Communion important and recognise the importance of the linkage it offers. They would be in favour of the Covenant, so long as the Covenant expressed the diversity and autonomy in the Communion where change is potential. However, there are also inclusivists who see diversity and authority in Churches and indeed in individuals within them, and that autonomy is key. They think the Covenant is a waste of time - of course there is a Communion, but it is just an overall friendship. These then are liberal Protestants by and large. However, I'd be wary of a straight Catholic and Protestant split here, as Catholic can be limited to the Churches themselves on an Eastern model, each Church being effectively autocephalous and deciding the nature and form of its connections - each Primate being important in his or her own domain. Secondly liberal Protestant believers might see connections between Churches where a more diverse theology has made a bigger impact - a Communion probably after a split but an emphasis on diversity and difference throughout the Communion anyway. So a better approach might be Communion Liberals and Federal Liberals, just as there are Communion Conservatives and Federal Conservatives. The federal ones are mainly Protestant and mainly Eastern Catholic, and the Communion ones have some place for the Catholic at Communion level and can also include Protestants who see belief links between liberal including Churches. |
LATEST
|
