| Jefferts-Schori: How not to listen to anyone at all |
[Feb. 21st, 2007|11:57 am] |
...which is, frankly, quite appalling for someone who keeps going on about "listening".
From here, Schori's "Word to the Church". Here's the bits that really grabbed my attention.
The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the mainstream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.
The reference to meat-eaters is key here. Schori has just brought up 1Cor. 8, where Paul is concerned about those who eat food that has been offered up to idols in the pagan temples. What is clear from 1Cor. 8 is that this is a one-way thing. To put it another way, there are those who are meat-eaters and there are those that are not. How should those who don't eat the pagan offerings treat those who do? It's not a completely balanced issue, both parties are not the same. But Schori wants to argue that they are. The mainstream majority position is marginalised by the use of the term "strict" (i.e. blinkered). She uses the term "mainstream" but wants to suggest that it's a "narrow" view. Note that no such qualifier is used for the liberal position; it is simply "a desire for justice".
Also, we're all just making a mountain out of a molehill. The conflict is only "apparent". If we call all just understand Schori's position then we'd see how divisive our "strict" stand is and the "apparent" conflict would disappear.
This attempt to level out the two positions, indeed to subtely undermine the mainstream position, is almost dishonest since it doesn't even remotely represent either the current situation in the Communion or the scriptural witness. We're all aware what the mainstream position actually is; it was laid out in specific detail in Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10.
From misrepresenting the current position, she then moves to misrepresent the Communiqué.
Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season. The word of hope is that in God all things are possible, and that fasting is not a permanent condition of a Christian people, nor a normative one. God’s dream is of all people gathered at a feast, and we enter Lent looking toward that Easter feast and the new life that will, in God’s good time, be proclaimed.
Ask yourself this question: are TEC being asked in the Communiqué to put a ban on things "for a season" or permanently? It is, surely, the latter! The exact requirements were "unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the communion - see Windsor para 134". This is obviously not the "season" that Schori is talking of because does anyone really think the mind of the Communion is going to change on this issue in even the medium-term? Schori, rather, is trying to put TEC into a holding-pattern.
Now, I assume that she's not stupid. This is a clever ploy. She is working hard to understate the strength of the requirements placed upon TEC. She needs to placate people like Integrity who are abundantly clear on how stiff the demands of the Communiqué are.
The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had this reaction:
“Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an “anti-Gospel” that will (and should) repel many.”
For Integrity, this isn't just a matter of eating meat - it's about how you understand the Gospel. It's a refreshing clarity on what is going on. The tragedy of how Schori is handling all this is that by trying to tread a middle ground she is demonstrating that she's not really listening to any of the key voices. Perhaps one of the issues that we need to watch out for is how long these people will think they need to keep listening to her?
[ Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<img [...] process"">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.] ...which is, frankly, quite appalling for someone who keeps going on about "listening". From <a href="http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2007/02/the_presiding_bishops_word_to.html#more" target="_blank">here</a>, Schori's "Word to the Church". Here's the bits that really grabbed my attention. <blockquote>The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the mainstream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.</blockquote> The reference to meat-eaters is key here. Schori has just brought up 1Cor. 8, where Paul is concerned about those who eat food that has been offered up to idols in the pagan temples. What is clear from 1Cor. 8 is that this is a one-way thing. To put it another way, there are those who are meat-eaters and there are those that are not. How should those who don't eat the pagan offerings treat those who do? It's not a completely balanced issue, both parties are not the same. But Schori wants to argue that they are. The mainstream majority position is marginalised by the use of the term "strict" (i.e. blinkered). She uses the term "mainstream" but wants to suggest that it's a "narrow" view. Note that no such qualifier is used for the liberal position; it is simply "a desire for justice". Also, we're all just making a mountain out of a molehill. The conflict is only "apparent". If we call all just understand Schori's position then we'd see how divisive our "strict" stand is and the "apparent" conflict would disappear. This attempt to level out the two positions, indeed to subtely undermine the mainstream position, is almost dishonest since it doesn't even remotely represent either the current situation in the Communion or the scriptural witness. We're all aware what the mainstream position actually is; it was laid out in specific detail in Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10. From misrepresenting the current position, she then moves to misrepresent the Communiqué. <blockquote>Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season. The word of hope is that in God all things are possible, and that fasting is not a permanent condition of a Christian people, nor a normative one. God’s dream is of all people gathered at a feast, and we enter Lent looking toward that Easter feast and the new life that will, in God’s good time, be proclaimed.</blockquote> Ask yourself this question: are TEC being asked in the Communiqué to put a ban on things "for a season" or permanently? It is, surely, the latter! The exact requirements were "unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the communion - see Windsor para 134". This is obviously <b>not</b> the "season" that Schori is talking of because does anyone really think the mind of the Communion is going to change on this issue in even the medium-term? Schori, rather, is trying to put TEC into a holding-pattern. Now, I assume that she's not stupid. This is a clever ploy. She is working hard to understate the strength of the requirements placed upon TEC. She needs to placate people like <a href="http://www.integrityusa.org/" target="_blank">Integrity</a> who are<a href="http://www.integrityusa.org/press/2007-02-19.htm" target="_blank"> abundantly clear on how stiff the demands of the Communiqué are</a>. <blockquote>The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had this reaction: “Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an “anti-Gospel” that will (and should) repel many.”</blockquote> For Integrity, this isn't just a matter of eating meat - it's about how you understand the Gospel. It's a refreshing clarity on what is going on. The tragedy of how Schori is handling all this is that by trying to tread a middle ground she is demonstrating that she's not really listening to <i>any</i> of the key voices. Perhaps one of the issues that we need to watch out for is how long these people will think they need to keep listening to her? <img src="http://www.extensor.co.uk/articles/listening/fingers_in_ears.jpg" title="the "listening process"" border="1"/><p><font size=-1><a href="http://whitehorseinn.classicalanglican.net/?p=242">View this post at the WhiteHorseInn</a></font></p> |
|
|
| The Communiqué |
[Feb. 20th, 2007|09:57 am] |
Well, it's with us. The clone has a good summary.
Here are the direct disciplinary requirements:
- The House of Bishops of TEC needs to make a statement that all it’s members will unequivocally NOT authorise or allow any same-sex blessings in theit dioceses or TEC as a whole
- The House of Bishops of TEC needs to make a statement that all it’s members will unequivocally NOT consent to the consecration of any person as a Bishop who is living in a same-sex union
- Both these unequivocal statements need to be delivered by September 30th 2007 - Failure to do so will have “consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion”
It is, frankly, inconceivable that TEC will sign up to these. They have charted a clear path in the opposite direction. Plus, it would make the position of Gene Robinson untenable - he falls under both of the proscriptions.
This is good news. Schori will, no doubt, have claimed that TEC hasn't been able to respond. It's on the table now, unequivocably - put up or pack your bags.View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| the liberals still don't get it? |
[Feb. 16th, 2007|12:08 pm] |
what is amazing about the liberals in the Anglican Communion is that, despite our abundantly clear talk, they still don't understand our position. It must be that they don't understand because no-one, surely, could be so dishonest as to deliberately misrepresent what their opponent is saying?
Surely?
Thing is, that becomes a bit hard to believe when the person talking nonsense is the Primate of Canada, Andrew Hutchison
Here's his blog piece from today.
I am going to a meeting with a gospel of hope and a preferential option for the poor and we are debating who is in and whom we are going to keep out. I have been at this long enough to know that it never boils down to one simple question. Meetings like this are filled with all manner of ego, authority and power but as we gather and are preparing to begin, that endless stream of humanity that I saw on my way haunts my memory. I wish we were dealing with what difference a gospel of hope could make in their lives, rather than worrying about strategies for the Primates and the politics that are an inevitable part of such gatherings. Please remember to pray for my brothers and sister who share in these meetings in the next few days. There is a huge amount at stake and the world needs to hear the good news again - that the gospel does not say God so loved the Church - rather it says God so loved the world!
This is a great example of both abuse of and total avoidance of what the bible says. Consider his first statement about "a gospel of hope". Notice how Hutchison uses those words in a completely different way to the Bible. For Hutchison, "hope" is about "a preferential option for the poor" (particularly those in Tanzania who he spends a whole paragraph describing in his post). In the Bible, hope and poverty are considered completely differently:
Colossians 1:3 We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4 since we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and the love that you have for all the saints. 5 Your faith and love have arisen from the hope laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard about in the message of truth, the gospel.
Simply put, the "gospel of hope" in the Bible is nothing to do with alleviation of poverty. It is about a certainty of an eternal future. Why is that eternal future so important? Well, Paul goes on to explain:
Colossians 1:21 And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your minds as expressed through your evil deeds, 22 but now he has reconciled you by his physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before him 23 if indeed you remain in the faith, established and firm, without shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard. This gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant.
The Christian hope is that whereas we used to be stangers and enemies of Christ (as the context makes clear) we are now reconciled to God by His death on the Cross. We are now considered to be holy, without blemish and blameless. What must we do? Simply "remain in the faith" - that is, just keep trusting Jesus who has done everything for us to make us right before God.
As Paul puts its, we should continue, "without shifting from the hope of the gospel you heard".
But, Hutchison seems to have another gospel - one that's not about presenting us as holy, without blemish and blameless before God but about the here and now.
And that's why we worry so much about these things. Because unrepentant homosexual practice, the Bible is clear, is a bar to entry into that saving hope (just as other blatant unrepentant sin is) (1Cor. 6:9; Jude 1:7 etc). Hutchison, and so many like him, ignore the real gospel and, to compound their error, then encourage people in activity that scripture tells us is a bar to entry into that gospel hope.
And, to make it worse, he then butchers the words of Jesus Himself (not that other scripture is less authoritative):
There is a huge amount at stake and the world needs to hear the good news again - that the gospel does not say God so loved the Church - rather it says God so loved the world!
There is "a huge amount at stake" - as John 3:16 (which Hutchison has so abused) makes abundantly clear.
John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone would pursue the United Nations Millenium Development Goals.
whoops, no, hang on a minute - I think that's wrong.
*flicks through bible*
oh yeah...
John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
That's the gospel, Hutchison.
As someone once said:
John 3:10 Jesus answered, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don't understand these things? 11 I tell you the solemn truth, we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| all the latest Anglican News |
[Feb. 16th, 2007|10:55 am] |
 so, (as Sarah Hey wisely points out), the procedural politics have begun.
The big question before the Primates currently meeting in Tanzania is what to do with the Episcopal Church (TEC), and specifically whether they have met the requirements laid out in the Windsor Report and subsequent Dromantine Communiqué.
You would have thought there is an easy answer. As Kendall Harmon writes, "The Episcopal Church has Failed Respond Adequately to the calls of Windsor".
In order to help the Primates with that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, put together a small sub-committee to present a report on what TEC has done so far. That report can be read here and is, frankly, the biggest load of baloney yet produced by an Anglican body. Greg Griffith is absolutely correct when he writes:
This is not a case of different interpretations, or an attempt to make room for negotiations. It is a falsehood perpetrated on the communion.
The report's assertion that the response of TEC is generally adequate is ridiculous, as Matt Kennedy points out in this must-read article:
View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| how many Luthers? the true via media |
[Feb. 14th, 2007|10:18 am] |
Ruth Gledhill has an excellent article in the Times.
Peter Akinola, of Nigeria, the leader of the orthodox and a likely primus inter pares for a new Global South Church, is not going to compromise. Nor is the pro-gay new US Primate, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, who could end up leading a new Episcopal Catholic Church. Dr Akinola would see himself as in Lutherâ™s tradition: âœHere I stand. I can do no other.â Dr Schori would see herself in exactly the same way. And so would the American bishop whose consecration in 2003 triggered the inevitable crisis, the openly gay Gene Robinson. No communion is big enough for these three Luthers, all nailing opposing theses to their church doors.
Well, who is the real Luther? The answer is quite clear when you see the full context of what Luther said at the Diet of Worms, 1521, when asked to explain his opposition to Rome.
Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
This then is the true via media - in between the false authority of Roman popery on the one hand and rationalism on the other. Scripture and reason, but primarly scripture. Only one of the three "Luthers" stands in that place and it's not hard to see who.
View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| great news from Blighty |
[Feb. 9th, 2007|01:59 pm] |
Oak Hill college, England's most conservative Anglican college (and the place to go) is in safe hands, they announce today
8th February 2007
The Revd Dr Michael Ovey has been appointed as the new Principal of Oak Hill College. He will take over from the current Principal, David Peterson, when he returns to Australia this summer.
Mike is highly regarded by colleagues, students and friends of the College, as a theologian and pastor-teacher. He has been a tutor at Oak Hill since 1998, teaching Christian Doctrine and Apologetics. As College Dean, he has been involved in pastoring the students and non-teaching staff, and has been a member of the College's Management Team, where he has worked closely with David Peterson in shaping the future vision for the College. Mike is married to Heather and they have three school-age children.
Mike comments: "I have been delighted to see and take part in the College's growth over the last ten years. It is a joy to work in a College and with colleagues who are so committed to the Lord Jesus and to equipping ministers in His Church with the skills and knowledge to bring God's Word home to His people. I am honoured, privileged and humbled to be asked to continue leading in this work, and look forward to even closer fellowship in the Gospel with our friends in local churches, partnerships and other para-church organisations."
On Mike's appointment, David Peterson adds: "I am enormously pleased that the College Council has appointed Mike to be the next Principal. I believe Mike is capable of giving outstanding theological and pastoral leadership in the College and in the Church at large. Lesley and I feel very confident about handing over our responsibilities to Mike and Heather."
Mike's first degree was in Law at Oxford and he was called to the English Bar in 1983. He trained for ordination at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, where he completed the theological Tripos. He served his curacy at All Saints Church Crowborough, East Sussex. Before Oak Hill, Mike was a lecturer at Moore Theological College, Sydney, where he also studied for a Master in Theology Degree.
Mike's doctoral study on the eternal relationship between Father and Son was supervised by Colin Gunton and Murray Rae at the University of London. He has co-authored Pierced for our Transgressions, which defends and explains penal substitution in the Atonement. This is due to be published by IVP in the spring.
Great stuff.
View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| laying down the gauntlet |
[Feb. 9th, 2007|12:02 pm] |
 Stand Firm are reporting that the Anglican church in Nigeria have just had a brief synod where they issued a communique.
Lots to be said, but this is the interesting section:
The 2008 Lambeth Conference
The Synod reaffirms its earlier resolutions on the 2008 Lambeth Conference and stands firmly on the recommendations of the document, âœThe Road to Lambeth,â as a condition for our participation in this gathering.
The report, "The Road to Lambeth" was received by the Primates of CAPA (Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa) last September and now affirmed here by the Province of Nigeria. The punch comes right at the end and I thought it was worth looking at, not only because of the strength of the language but also because of the faithful way scripture was being used. Here's the opening paragraph ...
The Anglican Communion is at a crossroads. The idea of a crossroads â“ a meeting and parting of two ways â“ is woven into the fabric of Scripture. The people of Israel is confronted with the choice of ways â“ the way of the Covenant or the way of idolatry â“ and more often than not choose the latter (Jeremiah 6:16). So too Jesus describes a narrow road that leads to life and a broad avenue to perdition (Matthew 7:13). Hence the church must choose to walk in the light and turn from the darkness of sin and error (1 John 1:6-7).
These are all fascinating texts. Their common theme is that they address those who "gather around" Jesus or claim to follow Him but, by virtue of their actions, demonstrate that He is not their Lord.
So, Jeremiah 6 sees Jeremiah predicting the siege of Jerusalem. The people are unrepentant.
Jeremiah 6:16 The LORD said to his people: "You are standing at the crossroads. So consider your path. Ask where the old, reliable paths are. Ask where the path is that leads to blessing and follow it. If you do, you will find rest for your souls." But they said, "We will not follow it!" 17 The LORD said, "I appointed prophets as watchmen to warn you, saying: 'Pay attention to the warning sound of the trumpet!'" But they said, "We will not pay attention!"
18 So the LORD said, "Hear, you nations! Be witnesses and take note of what will happen to these people. 19 Hear this, you peoples of the earth: 'Take note! I am about to bring disaster on these people. It will come as punishment for their scheming. For they have paid no attention to what I have said, and they have rejected my law. 20 I take no delight when they offer up to me frankincense that comes from Sheba or sweet-smelling cane imported from a faraway land. I cannot accept the burnt offerings they bring me. I get no pleasure from the sacrifices they offer to me.' 21 So, this is what the LORD says: 'I will assuredly make these people stumble to their doom. Parents and children will stumble and fall to their destruction. Friends and neighbors will die.'
In Jeremiah's day the apostasy was punished with Exile. The people of God were removed from all indications of God's presence. They couldn't go on pretending that all was well, going through their religious observances.
It's a brilliant choice of texts, spot on for the current crisis.
Next they call on Matthew 7, from the close of the Sermon on the Mount. What's interesting about the Sermon is that it opens with
Matthew 5:1 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying...
So there are lots of people interested in Jesus for varying reasons. He withdraws to a mountain (an oblique reference to His divinity) and begins to teach. It is, therefore, in His teaching that we will learn what it truly means to follow Him. Of course, the text that CAPA chose is one of choice - which house to build?
Matthew 7:24 "Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!" 28 When Jesus finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed by his teaching, 27 because he taught them like one who had authority, not like their experts in the law.
The langauge of the flood is clear here - it is all about the final judgement. And surviving that awful day depends on one thing only - hearing (which in the bible has the conotation of both listening and obeying) the words of Jesus - something that TEC has increasingly refused to do. The warning is clear.
On to 1John 1:6-7. This one is stand alone.
1 John 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him and yet keep on walking in the darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
Again, we have the language of walking. As a pastor of mine once said "it's no good talking the talk if you don't walk the walk.
A later paragraph also draws heavily on the same theme.
We in CAPA want to say clearly and unequivocally to the rest of the Communion: the time has come for the North American churches to repent or depart. We in the Global South have always made repentance the starting point for any reconciliation and resumption of fellowship in the Communion. We shall not accept cleverly worded excuses but rather a clear acknowledgement by these churches that they have erred and âœintend to lead a new lifeâ in the Communion (2 Corinthians 4:2). Along with this open statement of repentance must come âœfruits befitting repentanceâ (Luke 3:8). They must reverse their policies and prune their personnel.
Again, two brilliant choices of text.
2 Corinthians 4:1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, just as God has shown us mercy, we do not become discouraged. 2 But we have rejected shameful hidden deeds, not behaving with deceptiveness or distorting the word of God, but by open proclamation of the truth we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience before God.
The church in Corinth is molested by "Super-Apostles". They denounce the Apostle Paul's minstry and theology as foolish and impotent. Fancy going on about the cross!!! That's so AD30's! Time to get with the more modern programme. It's nothing more than deceptiveness and outright distortion of the word of God.
But the kicker comes in the last text, Luke 3:8. Throughout his gospel Luke develops a theme of the rejection of the Jews as the people of God. They are presumptuous about their status but they continue in disobedience. The arrival of the Messiah serves only to crystallise their rebellion. Luke 3 demonstrates this in abundance.
Luke 3:1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 He went into all the region around the Jordan River, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "The voice of one shouting in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make his paths straight. 5 Every valley will be filled, and every mountain and hill will be brought low, and the crooked will be made straight, and the rough ways will be made smooth, 6 and all humanity will see the salvation of God.'"
7 So John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, "You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Therefore produce fruit that proves your repentance, and don't begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that God can raise up children for Abraham from these stones! 9 Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."
The nation of Israel is in a terrible state. They have three men as their kings, Herod, Philip and Lysanius, who were about as un-kosher as it gets. They were ruled over by pagans. They were, effectively, still in Exile - it's just that the Babylonians had been replaced by others.
Into this situation comes the words of Isaiah 40 - a word spoken to the original Exiles, calling them to repentance for the sins that had brought them out to Babylon in the first place. And yet, when John the Baptist looks around, all he sees as hypocrites. The referent is clearly still Isaiah:
Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; 2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies; your tongue mutters wickedness. 4 No one enters suit justly; no one goes to law honestly; they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies, they conceive mischief and give birth to iniquity. 5 They hatch adders' eggs; they weave the spider's web; he who eats their eggs dies, and from one that is crushed a viper is hatched.
The bishops of Nigeria learnt how to allude to scripture from John.
The people coming to John aren't actually serious - they're not producing fruit. They're people of regret, not repentance. They lie to the law courts. They claim that their heritage is enough. "Look at us, we're Anglicans! What right do you have to tell us we're not ok?
Perhaps today John would have drawn from the words of Prophet Gump: "Anglican is as Anglican does". And you guys ain't Anglican.
The church in Nigeria, knows what it wants. It has a proper zeal for the purity of God's church that The Episcopal Church has for too long compromised. Time to lay the ax to the root of the tree. It's going to be some serious pruning.View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| Rose-Coloured Spectacles |
[Feb. 2nd, 2007|10:27 am] |
 Susan Russell must be wearing them. Because either she's got the best "half-full" attitude that I've seen in a long time or she's in complete denial.
Commenting on the recent Living Church report she reckons, on the basis of this statement:
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has been allotted two sessions of next month's primates' meeting to describe The Episcopal Church's response to the Windsor Report.
that
Once again, the speculation-run-rampant prior to the meeting of the primates comes to naught.
Maybe she's got a point. After all, as she says:
"They're going to tell her what to do."
She's got the floor.
 Now, I don't mean to be rude here but is this has got to be the worst sort of wishful thinking. True, Schori is going to the meeting but she's going in the same way that a trouble-making pupil goes to the Principal's office.
She's going to "describe" TEC's response to the Windsor Report. Now, I have friends in teaching. They tell me that one of the most entertaining parts of their jobs is hearing the lame excuses that kids will come up with to explain away their obvious misbehaviour. Which means that the bit of the Primates' meeting that Schori attends should be a hoot. Almost as funny as the time a few years back when Griswold and his mob rolled up to the ACC to explain how ECUSA really were fine and what's all the fuss about anyway? You knew it was going to be a good time when Grizz opened up with the following collect.
Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ they Son our Saviour. Amen.
How he managed that with a straight face is beyond me.
I wonder what Schori will come up with this time?
But then I thought, I know whats like to want something so bad you genuinely believe the guff that you're telling people. For the past 2 months the England cricket team have been touring here in Australia. It's been an unmitigated disaster. We lost the Ashes Test Series 5-0. Now, in the one-day internationals we're taking a complete hammering. So imagine my laughter when I read the BBC Test Match Special Blog and this quote from a piece by Liam Plunkett, newly back in the team.
...to be honest every time you play against Australia it is like playing in a World Cup final. We go into every game believing we can win and Friday will be no different.
bawahahaha.
Poor guy - but you've got to admire his courage. Maybe he could go along with Schori for support?
View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| something that shouldn't slip under the Bar - Ecclesiastical Law Society Conference, Liverpool (UK) |
[Jan. 27th, 2007|12:25 pm] |
What do you call a group of lawyers?
Well, one answer might be the "Ecclesiastical Law Society", a UK organisation, Patronised by ++Canterbury and ++York, that
seeks to promote the study of ecclesiastical and canon law, particularly in the Church of England and those churches in communion with it.
.
Now, normally that sort of thing would bore me silly (which is saying something for a CPA) but these days ecclesiastical and canon law have got to be pretty near the top of our list of necessary reading, particularly since the list of speakers is
- NT Wright
- Gregory Cameron
- Norman Doe
- Robert Tong
- John Gladwin
- James Jones (+Liverpool)
- Josiah Fearon (bishop in Nigeria)
These individuals have all been involved in recent Anglican legal matters; e.g. the Windsor Report, the ongoing Panel of Reference and so on.
Details of the conference can be found here (PDF).
Particularly interesting should be this morning's session (Saturday am, UK) where Gregory Cameron and Robert Tong are speaking. Cameron is Deputy General Secretary at the Anglican Communion Office, an organisation whose leadership isn't overly enthusiastic about the resurgence of the Global South. Robert Tong is a lawyer who sits on the Panel. Both have been asked to speak about developments post-Windsor and to address the notion that "bonds of affection" are a viable possibility.
Post Windsor bonds of affection? Tell that to parishes in Virginia and North Florida (who are still waiting for the report from the Panel of Reference, despite writing to Lambeth 18 April 2006) and who's bishops are the bonding all the affection they possibly can.View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| Giles Fraser ... [fill the rest in yourself] |
[Jan. 26th, 2007|09:31 pm] |
I know I shouldn't but I find Fraser compulsively addicting - like watching a car crash.
 This week Fraser wants us to think about scapegoats. It starts off well enough with this quote:
âœTHEN AARON shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness . . .â (Leviticus 16.21).
But, not unexpectedly, it then degenerates.
Fraser waffles on about Jade Goody and the recent nonsense in the latest UK Big Brother. Fair enough. But perhaps a better place to end up with isn't
She is so much easier a target precisely because she has such an unsympathetic way with her. But if the Church is to resist the scapegoating, it has to stand up for unsympathetic characters. Thatâ™s when it matters most. Otherwise, we are no different from the cowards at the cross with our weasel cries of âœCrucify.â
Just think about that. Jesus just got equated with Jade Goody. Of course, in reality, there's a vast difference. What Fraser doesn't tell us is the important fact that Jesus was innocent. More than that,
Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again sacrifices that can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 where he is now waiting until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy.
But, of course, Fraser doesn't believe that nonsense so he needs to find something else to waste column inches on.View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| what point the Panel? |
[Jan. 24th, 2007|11:40 am] |
 The one thing that's intriguing about the ongoing Virginia furore is that at no stage did the "Virginia 11" make any appeal to the Panel.
And, frankly, what would be the point? First, 815 has made it perfectly clear that the Panel will now be ignored. Second, the alternative structures that the Global South Primates asked for are now being established. Why, then, would anyone appeal to be protected within an organisation that is about to be given the boot when they can easily move into one that is, presumably, about to be officially recognised at Tanzania?
All this, I suspect, means that the Panel of Reference (as far as TEC is concerned) will be superfluous. Perhaps, now, they could turn their useful selves to other important matters.
Whatever happened to Recifé?View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| spontaneous combustion |
[Jan. 22nd, 2007|05:52 pm] |
no, not Bonnie Anderson, rather the countryside here in Australia. The temperature here in Sydney for the past few days has been around 37C (that's around 100F for those reading in Ameriland).
Needless to say, at that level the Bush just starts to burn everywhere. Currently in Sydney a suburb in the north is in peril for that very reason.
The summer months are always difficult here for this very reason. Even the promise of a thunderstorm tonight is no help - 40,000 volts of electricity shooting down from the sky doesn' t combine well with tinder-dry trees. The emphasis is on the tinder...
View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| more from Fraser, this time blatant straw-manning |
[Jan. 21st, 2007|02:42 pm] |
from dictionary.com:
-noun
- a mass of straw formed to resemble a man, as for a doll or scarecrow.
- a person whose importance or function is only nominal, as to cover another's activities; front.
- a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.
Fraser is at it again. In his latest comment for the Church Times Fraser is keen to remind us that "The Bible is not a legal document". Thanks for the heads-up, Giles - it's just that I don't know a single person who thinks that it is.
Off he goes:
The relationship between Christian theology and law is disputed and complex. Jesus railed against the lawyers for not understanding, and Paul contrasted a faith based on grace with one rooted in law. It would take volumes to discuss it, but even the most unbiased observer should see that the law is not an unambiguously good thing in the Christian tradition.
"It would take volumes..." and Fraser certainly won't take the time here - for to do so would expose just how fabricated his opponent is.
From his second claim we see that Fraser has no need to stick to accurate representation. In only one of the gospels does Jesus "rail" against "the lawyers"; John. The classic example would be John 8
John 8:43 Why don't you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching.
If, then, we are to identify who Jesus rails against it will not least be by seeing who does not accept His teaching.
Fraser then goes on to misrepresent Paul - he, apparently, contrasted a faith based on grace with one rooted in law. But what did that mean for Paul? Did it mean that the Law was simply set aside as meaningless? Well, no. Paul was very clear in his use of the Law.
First, in respect to achieving righteousness Paul was abundantly clear that the Law was of no benefit. Not, however, because it was bad - on the contrary (as we shall see) - but because it exposed our sinfulness. Trying to keep the Law would only condemn a man, instead the Law should push one to trust in Jesus.
Romans 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
But, here's the thing - how many evangelicals do you ever see pushing people to be good (i.e. keep the Law) in order to be acceptable to God? None. It's antithetical to us! Sola Fide all the way, my friends! In fact, I am slightly infamous for preaching to parents at a baptism service that teaching their little boy to be good because it pleased God is to deny the gospel!
But that is not to say that there is no place or use for the Law. First, we know that Jesus Himself endorsed the Law fully - more than that, He pointed out that it's requirements were far more searching than we could possibly imagine.
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
The Law not only exposes our sin (which is, perhaps, why the liberals are so opposed to it) but it also shows us how to live now that we have been redeemed from that very same sin. So, it is no surprise that Paul, the same one who wrote:
Philippians 3:8 More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things indeed, I regard them as dung! that I may gain Christ, 9 and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ's faithfulness a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ's faithfulness.
can write:
1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately,
So, the next question is - what is a legitimate use of the law? Well, not least it helps us understand what sort of persistant behaviour will keep someone out of the Kingdom.
1 Timothy 1:9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.
This is not in any way contrary to the gospel - indeed it accords with it. It accords fully with this sort of gospel which Paul goes on to expound:
Timothy 1:15 This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" and I am the worst of them! 16 But here is why I was treated with mercy: so that in me as the worst, Christ Jesus could demonstrate his utmost patience, as an example for those who are going to believe in him for eternal life.
Now, why this detail on the Law? Because by demonstrating what a Biblical view of the Law is, and that held by those evangelicals (sorry - "legalists") that Fraser is so opposed to, we can now proceed to catalogue how Fraser sets himself to the task of misrepresenting his opponents:
Remember: here's how the Law functions:
- It exposes our sins
- It is not a means to righteousness, instead it is so demanding that it forces us to simply trust Christ
- It provides guidance to us once we are redeemed.
Fraser:
When someone put in those nasty verse numbers, the lawyers started to feel it was their book - a set of regulations. Chapter and verse started sounding like paragraph 1, subsection 3 of a legal contract. That was the point at which some Christians began to reject the idea that the Bible could be read in various ways, and, worse still, that it might contain contradictions or poetry. Such things would undermine its status as the ultimate legal document.
OK, let's take those claims in turn:
1. Evangelicals deny there are contradictions or poetry in Scripture
This is nonsense. I don' t know of one evangelical that does so. The contradictions question is controversial and numerous good answers are available on tricky issues. But why bring up poetry? How does that even matter? Which obviously poetic piece of scripture is being appealed to by evangelicals as "law" (in any sense of the word)? Straw man #1
2. Evangelicals claim that the Bible is the ultimate legal document
Again, absolute silliness. There is a wide gulf between the view that God's Law revealed in scripture is, in some way, applicable to the Christian life and also of some benefit even for unbelievers and the claim that the Bible is simply a legal document. Straw man #2
But this is necessary misrepresentation for without it Fraser cannot move to his main claim:
"All Christians believe, must believe . . ." is how the barrister Mark Mullins confidently began his theological disquisition about homosexual relationships on the Sunday programme. I didn't agree with a word that followed. But, for the likes of Mr Mullins, I am simply not a Christian. I imagine he believes that the sine qua non of Christianity is treating the Bible as a law book. I don't. Unfortunately, Mr Mullins and his legal friends seem to think that the only real Christians are the ones who think like him.
Here's his logic:
1. These nasty "christians" think the whole Bible is a legal document - nice and tightly defined.
2. On the basis of this they make dogmatic statements (particularly in the area of morality).
3. We know, however, that the Bible isn't like that (n.b. above where Fraser claims " the Bible could be read in various ways")
4. Therefore one cannot make dogmatic statements.
 Now, I feel it's necessary at this point to remind you that Fraser lectures at Oxford University. Yes! Seriously! He does! I tell you, if I pushed out this sort of argumentation where I study I'd get failed but it's ok for an Oxford lecturer. Do you see what he's done? He's misrepresented those that he disagrees with, presenting them as being entirely monocular in their view of scripture.
Even the proverbial ploughboy knows that there are many genres in scripture, but the same playboy can also recognise the genre of Law for what it is - Law.
Fraser's misrepresentation is a bad enough thing in itself - it's not just poor from an academic, it's dishonest.
But he has an even bigger problem. He's meant to be a minister of the gospel, a teacher of the Bible, but he consistently rejects the word of Truth.
1 Timothy 1:6 Some have strayed from these [a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith (v.5)] and turned away to empty discussion. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand what they are saying or the things they insist on so confidently. View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| Saddam's execution |
[Jan. 1st, 2007|10:59 pm] |
I've mulled a bit over posting this but I thought it might be informative for readers to know where to look for details of the event.
No point pretending now that a full video isn't available. Here it is.
If you'd just like to read an account of the whole video then the BBC has an excellent narrative.
I've argued previously that there is a biblical defence, indeed a mandate, for the death penalty. Now is, of course, probably not the best time to reopen that discussion and that's not what I intend to do here, but I would observe that the case of Saddam is probably a bad test-case for this issue. It's highly emotive and the depths of the man's crime actually (to my mind, at least) confuse the question and bring about an emotive response rather than the reasoning from scripture that we should all be engaging in.
Ultimately it's a very sad occassion, for Saddam's death brings no real change to those who cruelly mocked him as he died. There is a great irony that Saddam appeared one of the most dignified men in that room.
And deeper still is the tragedy that those that mocked him have still not understood that it is not immorality that sends a man to hell, but not trusting in Jesus Christ. God have mercy not just on Saddam Hussein (although it is too late now), but the whole nation of Iraq and the Muslim religion.
1 John 5:11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life. View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| New Years Resolutions |
[Jan. 1st, 2007|05:16 pm] |
Happy New Year to all our readers!
New Year is a time when people make resolutions, turn over a new leaf. While it's customary to pick some for ourselves I thought it might be appropriate today, the first day of the year, to suggest one for the Presiding Bishop of TEC, Katherine Jefferts-Schori.
And it's this: become Windsor compliant. That is, after all, the only thing that will save TEC now as the February meeting of the Primates in Tanzania approaches. Sometimes, however, people need a little motivation and so in order to spur her on I've started a countdown-ticker for her which you can see in the side-bar. Here's one for those reading from the RSS:
How long does Schori have until the Tanzania Primates meeting?
Everyone here at the WhiteHorseInn wishes her the best of luck.
And what's that I hear you say? "What's your personal resolution, David?"
Well, I resolve to resist the temptation to run a little competition counting the number of times Schori mentions "shalom" and the MDG's before February...View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| Archbishop Williams has regrets over the Anglican Communion. No, sorry, my mistake - over Iraq. |
[Dec. 30th, 2006|01:34 pm] |
 The BBC are reporting that the ABC "says he may yet regret not doing more to oppose the Iraq war".
Here are his exact words:
Williams: I said before the war began that I had grave reservations about the morality of it and I think the moral and the practical flaws have emerged as time has gone on; quite painfully and they've put our own troops increasingly at risk in ways that I find deeply disturbing as someone with friends in the military, as many people must have, and family members.
Interviewer: Do you think that, looking back over the past few years, you could have been stronger in what you said on that subject and that it might have made a difference?
Williams: I can't easily balance for myself the pros and cons of thinking, "well, putting yourself at the head of a popular movement and resisting" - although that might have been effective or "that just becomes words, that just becomes noise". I said what I believed I needed to say. I shall have to think quite a long time as to whether I ought to have said more - or less, for that matter.
Fair enough, but consider this minor happening the same year that the USA invaded Iraq:
Somehow I don't think we're ever going to hear Williams say this in an interview:
Williams: I said before the consecration of Gene Robinson that I had grave reservations about the morality of it and I think the moral and the practical flaws have emerged as time has gone on; quite painfully and they've put our own Christian brothers and sisters in muslim nations increasingly at risk in ways that I find deeply disturbing as someone with Christian family in those places, as all Christians must have.
Interviewer: Do you think that, looking back over the past few years, you could have been stronger in what you said on that subject and that it might have made a difference?
Williams: I can't easily balance for myself the pros and cons of thinking, "well, putting yourself at the head of a popular movement and resisting" - although that might have been effective or "that just becomes words, that just becomes noise". I said what I believed I needed to say. I shall have to think quite a long time as to whether I ought to have said more - or less, for that matter.
Indeed, quite a lot of thinking time might be needed.View this post at the WhiteHorseInn |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
Ian Richardson, most famous for playing Francis Urquhart in