A recent Anglican gathering in Auckland New Zealand spent most of its time pondering the various possible combinations of sexual activity between humans, while stoutly maintaining that sex is unimportant in the life of the church.
As an aside, it seems that in New Zealand at least, Indaba is out and hui is in. Considering the topic that dominated the hui, the urban definition might be more fitting.
You can read a summary of the proceedings here; in such a wealth of nonsense, it is difficult to single out a particular part for special attention. But, in discussing her gay brethren, there is this from Bishop Victoria Matthews:
“It is possible, I believe, to argue that a blessed union of man and woman or really any two or more people is able to bear fruit in a number of different ways.
Clearly, Victoria Matthews – who is Canadian – wants to disabuse anyone of the illusion that the Anglican pansexuality juggernaut will stop at blessing same-sex couples. Next will come the blessing of polyamorous relationships – and who knows what after that. Yes, Victoria, there is a slippery slope.
I’d far rather hear a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. My only question is, when does the money run out down under? Because that’s all that will shut down this chatter.
Hui? I thought you said hooey!
LOL. If you read the full article, Matthews seems to be arguing less for marriage redefinition than suggesting that Anglicans go the full Shaker route. As if our numbers weren’t dropping fast enough!
I suggest a minimum requirement of true ‘samizdat’ is speaking accurately. A hui in NZ has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘urban dictionary’ definition you give above, and the specific gathering in order to confer which you are commenting on even less so.
The hui worked from a foundation theologically of giving glory to God, in order to seriously reflect together on how to proceed as a divided church about matters of human dignity, with specific reference to same sex partnerships. It is not at all true that the hui “spent most of its time pondering the various possible combinations of sexual activity between humans” and I am not sure how that could be taken from the report.
It is not at all ‘clear’ that Bishop Victoria wants to ‘disabuse anyone of the illusion that the Anglican pansexuality juggernaut will stop at blessing same-sex couples. Next will come the blessing of polyamorous relationships.’ Again, I do not know how you could make that inference from her talk; and you certainly could not make that inference if you sat in the hui listening to her whole address.
What is perfectly reasonable to do is to question the premises within +Victoria’s talk in respect of whether they lead to theological conclusions it is unlikely she intends to arrive at. Thus the citation you make is an important building block in her argument towards a theologically grounded civil and caring response to same sex partnerships. Within what you say, there is a critical observation I agree with: does opening up the possibility of blessed relationships from a man and a woman to any two persons logically imply that (stable, permanent, etc) polyamorous relationships might also be blessed? The weakest part of the logic of her overall argument is highlighted by your citation.
Nevertheless the primary character of +Victoria’s talk was that of “question” rather than “statement”, a “prolegomenon” to future theological work on marriage, not a definitive conclusive and comprehensive statement on the theology of marriage. This was quite ‘clear’ when a question afterwards asked whether she was cautiously in favour of gay marriage and elicited the response that she is in favour of theological work being done on this. That is, she was not offering her talk as this theological work, just as a preliminary airing of some initial thoughts.
Incidentally, I suspect that a conversation with +Victoria about the cited remark might yield the response that in talking about the possibility that a polygamous relationship might bear fruit in a number of different ways, she is offering theological insight into how we might make sense of God’s tolerance of polygamy in the life of ancient Israel. As someone who works closely with her I can assure you that the last thing she would ever propose could be blessed in the period of Christianity is a relationship involving more than two people.
Hi David
I distinguish between the responsible talk of ‘theology of sexuality’ (which the hui was about, as it was intended to be about) and your spin on it, ‘pondering the various possible combinations of sexual activity between humans’ which could be the topic of a swingers festival, sexologists, etc.
Bishop Victoria’s paper is well miscontrued by you if you think it smiled benignly on the possibility of blessing polyamorous entanglements. The general direction of the paper was to raise the question (in a well argued for the most part, but weakly in at least one place; and careful reflection on the range of models for marriage in the Bible) whether we might imagine marriage extending from heterossexual couples to same sex couples). The one phrase which you have taken to benignly bless polyamory (i.e a forward looking possibility) is capable of an entirely different explanation (i.e. a backwards one towards the Bible and one model for marriage within it). In the end only Bishop Victoria herself can explain what she meant; but I have tried to explain that as someone who works closely with her, she is the last person to be an advocate for polyamory.
Even though He was talking about divorce, Jesus still reinforced the true definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Furthermore, I don’t know how many times Jesus referred to Himself as the bridegroom and the church as his bride.
So throughout the Gospels, we have JESUS reinforcing over and over again God’s intended definition of marriage.
Amen. Yet it is incredible how many people want to claim Jesus and reject his teachings on marriage and relationships.
Why don’t they simply start their own church or join the unitarians, rather than wreck the heritage that’s been entrusted to them? The answer I come back to again and again as to why not, is the money and the prestige.
Hours and hours spent lecturing each other about something on which they’re not planning to take action? They’ve already jumped on the same-sex marriage bandwagon, the talk merely provides that element Clinton always reached for, ‘deniability.’
Glad New Zealand’s real problems are all sorted so as to clear up clergical calendars and consciences to gas about same-sex marriage rather than hermeneutically seal themselves up to talk about solo parenthood, methamphetamine abuse, criminality, suicide, infant mortality, youth gangs, unemployment, poverty, aggressive driving, poor urban planning, geographical isolation ….
Hi All,
I will try to be clear! And not to lie …
Our church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia is definitely moving towards authorising same-sex blessings. There is no deceit involved by any one pushing in that direction, not least because the movement is working through motions agreed to by some of our diocesan synods. (If anything our General Synod has been acting as a ‘brake’ on this movement). Nor, I think, is any individual church leader down here hiding their biases. The key players on various sides of the debate are well-known, and the pressure points in our church are quite clear. I cannot think of any hidden agendas which are undisclosed.
As I understand Bishop Victoria’s approach, she is advocating for more theological work to be done on marriage, but with the obvious bias that this is theological work to see whether its definition can be enlarged (rather than theological work to conserve a traditional definition). Where she differs from the progressive ‘movement’ in our church is that she will not progress anything in her diocese ahead of an agreed change in our General Synod and she will not support our General Synod agreeing to something which would further imperil the life of the Communion.
At the hui itself, her call for more theological work to be done did not go down well with those pressing for a progressive decision to be made in 2014 (our next scheduled GS). In other words, her approach varies from both progressive and conservative groups in our church … and may not be popular with either!
Letter from a young English teacher at a public high school in New Jersey:
“I’m just in my third year of teaching, so I get stuck with the remedial classes. I mean, what are you going to do? But the stress of dealing with bad behavior is wearing me down. I ask myself why the old teacher’s honors classes are full of well-behaved students, while mine are—I got to say it—bastards.
After dozens of parent conferences, maybe I’ve figured it out. My students are bastards. Literally. My remedial kids come from chaotic families. The honors teachers meet with Prof. and Dr. Smith. But I meet with Ms. Jones and her four misbehaving kids by three baby daddies, none of whom seem to be around.
I used to think all those ancient putdowns of poor little illegitimate children were awful, and we’re so much better than they were back then. But, I’m starting to think they knew something we don’t.”
‘Mother’s Baby, Father’s Maybe’ by Steve Sailor,
http://takimag.com/article/mothers_baby_fathers_maybe_steve_sailer/print#ixzz2KFtTdrz1
At Peter Carrell
I deeply regret having suggested you were lying. I wrongly assumed that you were on board with what the Church in New Zealand was doing and were trying to suggest that just because someone is studying the issue does not mean you are moving in that direction for that is exactly what happened in the Lutheran Church… I was mistaken and I regret my strong language.
I will do penance by having pleasant thoughts about Bishop Johnson…
That’s cool, SLF!
Peter:
David speaks for many of us who have listened to liberal reformers talk about “reimagining” and “listening process” and “indaba” and “delphi process” and we know that what it means is “we’re changing things slowly so that you fools don’t notice.” The strategy is not only dishonest and condescending, it is also brute-force: the communication is always only in one direction.
A key element of this communication strategy is to use phrases that, as you say, are “capable of an entirely different explanation.” In the past the faithful have let such ambiguous statements stand, because they were capable of an entirely different explanation and we were lazy enough to give the benefit of the doubt. Now we know that those statements will come back at us in a few months or years, with no ambiguity, and with vengeance. The previous quotations will serve as provenance for the future imposed consensus.
However we also know that loudly denouncing the offending statements will make no difference – they will still serve as provenance for the future imposed consensus.
David, in response to your interest in Bishop Matthew’s “call for more theological work to be done,” I recommend that you check out the “theological” work that was done in the late 1990s in the Diocese of New Westminster. Three theologians were asked specific questions on the subject of same-sex marriage. One agreed with same-sex marriage based on a non-theological argument, another hummed and hawed and said nothing as far as I can tell, and the third (and most scholarly) said there was no theological basis for same-sex marriage. The content of these studies was never addressed by the bishop or the synods, but they often mentioned that “theological studies were done” with the implication that the theological studies supported the moves they were making.
Hi David,
I do not think I have to contort myself too much to remain in our church if it should authorise same sex blessings, and even if they are authorised specifically in my own diocese. Obviously I speak about and out of the context of my church Down Under – my knowledge of the Canadian situation is slight and not from first-hand experience, so I am not implying anyone Up There should agree with me!
(1) I am not prepared to leave the church solely because it has made a decision about same sex blessings. That, to me, would be leaving because I disagree with sincere attempts to respond to the pastoral needs of homosexuals, whose life experience is not my own, and seems immensely difficult in a largely hetero-normative world. Thus I would not be contributing to their pastoral support by leaving and feel that I would be implying some kind of blame to be added to the burdens of their lives by my leaving.
(2) I would not be staying on the basis that I believed I could (eventually) change the church back to orthodoxy etc. I would stay in order to bear witness to evangelical Anglican understanding within the church which remained. In the history of our church that witness has been important but since the settlers came it has always been, in each generation and in respect of most issues, the minority position.
(3) If there were associated decisions which made being an evangelical very difficult if not impossible (e.g. if it were compulsory to perform such blessings on request etc) then I would like to be expelled by the church. (I am not particularly enamoured by the idea of physically leaving the church while claiming that it is the church that has left me).
(4) However, I speak from a current ministry position where I am not a full-time vicar of a parish. Were I in that position and things came to the point where the parish as a whole sought to leave, I believe I would have a decision to make: to honour my obligation to the parish as their pastor and to leave with them; or to honour my personal sense that on this matter I would not leave and would prefer (if it came to pass) that I were expelled. (The Lord alone knows how to handle the intermediate position of, say, half the parish wishing to leave and half wishing to stay!)
I am gobsmacked at the ins and outs, the ups and downs, the smoke and mirrors, the obsfucation on something so simple.
Same sex marraige is wrong, it is un-natural, and against God’s Will and His Way for His creation.
If you think it is not wrong, than say so, disobey God, and leave His Church.
If you stay, you destroy, and we know whose work it is to destroy.
Hui—-Hooey!
A simple man who wants to love, honour and obey Christ Jesus.
Hi Terry,
Theology is simple, human life is complicated.
I am choosing, in so far as possible, to stay by my friends in my church who are gay or whose children are gay. I see nothing to be gained in making them the cause of my leaving.
I also have a conscience which asks why I have not left over my friends, even family who having divorced have been remarried and remained in the church. I think Jesus teaching on divorce is simple, but married and post married life is complicated. Again, I see nothing to be gained by leaving the church to honour the simplicity of Jesus’ teaching and simultaneously disrespect my friends and family.
It is wonderful when a brother such as yourself can work these matters out with a total simplicity of belief, response and action. I cannot (mea culpa) and thus I am a contributor to your being gobsmacked!
I believe you mean well, Peter. But, while Jesus said we’re to be innocent as doves, we’re also to be shrewd as snakes. Whatever the divergence between theology and human life may be, it’s wisdom that’s the point of the one in regard to the other. Perhaps if the Church had not been so quick to match society’s pace in the decades-long trivilisation of marriage, of which gay marriage is simply the latest instance, your friends might have worked harder to preserve their marriages, growing spiritually along the way in order to do so. As to the issue of the existence or not of ‘gay children,’ there’s an awful lot of psuedo-science masquerading as science these days that’s also on course to unravel.
http://thetruthsetsyoufree.wordpress.com/adolescent-homosexuality/
Hi David
It is simply erroneous to say, “That doesn’t mean I expect my pastor to stand up and tell us he is planning on holding a service to bless all our sins. But that is exactly what your hui is considering.” The hui was not considering blessing all sins!
If you have not left your church because there are remarried people in it after they have divorced, why not?
I like your reply, David.
Thank you!