I just read Bishop Wright's letter to the Durham Diocese at the mid point in the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion. You can find it here.
As I peek through the cracks of the Lambeth conference I find bits and pieces of good ideas that might apply to the broader context in which I minister. First, Bishop Wright's description of the Indaba groups sounds like a wonderful way to build community among widely diverse particpants, and would be helpful in focusing the entire conference on Scripture. This might serve well the broader church context in which I seek to minister when addressing disputed matters of doctrine or practice. The tone might result as more collegial rather than diving straight into controvesy and debate.
Second, I found the diversity of views that are being heard and considered to be a healthy and loving way to work through what has long been anticipated to be a difficult if not contentious process. Not all can have their way, but as I peek through the cracks it appears to me that there has been an intentional process developed by Archbishop Rowan Williams to listen and discern in community what the Spirit is saying to this Anglican Communion.
I don't know about you, but this is fascinating stuff to me!
5 comments:
We still have not solved the authority issue in 2000 years. Yes, these Indaba groups may be a start. Yes, dialogue is crucial. But I remain a pessimist when it comes to the area of authority and truth, however optimistic I may be in the areas of respect and dialogue.
The reason I remain skeptical is becomes of the extremes. "God predestines all things" v. "God leaves the future open." OR "homosexual sex is OK" v. "homosexual sex is sinful." And on and on any such issues could go.
The early church relied on HUGE councils of bishops representing regions and churches. These councils would vote after much prayer, debate, and pursuing the scriptures. Thats one way to solve the truth and authority problem: let the leaders "say" by majority vote.
Then the Roman Church took over and that was the end of a multi voice system. Now the Holy See had the say. That's another solution to the problem: let one leader "say" by unilateral proclamation.
Then the Reformation came. And us Protestants are heirs of "sola scriptura" as our source for truth and authority. But that resulted in thousands of different interpretations of that one authority and tons of denominations. Yet, we must note, it is a solution to the problem: what does the Bible say?
So where does this leave us?
Do the leaders/bishops say?
Does A leader (a "pope") say?
Does the Bible say?
Do Indaba groups say?
I agree, Jeff, I'm a huge fan of dialogue and respect and I'm optimistic, frankly, about those. But I remain pessimistic about authority and truth. Are we to settle for some great big mushy relativistic pluralism pot of bubbling agnostic goo?
Or is there more?
Or am I too modernist? Should I surrender more of myself to the postmodern mood? I have sympathies with the postmodern mood, yet I cannot fully embrace it because of its glaring weaknesses. Modernism's approach (as well as premodernism's) is equally fallible.
Hmmmm... Truth and authority. What is right and who gets to decide? I'm still not sure what to do with these categories.
How can two people (Anglicans perhaps, in this example you're citing) believe that Jesus is their Truth and their Authority and come to POLAR OPPOSITE conclusions? I remain to this day completely DUMBFOUNDED about this. I haven't understood it since becoming a Christian. Truth and authority seem a bit elusive to me.
HELP! Anyone!
REV
Hey...
I just read the Lutheran statement that was just released on sexuality. You can read about it at http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements-in-Process/JTF-Human-Sexuality/~/media/Files/What%20We%20Believe/Social%20Issues/In%20Process/Human%20Sexuality/Draft%20Statement/draftstatement.ashx
The basic argument the group puts forward is this:
1. God is loving and compassionate
2. Matter is not evil/sinful, bodies are matter, bodies have desires, therefore bodily desires are not evil/sinful
3. A "do no harm" ethic should guide Christians
4. Human beings are created in God's image "very good." Human beings have natures. Therefore human beings' natures are very good.
5. Sexual intercourse should be experienced in a committed relationship akin to a marriage.
6. Cohabitational sexuality is not recommended, but is not forbidden either.
7. Homosexual sex... punt! (see comments below).
Given their approach and premises and non-biblical citation (which is frequent, they deliberately avoid many texts and dance with hermeneutics), I was shocked to get to the end and see them punt! I thought for sure all the premises were leading me (the reader) to "therefore homosexual sex in a 'committed' relationship is good." But they didn't go there. They punted!!!
At one point (page 21) the group claims this: "Scripture cannot be used in isolation as the norm for Christian life and the source of knowledge for the exercise of moral judgment." They go on to say that societal influence should bring about new understandings of the Bible. I can understand to a point, but I wonder if they mean the same thing I'd mean... hmmm...
Just as with the Anglicans, so too the Lutherans are debating what really the (1) authority and unity of the church MEAN and (2) authority of "sola scriptura" MEANS. These issues of church and Bible MUST be sorted out clearly, for once the "answer" is found, issues like homosexual sex (and others) will fall into place.
Another quote (p. 25): "Some general moral practices seem to span historical and cultural boundaries, but many also have been shaped by social location. What is acceptable sexual behavior in one social or historical context may not be acceptable in others." Ah, the ol' multi-cultural relativism argument. How REALLY true is this??? We Westerners say homosexual sex is OK and thats OK and the African churches say homosexual sex is sinful and thats OK. REALLY???
Another quote (p. 36): "After many years of study and conversation, this church does not have consensus regarding loving and committed same-gender relationships." This is accurate of the ELCA and consistent with the first report, published around 10 years ago or so.
As the article proceeds, they punt. They deliberately take no stance. Big massive study, years in the making, couple dozen people on the committee, 64 page document... all this to reveal... "we take no stance."
WOW...
OK. Long posting. But I wanted to add to the pot. Any thoughts???
REV
I don't recall if I've mentioned this already, but was reading an article from the Guardian about the Lambeth Conference where they stated that the Anglican Communion worldwide has 70 million members. Out of those 70 million, they reported that approximately 1 million attend services on a given Sunday. 1/70th? Really? If this happened at our church we'd have about 2 people present on Sunday morning! Perhaps this might point to a case where the heart of the Gospel has been forgotten / lost / set aside, and now debate over ordaining practicing homosexual clergy is threatening to split at least the Episcopal wing from the Communion. Is the ELCA in the same place?
So what really are these debates about? What really is at stake for these two denominations who have rich heritages, but seem to have lost their focus? What does it mean when the ELCA can't settle on a position, even a working one?
Valid point, Jeff.
Really what we're talking about with both Anglicans and Lutherans is two DECLINING denominations, with huge numbers of empty buildings and closing congregations every year in the U.S. and Europe. Granted the African Anglican church is a bit healthier, but still...
So we're actually talking about very small groups of people (speaking globally). Most of their "own" aren't even regularly involved enough to really "count." odd...
As for rich heritages, yes, both do have rich elements. My good friend at Duke is an Episcopal and a Bible scholar and he's explained to me many of the rich elements of Anglican theology and praxis. YET both denominations as a whole seem to have lost focus, like you said. I personally know many Lutherans who have left the ELCA because of this homosexual issue. If the ELCA is trying to liberalize to attract more people, the plan has done a complete backfire. But if the ELCA is doing this because they believe its theologically/missiologically/biblically right to do, then that is another matter.
And that matter does not seem clear to me from what I've read.
Likewise with the Anglicans, I'm not sure what the motive is. For Bishop Robinson, certainly much of the motive must be self justification: "my sexual choices are OK."
Hmmm... still trying to sort out the pieces.
But I still want to know:
1. Who's got the authority? ["Jesus!" a well meaning Christian answers. Yes. Duh. But who is the vicar of Christ?]
2. What is truth and how "knowable" is it?
3. What role does the church have?
4. What role does the Bible have?
These questions nag me.
REV
OK here's an attempt any my puzzlings.
Jesus has authority. He commissioned His church (collectively) to have that authority. "As you are going" (Matthew 28) is plural. So living in Jesus' authority is decidedly congregational. But what if there's disunity?
Enter Corinth. Some liked Paul, some liked Apollos. Paul rebuked their disunity and said "follow Jesus!" And in response to the need to guide congregationalism, guide "priesthood of all believers," Paul responded with elders (just as the Jerusalem church had a council of Apostles).
Likewise eldership in the NT is plural. And the authority invested in leadership in the NT is based on character. Jesus-likeness. Character trumps compentancy and chemistry, however important those things might also be. Our churches often get this wrong (in my experience).
And then adding to this authority mix is the fact that Paul had apostolic (church planting) authority. He wrote authoratative letters to the churches.
So we have three biblical strings to tie together into one rope:
1. Congregationalism
2. Eldership
3. Apostle-pastor leader
All under the Lordship of Jesus?
Darn, I'm more confused now than when I started. I haven't solved the authority riddle.
REV
Post a Comment