Perhaps David Marr has a visceral fear of the scriptures being God’s word?

He certainly dismisses anything he doesn’t like as being less authoritative. For example, in discussing those who turn from a homesexual lifestyle to a heterosexual lifestyle, we writes,

‘but those who can’t switch face lifelong abstinence in line with Christ’s ruling, rather hard to pin down in the Gospels

(Underlining mine)

In other words the letters of Paul are less authoritative than the gospels.  How convenient for David.

And as a member of Standing Committee, let me say that I did not ‘rubber stamp’ any decision, I unequivocally voted to support the decision.  I know that, had I had concerns, I would have been permitted to speak in debate, but I had none.  If my memory serves me correctly, all members chose to support the decision; there was no mere rubber stamping.

Doug Marr = Director, Property Planning, Moore College and a member of significant Diocesan Committees
David Marr = Journalist and author.
I am sure neither of them wish to be confused with the other! David’s story is not on the net.

I just realised in the quote I posted the name appears as Doug Marr.  Would the moderator please change it to the correct name? 

Post Script: thanks to John Sandeman I have now learned I can edit this myself, and it is done.  The name now appears as David Marr.

You can edit your own post using the edit button. It is usual to note any significant edits.

Hi Jeremy,

Regarding your the topics that you originally wanted to raise:

I’ve found it somewhat enlightening that rather than engage with Marr’s central thesis about evangelicals’ ‘visceral fear of homosexuals’ (or my original question seeking resources to address the questions that arise from this allegation) we have spent 3/4 of this thread talking about a completely minor tangent. (single ministers)

I can only respond from my own experience to Marr’s “visceral fear of homosexuals” line. In my 21 years as an evangelical Christian, I’d say that I’ve heard clergy mention the topic of homosexuality about once a year, if that. Only once was it the main point of their message - a piece in the newsletter supporting the Bishop’s choice to go to GAFCON & boycott Lambeth. The rest of the time it’s been mentioned because they’ve been preaching on a text that mentioned the issue. And always the line has been: “homosexual practice is sinful. But we are all sinners, so gays & lesbians are just in the same boat as everybody else.” There’s never been any call for us to go out and bash gays, or for us not to love them. And I have to say that I’ve never heard a talk on sex which has struck fear into those listening, as Marr insinuates that Sydney clergy do.

As for his line about Jesus, I suspect that it flows out of the Liberal emphasis on “the Word” (Jesus) ahead of “the word” (the Bible). They basically see the gospels as more authoritative over the other NT books, and this helps them to argue that Jesus was was preaching a nice socially-inclusive, pro-women’s ordination, social gospel, rather than the distorted message preached by Paul.

I agree, Roger.
Marr’s angry article does not take into account the many clergy and others who have sought to support gay men and women through illness, death, unwanted same sex attraction, temptation, etc.  Visceral fear?  What nonsense!

Marr writes,

‘but those who can’t switch face lifelong abstinence in line with Christ’s ruling, rather hard to pin down in the Gospels. (Underlining from a previous poster.)

I am very happy to go to Paul on this matter, but it’s also worth noting that Marr’s claim that Jesus’ teaching is hard to pin down on this matter is false.

In Matthew 19:1-12 Jesus addresses the issue of divorce and remarriage.

In vv4-6, to establish a foundation for his answer, he quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in combination...

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (NIV)

Here he clearly teaches that from the beginning of human existence, marriage is between one man and one woman. It’s heterosexual. In Jesus’ mind this is a basic part of the created order.

As a consequence, he then explains that divorce is permitted by Moses (and I take it by God) reluctantly to address tragic situations caused by human sin - the ‘hardness of our hearts’. (Note: this is a permission not a command.)

He also limits the possibility of remarriage after divorce to those persons who were the victims of adultery. (See also 1 Cor 7:15.)

Seeing that Jesus is setting the bar very high for marriage - that it should be for life and that divorce is not to be encouraged “for any and every reason”, like the Pharisees has suggested, and that remarriage after divorce is not normally a permitted option in God’s eyes, his disciples suggest it would be better not to marry. Too risky they feel.

Here is the reply, in Matt 19:11-12...

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. (NIV)”

There is nothing unclear about this. If a man chooses not to marry a woman, then Jesus gives one alternative: celibacy, lifelong abstinence - becoming like a eunuch.

David Marr is plain wrong. The standard of faithfulness in marriage and chastity in singleness is clearly taught by Jesus in the Gospels. (And his words indicate that neither pathway is always easy.)

David Marr’s article is now online.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-archbishop-says-no/2008/06/10/1212863623804.html

Thanks Sandy.

I am glad somebody pointed that passage out.

The article is online here

An opinion piece in response in today’s paper is here.

.e

RE single ministers...

I think its worth establishing that David Marr didn’t say it was a hard policy, he just said that single ministers can’t expect to be given a parish. Of course there are exceptions, but this doesn’t dismiss what could be described as a mood within the diocese which shirks away from putting single men in these positions. This mood comes up every now and again in various guises, such as the time a group of single fourth year candidates were told that they had to hurry it up and get hitched (this happened to a friend of mine in the late 90s) to the archdeacon who told me that it was a simple fact that “parishes want the holy family in the rectory: Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus”, to the wife of a senior Sydney clergyman who took me aside in my 1st year at college and said “You really will be a better minister if married”.

How encouraging.

However, I must say that on the whole the issue of my singleness did not come up much in my official interviews for ordination to the deaconate (conducted between 2003 and 2007). It came up once, with an interviewer asking if there was “anyone on the scene”. He did not disclose why he asked the question. Of course being ordained deacon is now a different process to being ordained presbyter, which is what needs to happen if a man is to be ‘given’ a parish. 

RE Marr’s writing...

I thought the mentioning of Peter Jensen’s brief and less-than-stellar career as a law student made him sound more human. I read it as Marr’s attempt to paint a picture of the man and not simply as a conspiratorial listing of irrelevancies. Let’s not forget that this was also a piece on the man himself and not just on GAFCON or contemporary Anglicanism.

And how do we know that Marr’s reference to John Woodhouse being ‘hard’ was about a supposed way of relating? I studied under John as well, and he certainly is ‘hard’, especially when it comes to matters doctrinal. He wouldn’t have been placed in that position if he wasn’t.

Hey Marty,

And how do we know that Marr’s reference to John Woodhouse being ‘hard’ was about a supposed way of relating? I studied under John as well, and he certainly is ‘hard’, especially when it comes to matters doctrinal. He wouldn’t have been placed in that position if he wasn’t.

In my opinion it is pretty clear what he was referring to. In our cultural and linguistic context saying that someone is a ‘hard man/woman’ is pretty obviously referring to their personality - particularly in the way they relate (or fail to relate) to others. Of course John is ‘hard(line)’ when it comes to doctrine and theology, but from both the context and later comments that Marr makes I think it is fairly clear that was not what Marr was intending to communicate, and neither do I think that it would have been the way the vast majority of readers would have interpreted the comment.

It’s not a big deal in the greater scheme of the article. I just found it sad that he was caricatured in that way.

Martin Kemp - 10 June 2008 08:17 PM

RE single ministers...

I think its worth establishing that David Marr didn’t say it was a hard policy, he just said that single ministers can’t expect to be given a parish.

Hey Marty

I think this was one of the most interesting bits of the article - to a degree right, but also quite biased.

It seems to be accepted that it is hard for a single male to be get jobs.  But I think this is more a reflection of the churches (both lay people and ordained people) who employ people, rather then a policy adopted by the Archbishop.

I think the hesitancy to hire single guys is a reflection of our society’s negative view of celibacy and singleness and our churches not teaching the superiority of singleness.  Not necessarily something the Archbishop promotes.

Mike

It came up once, with an interviewer asking if there was “anyone on the scene”. He did not disclose why he asked the question.

I understand those questions as an assessment of other issues.

As an example, a missionary society may have a policy that membership is reassessed if a single missionary gets engaged or married.  I could see good reasons for that type of policy.  (And it is not a bar to singles doing ministry)

Roger Gallagher - 10 June 2008 02:47 PM

As for his line about Jesus, I suspect that it flows out of the Liberal emphasis on “the Word” (Jesus) ahead of “the word” (the Bible). They basically see the gospels as more authoritative over the other NT books, and this helps them to argue that Jesus was was preaching a nice socially-inclusive, pro-women’s ordination, social gospel, rather than the distorted message preached by Paul.

At the risk of heading off on another tangent, where do the New Testament scriptures actually say that they are “the word”? I’ve looked for this a few times but have never been able to find it.

Of course, the practical answer is that it is clear that “the scriptures” are themselves meant to be treated as authoritative, so the liberal argument doesn’t actually go anywhere, but if anyone can point me in the right direction here it would be much appreciated.

Mike Doyle - 10 June 2008 10:48 PM

I think the hesitancy to hire single guys is a reflection of our society’s negative view of celibacy and singleness and our churches not teaching the superiority of singleness.  Not necessarily something the Archbishop promotes.

Mike

I’m not so convinced about that Mike.

I think the reasons are probably much more pragmatic.

Firstly as congregants we are supposed to imitate the life and faith of our leaders (Heb 13:7), and without doubt the single guy can model many aspects, being a husband and father is not one of them and for better or worse this is a massive part of many blokes lives. Sure other godly men can model/mentor here but you get my point.

Secondly, imagine any of the single girls in the church getting the hots for the pastor...this has ugly written all over it…

Lastly on the “superiority” of singleness, I presume you refer to 1 Cor 7. If so i’d have to disagree with a conclusion that implies a superiority of singleness based on this passge....another thread perhaps. ;~>

Jeff Atack - 10 June 2008 11:23 PM

I’m not so convinced about that Mike.

I think the reasons are probably much more pragmatic.

....another thread perhaps. ;~>

Definitely another thread. :-)

But the point stands that it’s not so much a policy of the Archbishop, as of individual churches who don’t want to hire single men.

Mike

I think the hesitancy to hire single guys is a reflection of our society’s negative view of celibacy and singleness and our churches not teaching the superiority of singleness.  Not necessarily something the Archbishop promotes.

The cultural assumptions that drive this are very interesting. I think it also has something to do with the ‘family values’ ethos amongst conservative evangelicals (generally - not Sydney Anglicans per se).

Interestingly Andrew Cameron has written a bit on this topic pointing out that the Bible is far more sanguine about family life than middle-class Christians are.

Just a reminder that we have a number of resources on human sexuality posted on this page with an article by Andrew Cameron called “The Church and Sexual wholeness”

The page also includes links to Bishop Glenn Davies’ article “Jesus on gay unions” and Oliver O’Donovan’s “Good News for Gay Christians”

At the risk of heading off on another tangent, where do the New Testament scriptures actually say that they are “the word”? I’ve looked for this a few times but have never been able to find it.

Of course, the practical answer is that it is clear that “the scriptures” are themselves meant to be treated as authoritative, so the liberal argument doesn’t actually go anywhere, but if anyone can point me in the right direction here it would be much appreciated.

Here is something I put together for our church bulletin a few years ago when people were telling me that the Bible is not the word of God, because Jesus is the only word of God.

The Word of God—Some thoughts

1. Jesus is the Word of God. How do we know this? We know this because the Bible declares it to be so. (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 19:13) Hebrews 1:2 comes very close to saying Jesus is God’s word by saying “in these last days God has spoken to us by a Son”.
2. The words Jesus spoke as he taught are the Word of God. How do we know this? We know this because the Bible declares it to be so. (Luke 5:1; 8:21; 11:28)
3. The saving message of what Jesus did is the Word of God. How do we know this? We know this because the Bible declares it to be so. (eg Luke 8:11; Acts 4:31; 6:2; 8:14; 12:24; 13:7; 17:13; 18:11; 1 Corinthians 14:36; 2 Corinthians 2:17; Ephesians 6:17; Philippians 1:14; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 13:7; James 1:22; 1 Peter 1:23-25) Most books of the New Testament declare that the saving message of what Jesus did is the word of God or the word of the Lord.
4. The Old Testament is the Word of God. How do we know this? We know this because the Bible declares it to be so. (Matthew 15:6; 22:31-32; Mark 7:13; John 10:35; Acts 1:16-20; 4:25; Hebrews 1:1; 1:5-13; 3:7-11; 4:3; 5:5; Then there are the many Old Testament references to “Thus says the Lord”)
5. The New Testament is the Word of God and as authoritative as the other Scriptures (= Old Testament). How do we know this? We know this because the Bible declares it to be so. (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Timothy 5:18 (which cites part of Luke’s gospel as being scripture); 2 Peter 3:15-16 (where Peter states that Paul writings were Scripture); 2 Timothy 3:16 (written after many other letters, and inspired = “God-breathed”)

By the use of the term in the Bible itself, it is very valid to say that Jesus is the Word of God, that the gospel message (spoken either by Jesus, his apostles or other followers) is the Word of God, and that the Bible itself is the Word of God.