All due respect to Short and Packer, does anybody else wonder if tossing mud at “revisionist aggression” from this particular corner of the Anglican universe doesn’t come off as a little.. erm.. pot-kettle-black?
For all this talk of pettiness, over-exaggeration, rebellion and mud-slinging - couldn’t we be validly accused of all these things as well?
All due respect to Short and Packer, does anybody else wonder if tossing mud at “revisionist aggression” from this particular corner of the Anglican universe doesn’t come off as a little.. erm.. pot-kettle-black?
Tim, you want to unpack that a little? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Tim, you want to unpack that a little? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Sure thing Bob.
I’m questioning the tone of this topic. Sydney Anglican media has been taking an increasingly sensational tone in approaching Lambeth, Homosexuality etc in recent months. as I type i notice a capitalised ad that reads “behind the Packer Charges” which links to an article that is ironically closer in tone to “A Current Affair” than to anything Rev Packer would pen. Contrary to its claim to be an investigation into what lies “behind” the Packer charges, it’s nothing more than a diatribe against unnamed liberal perpetrators. It fails not only to explain the circumstances in which Packer lost his robes, but to let us know what Rev packer himself feels about all this. It goes on to thumb its nose at the Windsor process - an incredibly complimentary call for a diocese that just withdrew from Lambeth.. Are we really that insecure that we have to spoon feed ourselves only the most reassuring points of view on the market?
While I empathise with the feelings of many on this forum who are upset at what seems to be an offensive and blatant injustice, I fear that this “call for support” sounds a little too much like a war-cry.
As for the pot calling the kettle black. We regularly accuse liberals of:
-Pettiness (yet we are withdrawing from lambeth over one or two guy’s actions!)
-over-exaggeration (look at the sensationalist claims of aforementioned article)
-rebellion (We are refusing to trust our God-appointed leader Archbishop Rowan Williams, to deal with the situation. Worse, we got our knickers in a knot over invitations - we didn’t even wait till the actual conference to see what would happen. How many Lambeth Conferences have we allowed Mr Williams to use to sort out the likes of Gene Robinson? Finally, 2 gay bishops may be a rebellion, but what do you call launching your own conference without the big boss’s permission?)
-mud-slinging (our Archbishop on Friday said ““Attending [Lambeth] is to fellowship with false teachers in their wicked work. It cannot help but diminish faithful Christians’ confidence in you as a leader. To believe otherwise is a further illustration of the naivety, which leads you to attend,”, thus characterising liberals as wicked false teachers, and insinuating that anybody who does attend is naieve and and a poor leader. I suspect we’d be hard pressed to find more judgmental words from a bishop on the “other side”.
Does that make sense? My query is not about the injustice done to Packer, but whether we Sydney Anglicans are repentant and open-minded enough to be useful in leaping to his defence.
This may be off thread (and I most heartily support David Short and Jim Packer), but what would happen in Sydney if a congregation sought episcopal oversight from another bishop over, say, Sydney’s refusal to consecrate or recognise women bishops?
I write with less direct involvement in the whole GAFCON/ Lambeth debate than others here, as a member of an independent church outside Sydney. But I think it should be noted that this statement:
our Archbishop on Friday said ““Attending [Lambeth] is to fellowship with false teachers in their wicked work. It cannot help but diminish faithful Christians’ confidence in you as a leader. To believe otherwise is a further illustration of the naivety, which leads you to attend,”,
is wrong. It was not Archbishop Peter Jensen who said this on Friday, it was his brother Phillip. I can, however, thoroughly recommend that people listen to or read Phillip’s words on the topic, as an excellent overview of the Biblical material on when fellowship is possible and when it is not.
Tim, I think you are mistaken in your assessment of this situation.
There is nothing in the least petty about two godly men being and an entire parish being threatened by a bishop such that the two clergy may have their orders quashed and the parish lose its property. Further, this is hardly over a petty issue: at stake is the integrity of the gospel. Paul rightly rebuked Peter over what seemed to be a small matter (whom he ate with) but in fact the issue was fundamental (see Galatians).
Further, I began this thread not as a war cry, but to ask like minded people to show their support for two brothers, who need to know we are in fellowship with them, praying for them, thankful to God for their faithfulness to the truth, and wanting them to know how many of us are praying for them!
When people attack us for preaching the gospel and standing up against falshood, I know speaking for myself I am affected, and it is reassuring to know others support me. I feel sure David and Jim and their parish will be greatly heartened to know other believers want to stand with them for the gospel against a false teacher, their bishop, whose actions are indefensible.
Tim, I think you’re arguments are askew at a number of points. Here are just a few:
1 “Pettiness”. Our bishops (not us) are not withdrawing from Lambeth over the actions of one or two people - they are not attending because of the refusal of a large number of bishops to make a stand on Biblical truth and on the obligation of all ministers of the gospel to uphold it in word and in action. This is hardly petty.
2 “Rebellion”. Archbishop Rowan Williams is not exactly our God-appointed leader. He has no formal authority in the world-wide Anglican Church, but rather a certain status within it. And even if he were our God-appointed leader, that would not mean that he should not be challenged, or even disregarded, if he were failing in his God-appointed responsibility and the fulfilment of his ordination vows - to uphold Biblical truth, even if it causes division.
3 “We got our knickers in a knot over invitation”. It is precisely the invitations that are the problem (see point 1 above).
4 “Launching your own conference without the big boss’s permission”.
Rowan Williams is not the big boss (see point 2 above) and it is entirely appropriate for like-minded people to gather together in defence of the gospel and in an effort to keep our denomination from abandoning it.
5 “Mud-slinging”. Neil has already pointed out your attribution of the quote to the wrong Jensen. I was there to hear Philip. He was at pains to explain the Biblical distinctions between division and divisiveness, and judgement and judgementalism. These are important distinctions which are mostly overlooked in these kinds of debates. There are times when we must divide, even though it pains us, because allegiance to the truth requires it (cf Luke 12:51); there are times when we must make judgements about those who claim to follow Christ but who have departed from his word, even though we recognise that we ourselves are far from perfect (1 Cor 5:3, 12).
Which brings me to my last point: every judgement must be offered with caution and in humility. But if we all wait until we are repentant and open-minded enough (however you measure that) before we ever speak out against anything, then no one will ever speak and the church will slowly fade into meaninglessness.
Tim, I think you are mistaken in your assessment of this situation.
There is nothing in the least petty about two godly men being and an entire parish being threatened by a bishop such that the two clergy may have their orders quashed and the parish lose its property. Further, this is hardly over a petty issue: at stake is the integrity of the gospel.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about pettiness there, Philip. As I said, my insinuation of pettiness is pointed at the diocese’ decisions to boycott lambeth etc, I do not mean to trivialise the present circumstances these two men are in. I, too, feel for Packer and Short (who amongst us hasn’t read and been transformed by “Knowing God?")It is not that i believe we are petty, rebellious, or any particular one of those things most of the time, but that we are capable of being all of those things some of the time. This is why we need to STOP using these words as accusations against our liberal brothers and sisters. Criticise a discourse, but don’t make assumptions about motive and character.
I’m sorry, my intention was not to characterise your motives for posting this topic as war-like. I thank you for your oft-displayed gentility and good naturedness amongst these forums. However, as Philip (thanks to Neil Foster for pointing out my error) Jensen took great pains to point out, there are such tiny semantic differences between terminologies of judgement and judgementalism - and indeed consolation and warfare - I can’t help but notice a general tone emerging throughout this thread that slips between showing compassionate support for our beleagured friends and showing militant support in the fight against “liberalism” and “revisionism”. May we become experts at the former and remain novices at the latter.
I find it surprising how many on these forums (and in our diocese in general) use phrases like “standing up against falsehood”, “defending Biblical truth” and “opposing false teaching”. These denigrate the contrary viewpoint without acknowledging it for what it is - as gallant attempt to explicate the truth of God’s word as anybody else has come up with. I know this statement will rub some here up the wrong way, however we simply must come to terms with the fact that unambiguous teachings on homosexual love can’t be found in the Bible. Those who choose a traditional exegesis rely heavily on ideas of what constitutes “natural” law regarding sexuality, which is valid - weighty even - but not rock-solid. My hope is that this whole Lambeth mess will teach people on both sides of the divide to regard one anothers views respectfully, and to get better at characterising them as such.
Anyway, to get back in the theme of the topic again, though I haven’t taken the time to properly understand the details or gravity of the situation, I do offer my support and prayers to Short and Packer. I can only imagine how deeply hurtful it would be to be unfairly stripped of the right to preach. Hang in there Guys - may our God of green hope fill you to overflowing with hope!
I write with less direct involvement in the whole GAFCON/ Lambeth debate than others here, as a member of an independent church outside Sydney. But I think it should be noted that this statement:
our Archbishop on Friday said ““Attending [Lambeth] is to fellowship with false teachers in their wicked work. It cannot help but diminish faithful Christians’ confidence in you as a leader. To believe otherwise is a further illustration of the naivety, which leads you to attend,”,
is wrong. It was not Archbishop Peter Jensen who said this on Friday, it was his brother Phillip. I can, however, thoroughly recommend that people listen to or read Phillip’s words on the topic, as an excellent overview of the Biblical material on when fellowship is possible and when it is not.
I too was interested to read what Philip had to say and thought to myself yes, protestations to the side, this really is a split taking place in Anglicanism. These really are momentous days for Anglicans.
I think the point of no return has well and truly passed, thanks to the actions and lack of repentance on the part of the revisionists.
Certainly history in my own denomination has shown there is nothing dishonourable in walking separately and nothing to stop coming together at a later date.
Whether Sydney Diocese can link up with evangelicals in other dioceses in an organisational way may however be problematical. Sometimes you just have to step out in faith, utter dependence on God with humility but also conviction.
The other book of Packer’s that I thought was wonderful was his Knowing God. Hard work in parts, but repaid the effort of coming back to it, and back to it again with a study guide. I went through it chapter by chapter with another young Christian many years ago, and recently picked it up again to help me with preparing some Bible studies.
Actually I’ve decided now that it is not so much ‘hard work’ as it is dense and deep, steeped in the great truths of Scripture itself. Reading it is like eating very dark chocolate, best done a little at a time. More nutritious than chocolate, but. On the cover of my version Stott calls it ‘strong meat’.
Tim, I think you’re arguments are askew at a number of points. Here are just a few:
1 “Pettiness”. Our bishops (not us) are not withdrawing from Lambeth over the actions of one or two people - they are not attending because of the refusal of a large number of bishops to make a stand on Biblical truth and on the obligation of all ministers of the gospel to uphold it in word and in action. This is hardly petty.
2 “Rebellion”. Archbishop Rowan Williams is not exactly our God-appointed leader. He has no formal authority in the world-wide Anglican Church, but rather a certain status within it. And even if he were our God-appointed leader, that would not mean that he should not be challenged, or even disregarded, if he were failing in his God-appointed responsibility and the fulfilment of his ordination vows - to uphold Biblical truth, even if it causes division.
3 “We got our knickers in a knot over invitation”. It is precisely the invitations that are the problem (see point 1 above).
4 “Launching your own conference without the big boss’s permission”.
Rowan Williams is not the big boss (see point 2 above) and it is entirely appropriate for like-minded people to gather together in defence of the gospel and in an effort to keep our denomination from abandoning it.
5 “Mud-slinging”. Neil has already pointed out your attribution of the quote to the wrong Jensen. I was there to hear Philip. He was at pains to explain the Biblical distinctions between division and divisiveness, and judgement and judgementalism. These are important distinctions which are mostly overlooked in these kinds of debates. There are times when we must divide, even though it pains us, because allegiance to the truth requires it (cf Luke 12:51); there are times when we must make judgements about those who claim to follow Christ but who have departed from his word, even though we recognise that we ourselves are far from perfect (1 Cor 5:3, 12).
Which brings me to my last point: every judgement must be offered with caution and in humility. But if we all wait until we are repentant and open-minded enough (however you measure that) before we ever speak out against anything, then no one will ever speak and the church will slowly fade into meaninglessness.
Bob, I often am very askew in my thinking. Thanks for your generous engagement - may we sharpen each other. In response:
1. This is about Biblical interpretation, not Biblical Truth. It is us (or our bishops) refusal to acknowledge that those on the other side might be motivated by a desire for truth, rather than falsehood, that is petty.
2. I’ll cede you probably know much more about Anglican hierarchical structures than myself. Let’s agree that Williams’ power extends at least to the point that he is the guy who sent out the offending invitations, and should therefore be trusted to have a plan in mind to rectify the situation when invited members are present. One of Paul’s express desires in 1 Cor 5 is that he wishes he could be there when the offender is called out publically - what a shame that we, who consider ourselves judge, have removed ourselves from this possibility.
3. It’s all symbolic. No substantial discussions have been had yet. All this talk of “it’s now past the point of talk” is hot air - how many Lambeth conferences have their been since the offending Bishops were appointed? Lets at least turn up to one before we start resigning ourselves to a split.
4. People can and do gather as they like, this is fine, however GAFCON is marketing itself rather blatantly as an alternative. Its existence - and obvious intention - is divisive.
5. This is I think the main thing you and I disagree about, and here I must insist that i think it is yourself that is “askew”. Sexual ethics are difficult to ascertain from the Bible texts alone. There are many practises the Jews linked with sexuality and marriage which we do not do today (kinsman redeeming, concubines etc), and plenty of things in modern western “Christian” practise that have little derivation from the scriptures (celibacy before marriage). Christian sexual mores are, and have always been, determined through very culture-specific interpretations (which include deliberate partial blindedness at points). It is we western Christians, with our folksy, oversimplified sexual codes, that are the revisionists (The Amish might be a better example of a group that has tried to maintain sexuality more closely akin to scriptural values). I believe this is one of those points in history much like what the Catholics still struggle with over the issue of Contraception. The same arguments for truth and natural law are being posited by the conservative factions, but over time these will come to be seen as less and less relevant, and eventually, simply embarrasing. Homosexuality is a mammoth issue, don’t get me wrong, but it is an issue of interpretation, not truth.
It’s funny, we studied 1 Corinthians 5 in Bible study tonight, and i was totally won over by its insistence on the need to judge in a Christlike way - the key is that it’s all so that God’s light might be ultimately revealed in the sinner’s life!The key difference between that situation and the issue of homosexuality, though, was that there was no doubt that incest-marriage was wrong - it was an expressly forbidden, and culturally deplored act. Can we stand with such confidence and say that homosexual love (as distinct from “those who abuse themselves with mankind”, male temple prostitutes, pederasts, perverts and lustful unions) is forbidden by God?
Thanks for taking the time to respond carefully to my previous post. It seems clear to me that there is some ground here that we will not quickly agree on. I think it is too easy to categorise a particular teaching as a matter of interpretation - we can eventually rewrite the whole of Biblical teaching on that basis if we are so inclined.
As to the particular issue at hand - that of homosexual practice, not love - there is little doubt that the Bible condemns it. Attempts to say otherwise are very recent, and seem to be driven almost entirely by the desire to legitimse such behaviour.
The stronger argument, however, is what the Bible does say about marriage between a man and a woman, and the appropriate expression of sexual desire in that context. Sometimes we need to draw boundaries around what the Bible affirms, even when it doesn’t specify all the consequential prohibitions that flow from that affirmation. In this regard, you might spend some time considering what are the Biblical arguments against paedophilia - are there any specific prohibitions? Should we return to the practices of a culture where men could take wives at an age which we consider to be well and truly in childhood?
As to the original motivation of Phil in starting this thread, I have no doubt that David Short (whom I studied with) and Jim Packer, would crave not only our prayers but also our solidarity in action!
Can we stand with such confidence and say that homosexual love (as distinct from “those who abuse themselves with mankind”, male temple prostitutes, pederasts, perverts and lustful unions) is forbidden by God?
Yes, I think we can. I suspect this is now morphing into something that probably has been discussed on another post or posts, but while re-interpretations of the text can always be offered, the clearest and most obvious way of reading Romans 1:27 and 1 Cor 6:9 is that homosexual sexual behaviour is wrong. My impression (others may be able to confirm this) is that recently even those who would seek to defend this behaviour acknowledge that this is what Paul was condemning (they just claim that Paul got it wrong.)
One thing I got from Phillip’s presentation the other day was that we should not be supporting the appointment of anyone who is an openly unrepentant sinner to a position of Christian leadership. An openly adulterous heterosexual should not be appointed, nor should an openly unrepentant thief or drunkard. But active involvement in homosexual activity also falls within the category of sin in the Bible. This must not lead to vilification of the people involved, of course- it should lead to prayer for their repentance and restoration (which Paul says in 1 Cor 5:5 is the aim of his exhortation to the Corinthians to discipline the man guilty of another form of sexual sin.) But 1 Cor 5:11 says that we should not fellowship with those who “bear the name of brother” and continue in unrepented sexual immorality.
GAFCON is marketing itself rather blatantly as an alternative.
.
Tim, I have to say that is simply untrue. Peter Jensen, our godly archbishop, has been very clear in stating publicly on many occasions that GAFCON is not an alternative to Lambeth. He also recognises that some will attend both GAFCON and Lambeth.
Would someone with greater technical ability than I have be able to to put a link on this thread to the Archbishop’s statement on why he is not going to Lambeth and why GAFCON is being held? That would be very helpful to many I have no doubt.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
