Thankyou to those who have made such careful and reasoned responses. 

I think I am working from a different standpoint as one who welcomes many of the changes that others decry. It is becoming clearer that the form of unity I feel is not the same as that felt by evangelical Christians.

I am caught in a bind - many of my friends are evangelical Christians. Many of my friends are “liberal” Christians. Some of them are even sub-christian Roman Catholics and Orthodox. We pray together, share our lives together, study the scriptures together and care pastorally for people together. Even though our “official” Gods differ - when it really matters, at the point of seeking to live Godly lives and help make God’s kingdom present in the world, none of that matters. We share a kind of “unofficial” God - one based on experience of the divine, not in the faith statements and formulae of our various traditions.

I know that experience is a dirty word for some - because it is so subjective and anyone can make an argument from it - but surely there is something to be said for a unity based on shared experience. So, for example, even though my Baptist friends and I have a very different understanding of atonement, we nevertheless recognise in each other the presence of one freed from sin by the resurrection of Christ.

In my experience, many of the barriers between Christians are broken down by shared experience. Particularly in the diocese of Sydney, where there are practically no “progressive orthodox” or “liberal” Anglicans, the only comments that can be made are about unknown people in another place. The leaders in the heirarchy get to engage at General Synod and such like, but, for the most part, Sydney Anglicans only experience alternative viewpoints second-hand and accompanied by bias and defensiveness. Many evangelicals that I know have been pleasantly surprised to discover that “liberals” are not the demons they had been told to expect. Likewise in the opposite direction. Similarly, regarding the whole “gay” issue, many people have had their minds changed when they saw the godliness of some gay and lesbian people.

Is it conceivable that God is present in the lives of people who do not share the same doctrine, but are nevertheless faithful Christians? Or not?

Mike, I’m sure those conservative Christians have complained before! They have been outraged at every step taken by their liberal counterparts. They were outraged at the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Of course they were. Just no-one listened to them. The press didn’t publicise their frustration.

The difference with the episcopacy is that now this ‘ministry’ will be forced up on people who cannot accept it in conscience. Before you could at least choose to not sit under their ministry, by going to the church in the next suburb. But if you live in New Hampshire, you have no choice, unless you leave the diocese.

That’s why we need alternative episcopal oversight. That’s why the fuss. Does that help you understand the timing?

Chris, I have greatly appreciated your tenor on this thread.

In my experience, many of the barriers between Christians are broken down by shared experience. Particularly in the diocese of Sydney, where there are practically no “progressive orthodox” or “liberal” Anglicans, the only comments that can be made are about unknown people in another place.

Generally speaking, you may be right, although in my case I grew up in Newcastle, so am familiar with liberalism & Anglo-Catholicism.

Is it conceivable that God is present in the lives of people who do not share the same doctrine, but are nevertheless faithful Christians? Or not?

Up to a point, sure. It depends upon the degree to which that doctrinal discrepancy impacts upon the acceptance of Christ’s Lordship. The boundaries of that are defined by scripture. If I am told to disassociate myself from those who pursue disobedience, then I cannot remain faithful to God and in association with Gene Robinson (among others).

I feel like I have been put in a position where I can either remain faithful to God and break association with parts of the Anglican Church, or can maintain association while participating in their ‘evil deeds’ (2 John 11). That is the quandry of the evangelical Anglican. The rubber band has been stretched too far. We are forced to choose between our denominational cohesion and our God.

It is with considerable pain that we will make the choice.

The difference with the episcopacy is that now this ‘ministry’ will be forced up on people who cannot accept it in conscience. Before you could at least choose to not sit under their ministry, by going to the church in the next suburb. But if you live in New Hampshire, you have no choice, unless you leave the diocese.

Thanks for your explanation Matt.  Just a query re: the above quote.  I understand your arguement of forced episcopacy, however, a person like Robinson does not progress through the ranks to become a bishop without the full and frank support of people in his dioces...and as far as I can see it, the current bishop is 100% behind him...endorsing his position.  So don’t they already live under a forced episcopacy?  So their choice was taken long long ago before Robinson became a major player on the field.  What is the difference between someone who wholeheartedly and totally endorses all this, and a man who lives it?  Jesus said (my paraphrase) that even if you contemplate murder in your own heart, you are guilty of it.

You’re right, Mike, and I would personally draw the line a lot earlier than it has been drawn. I could not in conscience accept the ministry of someone who (I believe) teaches against scripture so flagrantly. In many cases, conservative parishes have rejected the oversight of bishops once they publicly acknowledged their approval of same-sex relationships (e.g. New Westminster, and some also in ECUSA). So there is a consistency there. Different people are wrestling with how to draw the line, and coming to different conclusions, but it is all around the same place!

I think the main difference is that when the bishop is involved in the activity himself it is easier to pin down. However crass that may seem.

This is a symptom of a larger problem that is an ever-widening gulf between the streams of thinking in the Anglican Church. It is just the most concrete step, the most flagrant opposition to the voice of scripture.

No more can the slippery rephrasing of bishop-speak veil what is really being taught. No longer can the debate be veiled in terms of ‘conversation’ and ‘love’. This is about endorsing this activity by consecrating a participant, declaring it no longer a symptom of rebellion against God. That fact can no longer be veiled.

What is the difference between someone who wholeheartedly and totally endorses all this, and a man who lives it? Jesus said (my paraphrase) that even if you contemplate murder in your own heart, you are guilty of it.

I don’t think this quote from Jesus applies directly. We can’t assume that all bishops who endorse homosexual activity do so to sanction their own desires. So they have not necessarily contemplated the sin for themselves.

The parts of the bible (e.g. Titus 1) that speak of the need for overseers to be people who preach with sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it would be more directly relevant.

As I see it, the charity of conservative Christians has already been extended too far. We have waited until there is absolutely nothing tying us together except a structure. As Wolfhart Pannenberg said, this is the issue on which biblical authority most clearly stands or falls. If we let this through, nothing will stem the tide.

If a division is to happen, there always has to be a line somewhere where it eventuates, and wherever you draw that line people will always say ‘why here’? I think there is a sound biblical argument that it should have been drawn earlier. Sadly, I don’t think there is a sound biblical argument for waiting any longer.

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

The Guardian wrote:

Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the modern history of Christianity, was consecrated last night by the US Episcopal Church before 3,000 worshippers and 54 bishops in the incongruous surroundings of an ice rink on a university campus in New Hampshire.

Incongruous? Not really.

I would have thought the ECUSA was skating on thin ice wherever they held it…

;-) Matt

P.S. Great interview tonight on Lateline - finally an interviewer allowed Peter Jensen to make his position understood.

Well, seeing as we seem to have established consensus on whether or not we can all hang together - I wonder if you guys have any suggestions, coz I’m all out of ideas.

To be frank, I have no intention on giving up on biblical scholarship, liberation theology and liberalism in general which have been such an important part of my faith journey. Part of that involves respecting and valuing evangelicalism, even if sometimes its hard, because I believe that the grace of God is mediated through a variety of means. Even though there are examples of liberals who treat evangelicals with derision, for the most part, it is a live and let live mentality that prevails in Australian Anglicanism. I personally think that a bishop who is homosexual is OK, and hope to see a few more - but I’m also conscious that its only going to happen in another diocese with a majority of willing voters in Synod, so it will only be as “forced” as, say, electing a bishop who doesn’t believe in bishops.

The Sydney heirarchy seems to be supporting parishes who disagree with their bishop to adopt other paths. Will that cut both ways? Can the rest of us maintain membership of our parishes but leave our dioceses? I can think of a few takers in Sydney. What about the property? Should each parish that leaves take a proportional amount of assets with them? Or do we just get told to shove off? If there are parallel churches in the Anglican tradition, will one be anathematised by the other? Will there be little tracts - “Who are the real Anglicans”? Or will it be amicable - a peaceful parting of ways.

Sorry to be provocative. I, and many others who do not post on these boards, would like to either have a diverse church, or to have a piece of the pie to continue doing our thing. Is this possible?

....so it will only be as “forced” as, say, electing a bishop who doesn’t believe in bishops. ...

*snort*

Hi Chris,

To be frank, I have no intention on giving up on biblical scholarship, liberation theology and liberalism in general which have been such an important part of my faith journey. Part of that involves respecting and valuing evangelicalism, even if sometimes its hard, because I believe that the grace of God is mediated through a variety of means.

Please understand that evangelicals do not require anyone to give up on biblical scholarship. I have shelves full of scholarly volumes by liberals, catholics, evangelicals and critical scholars alike. I actually value many of my critical volumes more as they challenge my existing ideas, rather than just repeating them in more depth.

If I can be equally frank for a moment, if your world-view involves respecting and valuing evanglicalism, why is this the first thread (at least in my memory) where your tone has reflected that respect?

Even though there are examples of liberals who treat evangelicals with derision, for the most part, it is a live and let live mentality that prevails in Australian Anglicanism.

I’m afraid that is not my experience (or many friends) with Newcastle Diocese, nor is it the experience of numerous friends in Perth Diocese. There is more of a tendency to spit vitriol at evangelicals while forcing changes on them against their consciences, and then as soon as they start to say “enough is enough” liberals pull out the rhetoric about ‘unity’ and staying together as though the evangelicals were the innovators. All the aggressive and intolerant liberals suddenly put on a charade of cuddly tolerance and liberality for a while, then push the next innovation through, inflaming the situation again. I’ve seen the cycle too many times.

The Sydney heirarchy seems to be supporting parishes who disagree with their bishop to adopt other paths. Will that cut both ways? Can the rest of us maintain membership of our parishes but leave our dioceses? I can think of a few takers in Sydney. What about the property? Should each parish that leaves take a proportional amount of assets with them? Or do we just get told to shove off? If there are parallel churches in the Anglican tradition, will one be anathematised by the other? Will there be little tracts - “Who are the real Anglicans”? Or will it be amicable - a peaceful parting of ways.

I’d like to think there can be a peaceful parting of ways, were it necessary. I think I would support the idea of parishes in Sydney (say) moving under the episcopal oversight of the Bishop of Canberra/Goulburn or Bathurst (say) in return for evangelical parishes in regional NSW & ACT being allowed to choose episcopal oversight from Sydney.

It would be too messy to speak of ‘proportional amounts of assets’ (since to really do that would involve selling all diocesan property and redividing the pie) but I imagine the parishes could perhaps have their own property holdings transferred between dioceses’ property trusts.

It sounds good in theory. Of course it will be much messier in practice. Because we cannot assume that even a single parish has a united theology. So there will be inevitable pain in the process.

But I agree, alternative oversight ought to be reciprocal.

Then again, can you really point to evangelical bishops as ‘unsuitable’ to be bishops? By what authority? You would want to have a good reason to reject a bishop’s oversight. “Our Bishop believes in God and the authority of the bible and the necessity of living under Christ’s Lordship” doesn’t really qualify as a reason to reject them.

Having said all that, I don’t think the Anglican Church in Australia is at that point, and I hope that liberal innovations won’t force it to that point here. I guess we will all be watching the fallout in the broader communion, and General Synod will be very interesting.

The issue of women bishops may well force an agreement on a structure for alternative episcopal oversight through General Synod, that will pave the way for homosexuality to be dealt with in a similar fashion. I guess we can only wait and see.

If I can be equally frank for a moment, if your world-view involves respecting and valuing evanglicalism, why is this the first thread (at least in my memory) where your tone has reflected that respect?

What can I say? Mostly I post on here when I’m in a bad mood. I tried to give up, but then I though I oughta fight the good fight and keep y’all on your toes. I have repented of being argumentative, and intend to now be surly. ;)

I’d like to think there can be a peaceful parting of ways, were it necessary. I think I would support the idea of parishes in Sydney (say) moving under the episcopal oversight of the Bishop of Canberra/Goulburn or Bathurst (say) in return for evangelical parishes in regional NSW & ACT being allowed to choose episcopal oversight from Sydney.

Good plan. What do the rest of ya’ll think? Would you vote for it in synod? Would ACL support is, seeing as they’re the ones who really matter?

Then again, can you really point to evangelical bishops as ‘unsuitable’ to be bishops? By what authority? You would want to have a good reason to reject a bishop’s oversight. “Our Bishop believes in God and the authority of the bible and the necessity of living under Christ’s Lordship” doesn’t really qualify as a reason to reject them.

True, although “Our Bishop refuses to celebrate the Euchrist here” could be one. As could “our bishop refuses to let us have a priest who shares our ecclesiological tradition” could be another. There are also those who would view Lay Presidency as being too far to stretch. I suppose the other would be “Our bishop thinks large chunks of our congregation are unrepentant sinners, whereas we think they are faithful Christians”.

I am kinda pleased to see that at least one person endorses a reciprocal arrangement, although I would prefer to maintain the current arrangement of tension.

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]P.S. Great interview tonight on Lateline - finally an interviewer allowed Peter Jensen to make his position understood.

It was good.  When oh when will interviewers stop trying to catch him out by quoting Leviticus at him??  Please… like we haven’t thought about it..

[quote author="’Lateline‘“]Jones: But Leviticus says that you shouldn’t wear clothes of two types of cloth.

Jensen: Oh dear, really.  well that is a bit silly.  I guess homosexuality must be OK.

I loved how Terry Jones kept saying “lets just stay in the old testament” and Jensen said “why would I stay just in the Old Testament.. I am a Christian after all “..  lol

Anyway, the transcript is up on their site.

LOL Rowen!

BTW, it’s Tony Jones

For me the highlight was Tony asking him about 1 Corinthians 6.

TONY JONES: St Paul talks about homosexuality, or at least he’s reported to, 1 Corinthians, chapter 6, verse 9, he says the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God and he includes homosexuals, adulterers, the covetous and drunkards.

DR PETER JENSEN: Yes, indeed.

TONY JONES: That’s in the New Testament.

Should they all be seen together and therefore prohibited from becoming priests?

DR PETER JENSEN: Of course.

That’s what the ‘Bible’ says.

Not quite caught in the transcript, Tony was asking the question with the same tone of incredulity as the Leviticus prohibitions. Do you really expect that your clergy aren’t greedy or drunkards? Noooh. What a lark!

Peter was, like, umm, well yes, we do. Hello.

(Curious too that the transcriptor thought Peter Jensen said ‘bible’ in inverted commas. I don’t recall him doing the finger-wiggle thing!)

But you have to give Tony credit - compared to most interviewers, he does actually allow his interviewees reasonable impact on the direction of the interview. Not quite Andrew Denton style listening, but a lot better than most.

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]
Not quite caught in the transcript, Tony was asking the question with the same tone of incredulity as the Leviticus prohibitions. Do you really expect that your clergy aren’t greedy or drunkards? Noooh. What a lark!

Peter was, like, umm, well yes, we do. Hello.

Matthew, I initially had the same reaction as you and I thought Tony had bombed out big time on that question.  However, as the interview progressed I think it became apparent that there was more to Tony’s question on 1 Corinthians and perhaps he was being more clever than it seemed at first.  Read on ...

TONY JONES: Let me ask you this - would you accept the ordination or the consecration of that of a former drunkard or a former adulterer?

DR PETER JENSEN: Possibly.

It would depend upon the nature of what has happened in their lives before and whether they were Christian at the time or not.

TONY JONES: But not of a former homosexual?

DR PETER JENSEN: Well, same answer.

It depends on the circumstances.

But there would be questions to be raised in those cases.

That very texture of quote goes on to say “and such were some of you’.

In other words people were like that but there is transformational change offered in Christianity.

That’s the good news.

TONY JONES: The reason I ask that is you strongly objected to the consecration of Jeffrey John in Britain and yet he claims to be celibate.

And therefore he’s not a practising homosexual.

In other words, I think the original question about 1 Corinthians was designed ultimately to try and catch Peter out in relation to Jeffrey John.  Having said that, I don’t think Tony was in fact successful in catching Peter out.  Again, Peter gave a very measured and sensible response:

TONY JONES: ....why don’t you view him in terms of a reformed homosexual, for example?

DR PETER JENSEN: Because that’s not what he is.

He has not repudiated homosexual practices.

She [sic] celibate himself, he tells us, and I believe him when he says that, but he is not saying that what he did before was wrong and he’s repented of it.

Yes, I agree though it was a very good interview over all.

Andrew.

My favourite part of the interview:

TONY JONES: But these were rules handed down by Moses to God, isn’t that right, in the Old Testament?

DR PETER JENSEN: Well, by God to Moses, I think.

TONY JONES: By God to Moses, I beg your pardon.

We know I got that wrong.

I think this is what you call a Freudian slip.

I missed it last night- was too busy watching .... *looks around cautiously* Australian Idol *runs for cover* which I taped earlier in the evening (Yes. I’m out of the closet. I actually like Australian Idol… well apart from the name of the show [which incidentally makes a good talking point with Scripture Kids] and all the rubbish between the actual performances… which really only leaves me liking the performances themselves...).

But I just read the entire transcript (of Lateline that is! Not AI) and then noticed the little link at the bottom where you can watch the actual interview. Yay for technology!

It looked like a great interview, and it seem Peter Jensen was able to actually get asked some decent questions and be allowed to answer them.

By the way read this article this afternoon and thought the closing sentence (by Rev. Richard Kirker, general secretary of Britain’s Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement) was a lovely sentimental idea.

“We Christians have so much to unite and inspire us, let us seize the moment and let our love for each other triumph over our divisions,” he said.

Pity it doesn’t make any sense in the light of the gospel and the current situation.

“We Christians have so much to unite and inspire us, let us seize the moment and let our love for each other triumph over our divisions,” he said.

It must be a typo, I’m sure he meant to say

We Christians have so much to unite and inspire us, let us seize the moment and let our sentimental desire for goodwill & unity triumph over God’s demand for holiness and sanctity

Note to self: make new-year’s resolution to stop being so cynical & sarcastic :)

Glenn