tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43321392687027079572024-03-09T02:12:06.067+13:00Hermeneutics and Human DignityAn Anglican Down Under special interest blog - a contribution from an evangelical perspective to debates over what the Bible means, especially in respect of the dignity of all human beings.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger169125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-40693356065246823812020-09-04T20:01:00.004+12:002020-09-04T20:01:44.113+12:00Thoughtfulness here<p>As posted on <a href="https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/how-do-we-handle-the-complexities-of-the-bible-sexual-ethics-and-contemporary-culture/">Psephizo</a> ...</p>Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-45648773088556788802020-06-01T07:21:00.001+12:002020-06-01T07:21:12.679+12:00A note about justification (righteousness) in Paul2 Corinthians 3:9<br />
<br />
If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness. (NIV)<br />
<br />
For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of justification abound in glory! (NRSV)<br />
<br />
If glory accompanied the ministry that brought condemnation, how much richer in glory must be the ministry that brings acquittal! (REB)<br />
<br />
For if the service of bringing judgement against [is, or was] glory, how much more in glory excels the service of righteousness (making just). (My translation).<br />
<br />
<i>Why note this?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Because recently on ADU there have been discussions about Doug Campbell's recent works, The Deliverance of God and Pauline Dogmatics, which have raised the question how important "justification by faith" is to Paul's gospel.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>2 Corinthians 3:9 implies is it very important because "service of righteousness/justification" sums up the gospel when compared to the Law.</i>Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-13513693273862865842019-11-17T21:01:00.001+13:002019-11-17T21:01:40.492+13:00Further thoughts, November 2019A year or so on from the schism in our church over the GS 2018 decision to permit blessing of same sex civil marriages or civil unions, I remain convinced that:<br />
- a church schism should not be over a decision whose greatest effect is on a very small minority of church members;<br />
- the GS decision remains, in my view, as close to right as we could expect the body of Christ to get when the body of Christ is of two minds on a matter (and a year on, I continue to marvel at the difference in convictions about the matter, between Anglicans, often worshiping together in the same pew; and I cannot think of another matter in which such sharp difference exists among faithful Anglicans);<br />
- I think Romans 13:8-10 is very important as we weigh these matters up, consistently reviewing our thinking in respect of the overriding law, Love your neighbour as yourself.<br />
And Romans 13:8-10 is not far from Roman 14-15 which is still, in my view, critical to handling the sharpest differences among us.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-37466287599655280152019-06-06T13:21:00.003+12:002019-11-11T20:42:43.696+13:00Clarity (or not)?In response to a request on Twitter earlier today for a clear statement, with a link, from me, I post the following, here:<br />
<br />
1. As Bishop of Christchurch, via my electoral college papers, I have committed myself, within the polity of ACANZP, to permit a priest or bishop blessing a same-sex civil marriage or civil union, within a church, where application is made to me, and where I am satisfied that the conduct of such blessing will enhance the common life of the ministry unit concerned.<br />
<br />
2. I have also committed myself to not conduct such blessings myself because I do not read Holy Scripture as supporting such blessings.<br />
<br />
3. Clearly, logically, I accept the possibility of a different reading of Scripture existing within and being applied in the life of the church (without fear of discipline, as ensured by the decisions of our General Synod in 2018).<br />
<br />
4. Recently, in a verbal conversation concerning my views, in response to a question why, given my own view, as bishop I nevertheless permit another view within my Diocese, I said something like this: I lack conviction that I am completely right and those who wish to conduct blessings are completely wrong.*<br />
<br />
5. That is, I am comfortable having space for different views on this matter in our church.<br />
<br />
6. My sense of comfort is enhanced by my concern that to exclude the possibility of different views, and to shut down the possibility of blessing same-sex civil marriages and civil unions is to make our church an unbearable place for gay and lesbian members.<br />
<br />
7. *It is a much longer piece of writing to explain why I lack the conviction of many fellow Anglicans, but I happily refer readers of this post to posts below and to many posts and comments on my blog, Anglican Down Under.<br />
<br />
8. I am clear that my approach involves compromise and accommodation. Many Anglicans are unwilling to join me in make such compromise and in being associated with such accommodation. Nevertheless I continue to be surprised and pleased by the Anglicans who are willing to join me.<br />
<br />
[Added a few days after the first 8 were posted]<br />
<br />
9. I am very concerned that the way in which homosexuality is made an issue in the life of churches in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has an (unintended, I am sure) effect of further marginalizing an already marginalized group within churches. If for no other reason than not wanting to participate in this further marginalization, I do not see myself leaving a church, let alone forming a new church, because of this issue.<br />
<br />
10. I am also concerned at the kind of "God" and "Christ" we construct when we act and speak as though the God of Jesus Christ is displeased with a church which permits within itself plausible differences over this matter. I do not find in the gospels a Christ whose longing for the church is that it is so clear over sexuality that a disagreement is worth breaking up the church - the Christ, that is, who enjoyed dinner parties with sinners, accepted anointing from a notorious woman, and observed but did not condemn the promiscuous life of the Samaritan woman we met at the well. Yes, the same Christ of the gospels is strict on sexual morality, tough on divorce, etc, but the "whole" Christ of the gospels is not constructing a movement which will become a church which will divide over a legal matter.<br />
<br />
[Added a week or two later]<br />
<br />
11. In my own thinking, I acknowledge a degree of pragmatism (or, if you like, unashamed pragmatism) but a pragmatism which I suggest is in keeping with, rather than against, Scripture.<br />
<br />
12. By "pragmatism" I mean something like this: ideally, every human being is male or female, heterosexual, so appropriate coupling takes place, for the sake of fruitfulness via multiplication, and intimate, sexual companionship, as per Genesis 1 and 2. Within that ideal, further, marriage is for life, it is "one flesh" (so monogamous), mates who mate for life, so no divorce. In reality, life [post Genesis 3] takes turns which mean humanity, including God's special people, Israel, is often making adjustments to the ideal. Most obviously, there is polygamy (which is a practical or pragmatic solution in a situation which is not "welfare state" for the provision and protection of women) and there is the Mosaic acceptance of divorce and remarriage (which, later, Jesus will challenge). There are also various rules for what happens when ... slavewomen are raped etc ... there are some pragmatic passages in the Mosaic Law which are not generally studied in parish Bible study groups!<br />
<br />
13. Within 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul argues for the ideal of celibacy, he nevertheless accepts the pragmatic reality that one can burn with sexual desire and thus marriage is to be preferred. Within that chapter is argument for a "Pauline Exception" to the general rule not to remarry after divorce; as there is in the way Matthew presents the teaching of Jesus, the so-called "Matthean Exception."<br />
<br />
14. In summary: Scripture proposes an ideal (which Jesus and Paul uphold) but Scripture also demonstrates that the ideal is often departed from because the remedy for fallen human sexuality (our inability to live up to the ideal) may require a revised set of rules to account for failure to live to the ideal. Exceptional circumstances, we could say, lead to exceptions to the ideal being accepted.<br />
<br />
15. Thus my "accommodation" and "compromise" is not about flying in the face of what Scripture says about the ideal of sexuality (i.e. that only men and women, and only when married to each other, engage in sexual intercourse), denying, so to speak, the plain message of Scripture. It is about asking whether we now have exceptional circumstances, first, in respect of our modern understanding of homosexuality, secondly, in respect of our modern society making a way for civil legislation to be enacted which provides a means for same-sex couples to live transparent, public lives, free from discrimination and prejudice; and thus, in these exceptional circumstances, asking whether we might make a way within the church for exceptions to the ideal to be accepted.<br />
<br />
16. I think we do need to say, again and again, what Anglican churches around the world are deciding in respect of same sex partnerships is not supporting sexual promiscuity, casual sex, orgiastic decadence, unjust/abusive sex between unequal partners. Not at all. What is being decided is whether the church - pragmatically - supports covenantal partnerships, undergirded by civil legislation, which ask of each partner the same faithfulness, sacrificial love, permanent commitment for life which has traditionally been asked of a husband and wife. That is a high standard for something which is pragmatic!<br />
<br />
<i>Peter Carrell</i>Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-73393838669214963992018-06-04T12:17:00.002+12:002018-06-04T13:44:16.952+12:00Revisiting 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 after GSTHW 20181 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that [the unjust, <i>adikoi</i>] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators (<i>pornoi</i>), idolaters, [people remarried after divorce, <i>moikoi</i>, Luke 16:18], male prostitutes (<i>malakoi</i>), sodomites (<i>arsenokoitai</i>), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." (NRSV with variation)<br />
<br />
1 Corinthians 7:8-9: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (NRSV)<br />
<br />
1 Corinthians 12:13 "For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."<br />
<br />
As I engage with discussion here and there, on and off the blog, I note a concern that ACANZP's decision to permit blessings of civil marriages or civil unions between two people of the same sex is <b>false teaching which imperils people's salvation</b>.<br />
<br />
In this respect, frequent reference is made to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (cited above). Before going over the brink on the basis of this charge of false teaching, could we examine the text one more time with a view to seeing if it is appropriate to think there might be more than one interpretation of this text held within the same church?<br />
<br />
Absolutely, <b>one interpretation</b>, long held, consistently held around the church of God, is that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 teaches that homosexuals engaged in sexual practice are wicked/wrongdoers/unjust/<i>adikoi</i> and will not inherit the kingdom. (Homosexuals engaged in sexual practice: whether as <i>malakoi</i>, almost certainly, male prostitutes; or as <i>arsenokoites</i>, men engaging in sex with other men, whether as technically defined as the NRSV gives by offering "sodomites" or perhaps otherwise.) This is no light matter and it is no light matter to ask whether this interpretation is singular and thus authoritative in the life of the church, or not.<br />
<br />
There is <b>another interpretation</b> of this text. I suggest the key to this interpretation rests on the use of the word <i>adikoi</i> to cover all the specific forms of being a wrongdoer which are then listed. <i>Adikoi</i> is the opposite of <i>dikoi</i>, the opposite of acting justly. It is not difficult to connect injustice with the non-sexual behaviours in the list: idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers.<br />
<br />
What about the sexual behaviours and injustice? Fornicaters (<i>pornoi</i>) could be users and thus exploiters of prostitutes, adulterers (<i>moikoi</i>) act unjustly against the betrayed party to their marriage. In the debate over the exact meaning of <i>malakoi</i> and <i>arsenokoitai</i> (and there is much debate, both as to what these words meant when Paul wrote them, and how we should translate them in a different cultural situation) but it is highly likely that these words refer to men having sex with men in exploitative activity in which each partner to the activity is in an unjust relation to the other.<br />
<br />
That is, what is <b>not </b>condemned is something the <b>Scriptures do not discuss</b>: a consensual, just relationship between two men or two women freely entering into the mutual covenant of a civil marriage or civil union.<br />
<br />
In short, according to this interpretation, the blessing envisaged by ACANZP is not the blessing of a salvation-imperiling state of life.<br />
<br />
That is, we are <b>on the brink</b> of a church schism because it is denied that both these interpretations of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 can be held within the same church.<b> Can we pull back?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>There is an <b>additional aspect</b> for considering whether 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is condemning people in civil marriage or an equivalent lifelong civil union. That is, the same text also condemns those who are adulterers which (as my provocative rendition above notes) includes those remarried after divorce. Ah, say many Anglicans, remarriage after divorce is not adultery because one can repent of one's mistakes and start again.<br />
<br />
But <b>that is a reading of the Scriptures</b> which is at variance (i) with previous Anglican understanding, and (ii) the understanding of other Christians today (notably the Roman Catholic church). In other words, on "adulterers" in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, we have two live interpretations of the text existing in the same church. Can we not have two interpretations of <i>malakoi/arsenokoitai</i>?<br />
<br />
Incidentally, we are <b>not on the brink</b> of schism because of two interpretations of adulterers in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Why not? What is it that bothers us about one issue in human sexuality and does not bother us about another, though both figure in the same small passage of Scripture?<br />
<br />
The argument advanced here is that those who believe and teach that <i>malakoi/arsenokoitai</i> covers all same sex sexual activity, including that in non-exploitative civil marriages or civil unions should continue to do so. If this teaching is correct, then it is very important it is taught. But this teaching could be less strident about the certainty that it is correct because there is some uncertainty whether <i>malakoi/arsenokoitai</i> covers all same sex sexual activity (because we are not sure what ancient activity was being condemned).<br />
<br />
Conversely, rather than slating a different interpretation of the passage as false teaching, the view should be taken that it may be true teaching and given space to be considered in the life of our church.<br />
<br />
And, finally, we might always consider 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 on these matters: celibacy is not for all. Is it necessarily the case that it is compulsory, by definition, following one specific interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, for gay and lesbian Christians?<br />
<br />
Is it not odd of God that (at least, the Protestant) God presides over a world in which salvation is not imperilled no matter how many times you are married (providing you keep repenting) but enter into one lifelong, faithful civil marriage or civil union with the same sex love of your life and you are doomed?<br />
<br />
OK, maybe you do not consider that odd. But how we understand God lies behind all our interpretations of Scripture. Are we sure that in our treatment of Scripture in respect of heterosexuals and homosexuals we are consistent in respect of the God in whose name we interpret?<br />
<br />
Finally, 1 Corinthians 12:13 "For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." If this text is true then we are one body, whether we like it or not, whether we are of one mind or not. The implicit command of this teaching about the church is that we work out our differences within the one body and not by separating.<br />
<br />Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-57168356557707932952017-05-29T15:54:00.002+12:002017-05-29T15:54:08.854+12:00What is happening in the world of ...?Peer review <a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016">this</a>?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-89462675697009363372017-02-24T11:51:00.002+13:002017-02-24T11:53:29.640+13:00A Question of Obedience - a guest paper by the Rev Rhys Lewis, Auckland<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">A Question of
Obedience<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Google the word <i>obedience </i>and
check the images thrown up. Our culture, on this evidence at least, associates
the word <i>obedience</i> with something
stark, hard, uncompromising, unfeeling –
something from above, that puts us in a passive and inferior position –
something that strips us of individuality, that
allows no dialogue.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Discussions of Christian ethics, from an evangelical position at least,
put a high value on <i>obedience.</i> But
are we being heard aright? Are we even hearing ourselves? If we ask, does the
word obedience appear in the Hebrew and Greek, the answer is of course no. It’s
an English word! The question is, is it the right word to translate the terms
in the original languages?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">In Hebrew <i>obey </i>commonly
translates <i>shema</i>; which simply means <i>hear</i>. Shema is often accompanied by the
word <i>kol</i>, voice. <i>Hear my voice</i> in Hebrew is often translated <i>obey</i>. Does obey render that to you; does it capture the direct and
personal (and intimate?) quality of <i>hear <u>my</u>
voice?</i> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">The meaning is <i>to hearken</i>,<i> to hear and pay attention and do</i>. DBD from
an earlier generation, regards it as equivalent to obey, but thus translated
today, aren’t we losing something –
something personal, rooted in covenant theology? Evangelical faith emphasises
hearing God for ourselves, and knowing and trusting that also God hears us when
we speak to God. Deuteronomy 4:7 <i>The Lord our God is near us whenever we pray.</i> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">When the sergeant major barks an order it’s not personal, it’s one way –
it someone in authority system backed by army regulations, requiring us to act
according to the rules, to obey, according to orders received from above. The
Ten Commandments are the expression of the character of God, holy,
compassionate, good - they are from God’s own self. The Torah is not simply a
book of Laws; it is revelatory of God.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Parallel with the word <i>Shema</i>
is another Hebrew word often translated <i>obey
</i> - the word <i>shamar, </i>which means<i> </i> <i>to keep</i>.
It’s used over 400 times. God says <i>keep </i>my
commandment. <i>Shamar</i> has its origins
in the quite concrete sense of watching over, guarding - Adam
and Eve kept the garden; shepherds kept the flock; the warder kept
the captives; the watchman kept watch
over the city; you can keep food, keep your temper, keep the covenant , keep the
commandments.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">The basic idea is to exercise great
care. It’s a command as a personal trust, a keeping out of personal loyalty or
responsibility. In the marriage service the partners still swear to love, honour
and <b>keep</b> each other. It is the
keeping of the commandments in personal loyal faithfulness that the Old
Testament means by obeying. This connects <i>shamar</i>
closely with <i>shema. Shamar</i> combined
with <i>asah, to do</i>, (thus <i>hear to do</i>) means <i>to do diligently</i>. There is another word <i>natsar</i> which in a small number of cases is used in exactly the same
way eg Psalm 119: 2; <i>blessed are they
that keep his testimonies.<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">These are some of the First Testament terms. They express a personal
dimension of involvement which our word <i>obey,</i>
as it is heard in our culture, has lost. Yes, it is about obedience – but
obedience nurtured in personal relationship with the God whose steadfast love
endures for ever, and who gives us his commands, not that we should
unquestioningly <i>jump to it </i>in a bare
obedience, but that we should <i>keep</i>
them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">The classic First Testament statement is the the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4 <i>hear o Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is
one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all
your strength. These commandments that I give to you this day are to be upon
your hearts ---<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Love here is <i>ahav</i> – pretty
much the all-purpose Hebrew word for love – as in the Song of Solomon; and elsewhere - <i>love
the stranger in giving him food; how long will you love vanity; he loves
righteousness; whoever loves transgression loves strife</i> – <i>take your only son whom you love.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">The Shema calls for an exclusive <u>inward</u> devotion to God and
readiness to make sacrifices, even of possessions and life. It’s not mere obedience – it’s
heartfelt obedience, the height of the Old Testament faith.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">And Jesus took the call of God to a new depth. He says that joined to
him we are like the branch in the vinestock – Jesus very life and being is in
us, by his Spirit. We are free because we share His freedom. And in this
passage about the vinestock in John 15, Jesus says <i>abide</i> <i>in me.</i> Abide (Greek
<i>meno</i>) has the sense of making a home
with, or settling down permanently with, or keeping on keeping on somewhere or
with someone. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Jesus says, as the Father
has loved me, <i>so have I loved you; abide
in my love.<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">And then he says,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">And <i>if you <b>keep</b> my commandments you will abide in my love</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Here we have <i>keep</i> again; in
New Testament Greek the word is <b>tereo.</b>
Its origins are to keep in custody, or to keep something safe, to watch over or
guard something. Then by transferred sense it means, <i>to give heed, to pay attention</i>. It implies watchful care. It is
characteristic of John’s usage. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">So - <i>keep</i>; often translated <i>obey, </i>e.g.
in the original NIV translation.<i> </i>Yes,
but<b> keep</b> implies taking
responsibility for keeping whole these good things, keeping the commandments as
a personal trust from Jesus – so that we bear his fruit. <i>Keep my commandments them so your joy may be full</i> – for they are
life. What we keep is actually the trust from Jesus. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">The origin of our English word obey is the Latin <i>ob</i> toward and <i>audire</i>, to listen – to listen toward, to give ear, -
originally then, <i>hearing, </i>as in
Hebrew. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">It makes its appearance in English in the late 13c from French, with a
sense <i>of to obey or do ones duty</i>. So
it does mean obey as we mean it now? Yes and no. You have to contextualise it.
In feudal times the duty you owed was not to an abstraction – it was to your
lord who in return owed to you protection. Obeying related to a personal
relationship, or at least a feudal relationship with a particular person, sworn
before God. So it’s not hugely removed from the concept of covenant in the OT.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">In the New Testament, another word in the keep/guard group is <b>phulasso</b>, to guard or watch – <i>all these things I have kept from my youth</i>.
Other words signifying obedience are from the<b> acouo</b> stem – to hear. You would be hard put to find many words in
New Testament Greek with the sense of obey outside the hearing/keeping
vocabulary<a href="file:///C:/Users/Peter%20Carrell/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/WUYIQWI9/obedience%20compressed.docx#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[i]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Having said this, there is the term, hupacouo - t<i>o hearken submissively, to obey</i>, and its associated forms
translated obedience, obedient. Hupo means <i>under</i>.
Hupacouo, <i>to obey under. </i>Many of
these uses are however concerned with situations of social hierarchy, servants
obeying masters (Col 3:22), children obeying parents (Ephesians 6:1); it is
also used of the winds and waves obeying Christ (Mark 4:41), or the unclean
spirits obeying him(Mark 1:27). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Sometimes <i>humble submission and
acceptance</i> better captures the sense of hupacouo <i>– he learned obedience by the things that he suffered</i> (Hebrews
5:8).Philippians 2:8, <i>he humbled himself and became obedient unto
death. </i>But even for servants the obedience given, as Christians, to masters
is to be <i>wholehearted, fearing the Lord </i>(Col
3:22), <i>in singleness of heart</i>
(Ephesians 6:5).<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">So to answer the question I posed at the beginning, is the word
obey/obedience found in the original languages – no, at least not with the
rather abstract feel of our English word – rather with the concrete senses of <i>hear, hearken to</i>, and <i>keep and carry out.<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines obedience in current usage as <i>compliance with an order or law or
submission to another’s authority</i>. We
measure obedience by the fact of the act, and of our will to do the act, not on
the <i>from the heart quality</i>, the wholeness
of the relationship which gives meaning and power to God’s call to keep. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Jesus says<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="line-height: 107%;">Keep my
commandments so your joy may be full</span></i><span style="line-height: 107%;">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">So what we keep is actually the trust or charge from Jesus, and we keep
it in the grace of the Holy Spirit. This is evangelical obedience – quite
different from legalistic obedience which may simply outward compliance. It’s
the embracing of God’s purpose and being.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">In John 15:14 - 17 Jesus says<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">As my father
has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">if you keep
my command you will abide in my love; my command is this; love each other as I
have loved you<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">You are my
friends if you do what I command; this is my command – love one another<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">There is a dialectical movement here; love and command are paradoxically
defined in terms of each other; <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Our problem is partly that we tend to hear the word <u>command </u>as a
negative, addressed simply to the will. This is because of the inherent
rebelliousness of the heart<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">But Jesus is saying – <i>keep my
commandments </i>–<b> <i>my</i></b><i> commandments</i> – and
we know how Jesus turns things upside down. His commandments are not
burdensome. His commandments are tremendously positive.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">So what are some of Jesus
commandments?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">love your
enemies; forgive; give; ask; pray and do not lose heart; be peacemakers; hunger
and thirst for righteousness; be merciful; let your light shine; do to others
as you would have them do to you; turn the other cheek.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Of course here and elsewhere Jesus sets a high standard; but what is true
of these commandments is true of all his commandments, they are commandments of
freedom; commands to the heart. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Therefore think <b>positive</b> when
you think commandments <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">And think <b>loyalty to Jesus</b>
when you think commandments<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Is obedience importance – yes – it’s keeping with Jesus and letting his
life flow in us. Ii is critically important to really do in God’s way all God
has for us, desires for us. To serve him is perfect freedom. I do not think “obedience”
is optional – but I do not think the word<u> <i>obedience</i></u><i> </i>works very
well nowadays. Perhaps this is why, in <u>The Message</u> paraphrase, Eugene
Petersen used very sparingly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Now why doesn’t it work?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">In a famous analysis of modern society Peter Berger (in <u>The Homeless
Mind, </u>Penguin 1974) says that the lived experience of modern society is
dominated by two major factors – the dominance of technology and the dominance
of bureaucracy. We live in a world today of mass existence; we live in a
system. What do teachers and social
workers and police complain of?– that they have to fill in so many forms. We
are having to comply all the time; and when we come up against authority we
have to obey it or go through highly structures complaints procedures to
challenge it. Moreover our work is dominated by standard operating procedures;
work routines have been standardised along rational scientific lines. This
experience shapes our responses below our conscious awareness.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">So we are immersed in a world experience of obedience to bureaucracy and
compliance with standard procedures – a world essentially <u>impersonal.</u> That
is, what obedience means now, for us, is different to what it meant in 1611.
There, obedience to the law or to command took place in a small scale society
where you had a definite relationship with those you obeyed. The law was the
Queens law – and people’s personal feeling about Elizabeth the First was quite
different to our feeling about Elizabeth the Second<a href="file:///C:/Users/Peter%20Carrell/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/WUYIQWI9/obedience%20compressed.docx#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">[ii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">I’d suggest then that obedience no longer adequately translates what the
Bible means by hearing and doing, because the word obedience has shifted its
reference.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">What Jesus commands us must be done from the heart; this is inherent in
evangelical obedience.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Is doing Christ’s command easy? -
no precisely because it challenges our
very heart, our deepest attitudes, all those remnants of sin in us. Whether it’s
our fundamental selfishness, or pride, or laziness, or unforgiveness – our doing is always very imperfect.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">And if we are under temptation – then obedience can be appallingly
difficult – this is where <b>thou shalt not</b>
really bites. Obedience in matters touching the depths of the soul demands a
profound act – an act finally not of the will but of faith; for only as Christ
delivers us from our hardness of heart so that can we do his will from the
heart<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">Commandments – yes - <b>faithfully kept.</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;">We only hear the word in our context in terms of compliance to a
hierarchical authority or bureaucratic or scientific operating procedures.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But what is commanded by Christ is commanded <b>in love</b> and is delivered to us <b>bound
up in Christ’s promise</b>; our keeping his command must never be divorced from
promise of grace on God’s side and loyalty on ours, lived from the new life of
Christ in us.</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Peter%20Carrell/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/WUYIQWI9/obedience%20compressed.docx#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%;">[i]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"> There is a word peitho never used of obedience to God or Christ,
but rather to alien authorities</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Peter%20Carrell/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/WUYIQWI9/obedience%20compressed.docx#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 107%;">[ii]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"> </span>The Civil War of the
1640s and 50s shows how far and how quickly the bonds of society loosened and
the modern world came in; the King’s head was cut off! <o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-29560308460143471972016-11-30T21:18:00.003+13:002016-11-30T21:18:54.796+13:00EuthanasiaAm going to put a few links in here<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.mercatornet.com/careful/view/dont-let-assisted-suicide-come-to-the-nations-capital/19052">This</a>.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-46502937166170415082016-08-06T10:10:00.002+12:002016-08-06T10:10:27.993+12:00Wesley HillNote <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/08/wesley-hill-on-a-pastoral-response-to-same-sex-attraction/">this</a>, with links from it.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-12464359704858633672016-05-30T11:49:00.004+12:002016-06-23T10:13:37.433+12:00MarriageI will use this post to set down some links to important articles re marriage:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2014/10/10/the-solemnization-of-matrimony/">Marriage is marriage</a>.<br />
<br />
This <a href="http://www.episcopalcafe.com/new-zealand-no-to-same-sex-blessings/">Episcopal Cafe report</a> of our May 2016 ACANZP General Synod interests me because of the clear statement in a comment or two re marriage's essence being "the vows" and not the nature of the couple making them. That comment occurs within a series of comments by Tobias Haller (a very clear TEC thinker) which, I think, set out a progressive case for extending understanding of marriage to include same sex marriage by excluding gender as a relevant consideration for understanding what marriage is.<br />
<br />
Thus we read:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "palatino linotype" , "book antiqua" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px;">There is no settled, single “doctrine” of marriage — history shows that many aspects of marriage have changed in church teaching — there is at present wide divergence between RC, Eastern, Anglican, and Protestant marriage doctrine and practice. I would be willing to venture the guess that a good number of heterosexual marriages that take place in churches today would not have been permitted in the fourth, twelfth, or twentieth centuries — and some that take place in some churches today would still not be allowed in others.</span>"<br />
<br />
Then:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "palatino linotype" , "book antiqua" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px;">Cynthia, and John, that is an excellent example.</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', 'Book Antiqua', Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
To expand a bit on the practical (and doctrinal) reality: the current marriage liturgy in the BCP states that marriage is life-long and faithful (to a single partner) in vow language that long precedes that of the current book itself. This understanding of marriage rests on dominical authority.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', 'Book Antiqua', Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
At the same time, the canons allow for the marriage of a person divorced under civil law, with a former spouse still living.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', 'Book Antiqua', Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Rather than seeing this as a violation of the doctrine enshrined in the BCP, it is understood as an exception; and all clergy (again, under the canon) have the right to decline to officiate at any or all such marriages.</div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "palatino linotype" , "book antiqua" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px;">If and when the marriage liturgy of the BCP is finally amended to allow for same-sex marriages, the same circumstance will apply. (I will note that the proposed liturgy does not specify the sexes of the couple — and can be used for any couple, same- or mixed-sex — so to some extent the doctrinal question need not arise, as the liturgy focuses on the content of the vows themselves, which remain unchanged, and which constitute the actual “making” of the marriage. The canon was similarly revised in such a way as not to make any specific mention of “same-sex” issues — it is fully applicable to all marriages.)</span>"<br />
<br />
Followed by:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "palatino linotype" , "book antiqua" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px;">John, I can’t speak to the ANZP liturgy as I haven’t seen it; but as I noted above, the liturgy proposed for the TEC BCP isn’t a “same-sex marriage” liturgy, and it contains no new doctrine to which anyone must assent. It presents no difficulties in that regard. </span><i style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', 'Book Antiqua', Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px;">Using</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "palatino linotype" , "book antiqua" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px;"> the liturgy for a same-sex couple may cause some conscientious objection — and they are free not to make use of it.</span>"<br />
<br />
And then:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "palatino linotype" , "book antiqua" , "palatino" , serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.8571px;">Not in the Western tradition. The ministers are the couple, and the bond and covenant is present even in the absence of clergy. (Clergy and witnesses are required for legality, not sacramentality, for those who hold marriage to be a sacrament.)</span>"<br />
<br />
ADDED 22 June 2016<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/progressive-religion-orthodox-religion/">Rod Dreher</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.monomakhos.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/OCA-Statement-on-Marriage.pdf">OCA Statement</a> on Marriage, and use of Orthodox facilities in America.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-35895761919811675902016-03-06T11:52:00.000+13:002016-03-06T11:52:06.018+13:00To Q or not to Q?I haven't had much time for resolutions of the Synoptic Problems along the "have your cake and eat it" lines of Matthew knew Mark, Luke and Q or Luke knew Mark, Matthew and Q, but a note at Euangelion, "<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/03/a-defense-of-the-holtzmann-gundry-hypothesis-on-the-synoptic-problem/">A Defense of the Holtzmann-Gundry Hypothesis on the Synoptic Problem</a>," (siding with the latter solution) does give me pause for thought.<br />
<br />
After all, most times cake is offered to us, we get to eat it too, so why not in gospel scholarship? There are bits of Luke which are explained by his knowledge of Mark, bits that are explained by use of exactly the same non-Markan source as Matthew used, i.e. Q, and bits that are explained by use of Matthew.<br />
<br />
Yet problems remain. Maybe most pertinent in my thinking is Luke's Parable of the Pounds versus Matthew's Parable of the Talents. If Luke knows Matthew, why doesn't he use Talents? It is well written and has no awkward bits like Pounds has?<br />
<br />
Of course one could posit a staged process of composition. Luke gets to see Matthew after he has composed bits and bobs of his gospel and, in the Talents/Pounds case, sticks to his own story "warts and all."Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-4038550942507989492016-02-15T07:36:00.000+13:002016-02-15T07:36:47.653+13:00Tracking articlesSome articles I want to come back to in my writings are going to be posted here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/11/jesus-was-a-jew-understanding-jesus-and-same-sex-marriages-in-his-1st-century-jewish-not-our-21st-century-western-context/">Jesus was a Jew</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://longstoryshort.nz/seized-by-truth/">Seized by Truth</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/an-agonistic-ecclesiology-on-ephraim-radners-a-brutal-unity/">A Brutal Unity</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.reformation21.org/articles/paul-the-gift-1.php">Paul and the Gift</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=ZqtkAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=hermeneutics+of+mercy&source=bl&ots=O2plF6f8ax&sig=1TGko7uLXV1bOzTrUJP3hWKJB00&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyutiliLXJAhVBv5QKHT0gDtI4ChDoAQgXMAA#v=onepage&q=hermeneutics%20of%20mercy&f=false">Hermeneutics of Christian Psalmody</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://wipfandstock.com/the-blessing-of-mercy.html">The Blessing of Mercy</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/reading-lukes-gospel/">Reading Luke's Gospel</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng05.html">Girard's Breakthrough</a>Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-49899359992884167432016-02-11T20:57:00.003+13:002016-02-11T20:57:44.760+13:00Pretty Important Article<a href="http://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/theological-discourse-and-the-sexuality-debate/">Psephizo</a> makes important points and raises significant questions.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-49850403261291442882016-02-11T20:17:00.001+13:002016-02-11T20:46:14.717+13:00Same Sex Marriage in Ancient Rome?A commenter over at Anglican Down Under recently pointed out that Juvenal's Satire no. 2, lines 117 following (you can read it <a href="http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/JuvenalSatires2.htm">here</a>) ribs marriage between two men.<br />
<br />
Now I understand satire to be the satire of something real rather than imaginary, so I am imagining that Juvenal is ribbing an actual social phenomenon?<br />
<br />
Or is there another accounting for why Juvenal takes on same sex marriage contemporary to his time in the ancient world?<br />
<br />
So, is Juvenal pointing to something which some today say is new in our time?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://umich.edu/~classics/news/newsletter/winter2004/weddings.html">This article</a> makes clear that at least for a period (Nero to Domitian?) same sex marriage was tolerated in Roman society. But note something within the article is forcefully argued in another article <a href="https://eidolon.pub/straight-talk-about-gay-marriage-in-ancient-rome-9fd466672152#.p86ku625i">here</a>: there was no legal same sex marriage in ancient Rome, though there were same sex weddings celebrated. For another analysis, go <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1076101/posts">here</a>.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-33730895789470073852015-01-13T09:22:00.002+13:002015-01-13T15:37:22.020+13:00A or The Way Forward for ACANZP?This post by Trevor Morrison (<a href="http://tjm2014.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/review-of-ken-wilson-a-letter-to-my-congregation/">here)</a> is definitely worth a look, especially, if not urgently, by those who are keen to find 'a way forward' for ACANZP in the pathway charted by Motion 30!<br />
<br />
Added: for comparative reading, try this <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-february/my-train-wreck-conversion.html">wonderful story of conversion</a>.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-17267687999386036192014-08-13T06:53:00.001+12:002014-08-13T06:53:04.565+12:00Choice or chosen?Interesting article <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2014/08/being-gay-not-choice-it-s-simplistic-and-conservative-say-we-re-born-way">here</a>.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-48822791557751512862014-07-03T20:08:00.003+12:002014-07-03T20:08:32.850+12:00Biblical texts on same sex unionsThere is a <a href="http://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/the-biblical-texts-on-same-sex-unions/">Grove Booklet</a> out.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-69468573931290738872014-06-25T21:35:00.003+12:002014-06-25T21:35:35.420+12:00Just a letter?A post at ADU <a href="http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/forensic-detection-of-well-intended.html">may be of interest</a> in connection with understanding the Bible!Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-17521647419308363542014-03-14T07:11:00.003+13:002014-03-14T07:11:41.820+13:00RegulationMiranda Threlfall-Holmes has a thoughtful post on '<a href="http://mirandathrelfallholmes.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/sex-and-marriage.html">Sex and Marriage</a>'. I suggest she both gets a basic issue in current debates (when is sex sinful and when is it not) and offers an answer which begs other questions (when love is present sex is not sinful ... but that begs many questions re marriage, including why marry at all).<br />
<br />
Time does not permit a full analysis of this post (and, in any case, that could be conducted by engaging in the comments at the post itself). Rather I want to lodge my own question here re sex which has been catalysed by her post:<br />
<br />
why - from the perspective of Scripture as God's voice intruding in human affairs - is sex sinful in some circumstances and not in others?<br />
<br />
To give a mere sketch of where an answer might head: sex is a physical act between two human beings which is invested with meaning beyond the basic biological fact concerning a purpose of sex, the procreation of another human being; it is the investment of meaning concerning sex which leads to concepts of sex is sometimes sinful and sometimes not; and it is the question of who invests meaning concerning sex which lies at the heart of our debates, with particular attention being paid to the following possible investors: the state, society, church, individuals and individual coupls.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-82850918518473677502014-03-12T07:05:00.000+13:002014-03-12T07:05:20.921+13:00Prejudice for or against?In a post on the changing state of marriage (see no 6 in post below for link) this statement is made:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d1a1a; font-family: 'Open Sans'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 23.399999618530273px;">What once again is clear when those who say the debates are not sourced in prejudice about homosexuality, but are about integrity to scripture and tradition, is that whilst a sea change has occurred in the understanding of marriage, they have only begun to register an issue when the direction heads towards committed same-sex couples.</span>"</blockquote>
<br />
Is the situation as straightforward as made out here?<br />
<br />
In my mind the following questions are registering:<br />
<br />
(a) If debates on the changing state of marriage focus on enlarging the definition of marriage to include two men or two women <i>but not brother and sister nor three or more partners</i> is there a prejudice <i>for same sex partnerships and against incestuous and polygamous relationships?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
(b) Put another way, if the question of change to understanding to marriage is pressed to make further change to marriage, why does it stop at a certain point and not continue? (Note: this is a double-edged question within current debates because it is precisely the question which advocates of same sex marriage can ask about the advocacy of remarriage after divorce. Nevertheless I suggest it is an important question at any point in advocacy of change).<br />
<br />
(c) If previous change to marriage is the most pressing reason for further change to marriage (as appears to be the case in some expressions of current debate), is that a strength or a weakness? Is it not a weakness in the argument if the church reforms its understanding of marriage in a conservative direction?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-20434727895858375712014-02-17T08:54:00.001+13:002014-03-12T06:56:08.704+13:00One Stop Link Shop re Relevant Links for ACANZP ConversationsThe following are some links which should enable the reader to catch something of the flavours and feelings within the global and local Anglican conversation about homosexuality.<br />
<br />
No attempt is made to offer a balanced set of links (e.g. the same number of links for liberal/conservative voices); no priorities should be read into which link is given first and which is given last.<br />
<br />
On this Hermeneutics and Human Dignity site it is worth rummaging through previous posts and working from links within them.<br />
<br />
1. Material posted on ACANZP's Taonga website (including papers and reports from recent Hermeneutical Hui of ACANZP) or General Synod website<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/Features/Bible/Reading-leviticus">Leviticus 18 from a Maori perspective</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/Features/Bible/vaotago-Smith">Romans 1 from a Pasefika perspective</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/Features/Bible/holiness-cose">Leviticus 18 and 20</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/Features/Bible/Chambers">Romans 1</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/Features/Bible/trebilco">Theology of Sexuality and 1 Corinthians 5-7</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://ww.anglicantaonga.org.nz/Features/Bible/pasefika">Hermeneutics from a Pasefika perspective</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.anglicantaonga.org.nz/Features/Bible/patterson">Hermeneutics and Genesis 19</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.anglican.org.nz/News/Ma-Whea-Commission-on-Same-Gender-Relationships-Ordination-and-Blessing">On the Ma Whea Commission</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://anglicantaonga.org.nz/News/General-Synod/Anand">A report on Ma Whea progress</a><br />
<br />
2. Papers from a recent Theology House conference: a wide ranging set of papers is <a href="http://www.theologyhouse.ac.nz/marriage-conference-2013/">here</a>.<br />
<br />
3. For a definitely liberal or progressive perspective (i.e. a perspective promoting change which frees up Christian understanding of marriage and sexuality to be affirming of gay marriage and accepting of faithful, permanent, stable, loving same-sex marriages), go to Tobias Haller's <a href="http://jintoku.blogspot.co.nz/">In a Godward Direction</a>.<br />
<br />
4. For a definitely conservative or traditional perspective (i.e. a perspective promoting no change to traditional Christian understanding that marriage consists of a man and a woman, and sex outside marriage is forbidden by God), go to Robert Gagnon's <a href="http://www.robgagnon.net/">Home page</a>.<br />
<br />
5. For ongoing posts about the Church of England's (and Anglican Communion's) ongoing engagement with discussion (both informal and formal Synod/House of Bishop levels), consult the following mix: <a href="http://www.peter-ould.net/">Peter Ould</a>, <a href="http://bishopalan.blogspot.co.nz/">Bishop Alan Wilson</a>, <a href="http://changingattitude.org.uk/">Changing Attitude</a>, <a href="http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/">Mainstream</a>, <a href="http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/">Thinking Anglicans</a>. (These sites are not solely focused on homosexuality, but items posted on them often have to do with the debates and discussion on the topic in the life of the Church of England and of the Anglican Communion).<br />
<br />
6. Liturgy makes some points worth reflecting on<a href="http://liturgy.co.nz/rethinking-marriage"> here</a>.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-67369822428643473022013-11-14T06:11:00.002+13:002013-11-14T06:11:55.583+13:00Notable postBosco Peters' says some excellent things <a href="http://liturgy.co.nz/forsaking-all-others/17129">here</a>.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-86988541411466912472013-09-23T12:20:00.000+12:002013-09-23T12:20:06.720+12:00My response to Haller and BlackI very much appreciate the Haller-Black debate in the comments to the previous post, themselves a continuation of debate on ADU, and a contribution to the wider debate about the question of gender and marriage both sub specie aeternitas and from the perspective of this life.<br />
<br />
In trying to get to grips both with Bryden Black's argument (which I unashamedly lean towards) and Tobias Haller's argument (which I unhesitatingly respect as reasonable and fair) I shall try to be fair!<br />
<br />
Useful for below:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
'So God created <i>adam</i> in his image,</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
in the image of God he created him,</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
male and female he created them.' <i>Genesis 1:27</i></div>
<i><div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
</i><div style="text-align: right;">
'There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.' <i>Galatians 3:28</i></div>
<i><div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
</i><div style="text-align: right;">
'For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection [glory] of God, but woman is the reflection [glory] of man.' <i>1 Corinthians 11:8</i></div>
<i><div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
</i><div style="text-align: right;">
'For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour ... For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.' <i>Ephesians 5:23, 31-33</i></div>
<br />
<br />
A few reflections (some of which I think I have already made inter alia among previous comments).<br />
<br />
1. I think it an error to call up the interpretation of the ancients on Genesis 1:27 (Haller) to rebut a (so-argued) novel reading of Genesis 1:27 (Black) in the context of arguing for a novel interpretation of marriage (Haller). It is quite fair and reasonable that a review of the biblical material on marriage towards adopting same sex marriage is a free review of all material, including the possibility that a new reading of Genesis 1:27 counts against that adoption.<br />
<br />
2. Although it took me a while to understand the force of Tobias' argument that the third line of the three line statement about creation imago dei in Genesis 1:27 is in 'opposition' rather than 'apposition' to the two previous lines, I understand him to be arguing that God created <i>adam</i> in God's image but did not create humanity divided into the sexes in God's image. That is, what we 'image' is neither the diversity of God through being diversely gendered nor the creativity of God through being humanity-enabled-to-be-procreative-by-being-male-and-female. A strong argument which claims properly that it is a plain and careful reading of the words of the three lines.<br />
<br />
3. The apposition argument from Bryden is that God creates humanity-that-is-male-and-female in his image. (Funnily enough, yesterday reading a book about Jacques Ellul, I noted that Ellul understood Genesis 1:27 in the apposition way, God created one person in two forms (with obvious analogy back towards God-one-being-in-three-persons).) The strength of this argument is that it allows the word 'created' to be what it is, a connection between all three lines so that the third line is an extension of the second line rather than an opposition to it: in the image of God he created him = <i>adam = </i>male and female.<br />
<br />
That male and female each bear the image of God is the least the third line means (and thus we read what we read in 1 Corinthians 11:8: the man images God, the woman images the man who images God) but might we also take account of Genesis 5:1-2,<br />
<br />
'This is the list of descendants of Adam. When God created <i>adam, </i>he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them <i>adam </i>when they were created.'<br />
<br />
Humanity is expressed by the <i>adam</i> (man) but the writer of Genesis 5:1-2 understands humanity in its gender diversity, composed of <i>zcr</i> and <i>tqbh</i>, male and female, as created by God: not (as in Genesis 2, reflected in 1 Corinthians 11) primarily male with female derivative from male (or female as an improvement on male), but both together.<br />
<br />
Genesis 5:3 is then important:<br />
<br />
'When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.'<br />
<br />
The image of God 'became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image.' Inherent in the understanding of being made in the image of God is the creative power to make others in that image. That happens because humanity is male and female. Without being male and female, humanity could not act in this God-like manner. Humanity male and female is a creation in God's image because together (and only together) male and female act like God in themselves procreating sons and daughters in their likeness.<br />
<br />
If we are going to talk about <i>plain </i>reading of texts, are we not reading plainly as Trinitarian Christians when we see humanity as one person (<i>adam</i>) in two forms (<i>zcr, tqbh</i>)?<br />
<br />
In sum: while seeing the strength of Tobias' argument against reading Genesis 1:27 as God made humanity male and female in his image, I am not overwhelmed by that strength. The apposition argument may not be so strong as to sweep the opposition argument before it, but it is a strong argument.<br />
<br />
(As an aside, it is ironical that the NRSV, much valued for its inclusive approach to translation, makes Genesis 1:27 perfectly suited to support Bryden's argument! 'So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.')<br />
<br />
4. I accept that in heaven there will not be marriage and thus sub species aeternitas (from the perspective of eternity) marriage is a temporal phenomenon. Yet this observation needs care. Our physical bodies, for example, are also temporal (beyond the grave we will have new spiritual bodies). But dare we treat them as a kind of passing phenomenon? If we did, we could be quite cavalier about each other's bodies: I know this will kill you but it is only your temporal body ... of course not!<br />
<br />
The precise paradox of temporality of the phenomena of this world is that we respect one another as God's creatures and do all in our power to prolong each other's lives, through health, through peace-making, etc while understanding that (in a sense) all this is in vain as all die and all institutions of this life fail (save for the church?). Gender and marriage may not survive death and judgment but that does not and should not lessen the importance we attach to them in this life.<br />
<br />
5. One importance which attaches to marriage is that it is a great and repeated metaphor for the very relationship between God and God's people and between Christ and Christ's church. But how does this metaphor work? It works from an understanding of marriage in which the two parties to the marriage are differently gendered so marriage consists of a male husband and a female wife, a point reinforced in (say) Ephesians 5:23 where marriage is understood to involve headship, a specific relationship between husband and wife which itself mirrors and sheds light on the headship of Christ over the church. The great mystery of marriage, Ephesians 5:31, is then both the 'one flesh' coming together of the man-who-leaves-his-mother-and-father and the woman to whom he is 'joined' as she becomes his wife and he her husband. Paul does not quite say it, but the great mystery likely includes the way in which two are one flesh even as one is head of the other: this is a great mystery for how are the two joined in marriage equal partners in one flesh while being unequal (or 'unequal') in respect of headship.<br />
<br />
Whatever we make of headship and of the understanding and application of Paul's teaching about it in today's world, the point is that marriage is understood here (and elsewhere in Scripture) to be gender differentiated. This is not merely as a matter of biology (the coming together of which differentiated bodies to form one united body through intercourse is basic to 'one flesh'), or psychology (the coming together of two people to form one couple united in heart, mind and will is also reasonably included in the meaning of 'one flesh'), but also of relationship to one another in the gendered roles of husband and wife. Husbands are to love their wives; wives are to respect their husbands. Men in marriage are asked to be responsible for their wives in a specific way, women in marriage are asked to be responsible to their husbands in a specific way.<br />
<br />
This approach to marriage works well in terms of metaphor. Christ is not the church; the church is not Christ, yet Christ loves the church (like a husband loves his wife), the church submits to Christ (like a wife submits to her husband) while Christ and the church are united as 'one flesh', a head (Christ) and a body (the church) forming one entity. There is indeed a great mystery here.<br />
<br />
Now polygamous marriage would not offer a metaphor here and nor would same sex marriage. The important question then, I suggest, working from the Haller-Black debate, is whether the approach to marriage taken in Scripture rules out the possibility of same sex marriage.<br />
<br />
Obviously same sex marriage is not ruled out just because it cannot be invoked metaphorically in the service of Christ and the church. Further, we observe that polygamous marriage finds a place in the Bible. But polygamous marriage has a checkered career through the history of Israel (and no place at all in the movement of Jesus). The focus on marriage in Ephesians 5, anchored as it is into Genesis 2, rules out the possibility of Christianity endorsing and promoting polygamy: Christ is one and there is one church.<br />
<br />
Having connected marriage to christology and ecclesiology in the manner of Ephesians 5, there is no going backwards for the church to re-think marriage as re-extendable to incorporate polygamy. The consequence of involving marriage as a metaphor for Christ and the church is that Christ and the church confines understanding of marriage to rule out polygamy. In case of doubt one may also refer to the teaching of Christ himself on marriage which in similar fashion (including anchoring on the rock of Genesis 2) only envisages marriage being between two people, not more.<br />
<br />
What bearing then does Ephesians 5 have on same sex marriage? I suggest it makes it that bit harder to say that the Bible in the end is indifferent to the gender of parties to a marriage.<br />
<br />
6. Nevertheless arguments will spring forth (and back) re the expandability of the definition of marriage. Sticking with Ephesians 5, for example, the case can be made (as Tobias does) that the connection between husband and wife in terms of roles re 'love' and 'respect', betokening as it appears an inequality, is lessened today if not done away with, so that consequently a distinctive aspect of gender difference in marriage is done away with. Cue the possibility of marriage indifferent to gender.<br />
<br />
But this works in another way. Engaging with Ephesians 5 (and not only with Ephesians, but simplicity keeps me focused on this chapter) directs us to the particular significance of marriage between a man and a woman, a marriage which creates a husband and a wife, both with attendant responsibilities and potent metaphorical attribution. Is this form of marriage sui generis? If 'marriage' is a word to also be used of a relationship between two men or two women, do we need another word for what Ephesians 5 talks about?<br />
<br />
7. Another way to put my concerns at this point is this: if we approach the definition of marriage by testing what is essential and what is inessential we find a case mounts for gender differentiation to be placed in the inessential rather than essential category. Ergo, same sex marriage is plausible as marriage. But if we approach proposals for what constitutes marriage (e.g. heterosexual marriage, same sex marriage, polygamous marriage) and ask whether heterosexual marriage, that is, the embodied union of two differentiated genders, is a distinctive class or category of marriage, then answer is affirmative. The question then is not whether all marriages fit an agreed definition of marriage, but whether we have the right names for distinctive relationships.<br />
<br />
In part this question will be answered by the course the English language takes. In another part the question could be answered by theologians finding a specific word or phrase to describe the marriage between a man and a woman.<br />
<br />
<i>I may add to this but I will post for now ... 12.19 pm NZ time, Monday 23 September 2013</i>Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-36338015370034148482013-09-10T20:22:00.002+12:002013-09-12T09:26:39.171+12:00Bryden Black Responds to Tobias Haller<i>Introduction</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>On Anglican Down Under, through recent posts in late August, early September 2013, an intense theological debate (IMHO, of the highest quality) was conducted through Comment threads, particularly involving Bryden Black (NZ) and Tobias Haller (USA). Specifically, in terms of their interchange, in the thread of comments following this post, <a href="http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/radner-undone.html">here</a>.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Below, Bryden Black takes up a particular challenge made by Tobias Haller to Bryden's 'line of argument'.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Peter Carrell.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><b>Bryden Black writes:</b></i><br />
<br />
Well Tobias, how best to move forward by a step something of what we have addressed/tried to address under this thread?<br />
<br />
I’ll select only three elements for simplicity’s sake.<br />
<br />
1. Evoking premises and/or systematic approaches is laudable to be sure at first blush. There is of course that famous opening para by Rowan Williams in his contribution to <i>The Way Forward?</i>, where he points to “beginning from the same premisses” and then our “concluding” rather differently. Something I have observed in such cases is that often we (i.e. folk generally) colour those supposed common premisses rather differently in fact. Approaches to Scripture and its interpretation leap to mind in our current Communion debates. I’ll come lastly to one such element in this comment. A second line has to do with your own ideas re the “systematic”. I’d raise two points here.<br />
<br />
Firstly, as has already emerged on this thread (and also in <i>R&H</i>), systematic in your hands often tends to mean ‘abstract’; just so my own insistence (via the subjunctive exercise initially but not solely) on the <i>temporal</i> dimension of “reality”. I have found it far more rewarding to try to not abstract one’s approach from the sheer historical nature of our world, both generally and especially re our own mortal and moral lives. To that effect, I particularly appreciate this comment of Jenson’s: “God does not create a world that thereupon has a history; he creates a history that is a world, in that it is purposive and so makes a whole.” Which comment directly precipitates the second point: what passes for the systematic, the rational has a cultural historical context itself, as clearly evidenced in Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address of September 2006.<br />
<br />
Despite their best efforts, the media totally missed his main points, one of which precisely concerned “the reduction of the radius of science and reason” to the instrumental by much of the contemporary west (I’ll pick this up in another way very soon with what you yourself say/request). To wit, teleology as a genuine expression of the rational is very much eschewed; yet even in biology form and function coinhere (or did you miss my metaphysical shift to the language of “form” when you were discussing male and female vis-à-vis <i>ousia/hypostasis</i>?!). That’s enough on this first element. But I trust you can see by now there are many ways of actually being systematic and/or rational, just as there are a plurality of premises in actual fact. We shall all have to await the Parousia for that universally understood and understandable and acknowledged ‘premise’; meanwhile, as Sykes correctly observes in <i>The Identity of Christianity: Theologians and the Essence of Christianity from Schleiermacher to Barth</i> (1984), we are left with the inevitably contested nature of Christianity’s identity, where both methodological questions and matters of substance go hand in hand.<br />
<br />
2.1 Gen 1& 2. Any student of OT101 will soon be introduced to major motifs of Hebrew poetry, parallelism being to the fore. Lines in apposition will complement, or contrast, or amplify, etc. Only this last w/e in MP did we have Deut 32:1-12! Modern EVV of Gen 1:27 and 2:24 will indent these verses to help make the point they are forms of poetry:<br />
<br />
So God created (the) <i>adam</i> in his image,<br />
in the image of God he created him;<br />
male and female (nouns) he created them.<br />
<br />
The first two poetic lines are also a chiasm, stressing the expression image of God. Just as you Tobias correctly want to point out the parallelism formed by the second line ending in a singular and the third in a plural, so too do I wish to point out how lines two and three are similarly parallel in how they begin: the image of God // male and female. My entire thesis (nor am I alone in this; far from it!) springs from this sheer textual observation, which frankly is a no-brainer! The difficulty of course is what we (can) draw from this textual observation, that “image of God” and “male and female” are in strict apposition, thus interpreting one another. What indeed constitutes the next forward step?<br />
<br />
Sure; much of the Tradition has tried to locate “image” language in some <b>quality or capacity</b> of the human. Your quote from Augustine re Ps 49:20 is delightful! Yet Wenham is surely correct to point out: “In every case there is the suspicion that the commentator may be reading his own values into the text as to what is most significant about man.” Just so, Plotinus and the entire neo-Platonic tradition sought to locate this special human something as precisely those interior qualities Augustine prizes; other Greek ideas spoke of some divine spark. Now; I don’t see anything wrong exactly in this approach; it sort of works, and sort of explains how the next verse might operate: “dominion” is realized by means of such capacities. Yet the stubborn parallelism of the text remains, with male and female interpreting the image of God. Hence the Barthian notion ...! Yet even he needfully qualifies his interpretation: “There can be no question of anything more than an analogy. The differentiation and relationship between the I and the Thou in the divine being, in the sphere of the Elohim [the Son being the eternal “counterpart” of the Father], are not identical with the differentiation and relationship between male and female.” Which remark brings me necessarily to a canonical reading.<br />
<br />
Sure; there are intertextual readings to consider as well: Jesus quoting Gen 1& 2, and running them together. Or re-reading Matthew once we’ve realized the end notion of baptism in the triune Name, ch.28, prompts us to better appreciate the subtlety of Matt 3; or ch.1's “Immanuel” // “Behold I am with you always ...”; and then we’ve to richly conflate these summary key theological ideas that are the Gospel’s bookends. But richer again is the sheer grammar of the NT that gives rise to Trinitarian doctrine proper: ‘God’ = Father Son & Holy Spirit. What then might be “the image of God” in which human being is created, when we read back into the OT this NT conclusion? The stubbornness of the sheer text of Gen 1:27 demands this question and its probable answer that <i>Imago Dei</i> evokes the triune deity - analogously.<br />
<br />
Thereafter, Rahner’s conclusion: “Grace gives rise to not-appropriated relations of divine persons to man.” Or Jenson’s summary: “The one divine <i>ousia</i>, the <b>varied</b> sharing of which distinguishes Father, Son and Spirit, and the varied <b>sharing</b> of which qualifies their joint act as God, is ...” (emphases original). I.e. the idiomatic identities of Father, Son and Spirit are uniquely and specifically complementary - just so their respective <i>idiotēs</i> or <i>proprium</i>. Analogously, so too are the human forms of male-and-female, that which respectively indicates a male and a female human person - even if the sexual complementarity of men and women is not necessarily contingent on or reducible to procreation per se, though it naturally and/or normally involves it.<br />
<br />
Gen 2:23. The JPS Torah Commentary on this verse delightfully picks up on this line of thinking in similar fashion: “in naming her <i>ʾishah</i>, he simultaneously names himself. Hitherto he is consistently called <i>ʾadam</i>; he now calls himself <i>ʾish</i> for the first time. Thus he discovers his own manhood and fulfillment only when he faces the woman, the human being who is to be his partner in life.” There is likeness between the two, the man and the woman, as you stress; yet this is not sameness but differentiation too - “opposite him”, <i>ish/ishah</i>. All the standard techniques of Hebrew poetry compressed into this verse prepare the way for the next verse: in the marital reality, the sheer word “husband” implies “wife”, and vice versa. As you wrote earlier: “But a husband is not a man because he is married; he is a man who happens to be married, and is therefore a husband.” Yet not quite so, since men and women generally also complement each other, not just quintessentially in marriage, together effecting the Image as per Gen 1. [This is one reason for me to endorse women’s ordination, biblically ...]<br />
<i><i><br /></i></i>
2.2. I will stand by my description of the doctrine of the Trinity “languishing” down the centuries, not least on account of such work as that of Rahner’s, who after Barth helped pioneer our current revival. For note his approach was not just “systematic”, it was an historical analysis, just as Jenson’s after him is resolutely historical, even theodramatic. I could cite many further contemporaries who reveal how the doctrine for centuries did not have that essential grammatical role it deserved upon theology and praxis generally, even as it was formally affirmed. Just one key corroborative assessment is that of Jason Vickers, who in <i>Invocation and Assent: The Making and Remaking of Trinitarian Theology</i> (2008) rightly locates Trinitarian speech in its setting of Christian initiation, which itself gave rise to the Early Church’s Rule of Faith. This matrix he then contrasts subsequently to those attempts during the Continental and English Reformation of the 16th and 17th Cs with their search for rational assent to this now established doctrine via the role of Scripture, which supposedly supplies clear and intelligible propositions of faith. All of which is one key stepping stone to the rise of Deism, etc. as he shows. For at root, it is one thing trying to claim in the abstract as you do a due form of Orthodoxy; it is quite another to actually engage with the historic and historical specifics of confession and belief and behaviour via concrete communities and their members (e.g. particular theologians!). All of which leads me to my third and final element.<br />
<br />
3. You wish to focus our attention on “the area of pastoral or moral theology - which is where it seems to [you] the presenting issue lies”. Fine; but back to what I’ve tried to set up as the key framing of such an approach, in Regensburg, in forms of rationality, in ethical and moral reductionism (NB also Oliver O’Donovan’s opening chapter, “The Failure of the Liberal Paradigm”, in his Fulcrum series, “Sermons on the Subject of the Day”), in situating nothing less than my own moral premise now to be unfolded. For I do not think myself that we are actually dealing with a ‘New Thing’ today. What we are dealing with is the novelty of the demand to make <i>kosher</i> what has been hitherto considered an abomination, an Old Thing, symptomatic of our collective fallen broken human nature. Sure; there are countless rationalizations offered as to why this move might be akin to other seemingly similar moves: Gentiles versus Jews, liberation of slaves, etc.<br />
<br />
You mention Tobias in passing that Gen 1 has an intertextual reference in Gal 3; I presume you mean Gal 3:28. However, is Gen 1:27 the driving force here in Gal, even as it probably echoes this text? Or is it rather “the threefold privilege for which a pious male Jew daily thanked God: that he was not made a Gentile, a slave or a woman—categories of people debarred from certain religious privileges”, as a commentator writes? Very helpful in understanding the significance of these religious and social categories of the day is Mark Strom, <i>Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community</i> (2000), Part 1, “Primary Reality & Everyday Reality: Ancient Frames for a Split World” (other sections are pretty helpful overall too). For the baptismal reality of being “in Christ Jesus” establishes something essentially novel, which nonetheless is but the fulfillment of the Creator’s intentions in the first place.<br />
<br />
<b>Romans 12:1-2</b> is my premise for any area of pastoral and moral theology and praxis that you or anyone else for that matter might wish to address. I choose this as it signifies the absolute fulcrum of Paul’s magisterial treatment of the Gospel. It also explicitly echoes, in v.2, the baptismal catechetical format of the NT Church. For there are at least four verses in the Epistles which suggest that very early the Church had a set pattern of basic teaching, by means of which it instructed its members. Rom 6:17 says that the Roman Christians “had obeyed from the heart (the) form of teaching to which (they) were committed/handed over”. EG Selwyn remarks: “the phrase connotes a limited course of instruction, which followed definite and settled lines.”<br />
<br />
Both Eph 4:20-21 and Col 2:6-7 also allude to a given form of catechism, in which people “learned Christ”. More obvious is 2 Tim 1:13, which Selwyn paraphrases: “Have (i.e. have by you) a sketch or outline of the sound words you have heard from me, in the study we have had together of Christian faith and conduct (love).”<br />
<br />
Overall, the NT <i>baptisma</i> (with its three elements, evangelical, sacramental and Pentecostal, Acts 2:38-9; yet which sadly we today have often torn apart due to various ‘traditions’ of “initiation”) precipitates a quite specific “form of teaching” which is evidenced throughout many parts of the Epistles. They are scattered throughout like tips of an iceberg; yet this only begs an enquiry into digging below the waterline to access and reconstruct the whole. [See EG Selwyn, <i>The First Epistle of St. Peter</i> (Macmillan, 1947), Essay II, pp.363-466, where he painstakingly collects the various texts in the NT and then constructs their overall “pattern” or framework via a form critical exercise - including BTW Eph 5 etc.]<br />
<br />
In other words, my baptismal premise is somewhat more substantial than that of TEC’s as expressed in the “Koinonia Statement”, August 1994. It assumes, as does Rom 12:1-2, that there is a genuine tension between this age and the age to come, the one inaugurated by the Coming of the Kingdom of God in Christ Jesus, who embodies in himself the New Creation. It assumes - and I have had extensive pastoral exposure to this - that, while there will always be residual signs of the fallen old age in our midst, enough of the New suitably breaks into our lives to warrant the sorts of exhortations Paul is making here.<br />
<br />
Nor should we miss the fact that these two verses link exegetically directly back to Rom 1:16ff, via worship motifs especially and their respective “spiritual/reasonable” expressions, notably via the “body’s” means as well (even as Rom 1 echoes the creation narratives generally, with particular male/female and man/woman references too).<br />
<br />
It is one thing to uncover certain aetiological possibilities for such conditions as cancer of the bowel - something my own family and myself in particular know something about. It is quite another to then address such phenomena - in my case, surgery followed by chemo; or screening, etc. It is one thing to try to unravel the multifactorial aetiology of what we today term same-sex attraction or orientation. It is quite another thereafter to either give expression to this phenomenon, or to not do so. Yet the very phenomena (NB the plural) of multiple forms of same-sex erotic behaviours have been well known in many cultures down the ages: viz only Samoa today.<br />
<br />
Nor do I reason St Paul was at all ignorant of these diverse expressions. His aetiology was almost certainly not quite as ours might be. And yet his counsel and the counsel of the NT Baptismal Catechetical Form in the face of such phenomena was and is immediate: put off/abstain! For you have been crucified and buried ... to walk in Newness of Life.<br />
<br />
Now; we have to account for the social context of such commands, in the mutually accountable setting of the fellowship of members of the Church. The issue of the past 40 years, it seems to me, has been a failure on two fronts: the failure to morally support each other in our increasing transformation under the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, which support means both a strong call to holiness (sic - given the title of your own book) and moral purity, and an awareness that we all have various ‘weaknesses’ to be redeemed, together.<br />
<br />
Given precisely such a twin dynamic, I can hear some call for a form of ‘monogamous companionship’ among members of the LGBT communities, who become Christian, as a means to address just this twin needed support in the area of ss-attraction. Yet I have had to conclude we should rather call such calls a tragic irony - <i>given the explicitly gendered nature of the Imago Dei</i>. Such unions will ever fall short of the created ideal, one that Jesus has now especially redeemed and seeks to transform yet further. The rationalizations often invoked are symptomatic more of the autonomous, humanist, individualistic, liberal ethics of recent European culture - back to “this age” of Rom 12:2 - where the cries of egalitarianism make absolutely no allowance for the clearly gendered differentiation of Gen 1& 2, and where freedom is mostly the opposite of due Christian <i>libertas</i>, or where postmodernity’s strong drift to homogenization does indeed exhibit more a gnostic androgyny!<br />
<br />
What might one conclude from all this rich baptismal and catechetical NT data? I’ll let Louis Crompton summarize this third element:
According to [one] interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical [abstract?]. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian.
[<i>Homosexuality and Civilization</i> (Harvard University Press, 2003), p.114]Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4332139268702707957.post-89547858579893736372013-06-20T09:56:00.000+12:002013-06-20T09:56:05.367+12:00Jugular reviewThis <a href="http://cruciality.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/outspoken-coming-out-in-the-anglican-church-of-aotearoa-new-zealand-a-review/">review of a Kiwi book</a> is provocative, and important reading.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com0