Sydney ACL on CoS: “This is not Authentic Christianity”

subcribe for now ...I’m reading

I would agree with them, even though if Sydney’s theology is in essence not Anglican but Zwinglian.

Isn’t the Church of Scotland Presbyterian?

Yeah, theological descendants of Calvin being condemned by Anglican descendants of Zwingli.

Yeah, theological descendants of Calvin being condemned by Anglican descendants of Zwingli.

um no, not quite. Theological descendants of Calvin being criticised by Anglican descendants of Cranmer - who was himself a descendant of Zwingli, Luther and Calvin.

Sue Martinez and the Senior Priest make shrewd points; but conservative Anglicans who believe in ecumenism, in the sense of thinking other churches worth praying for and worth engaging with, may well think it right to have an opinion for or against what the Church of Scotland is doing.

If we came to think that the Kirk was a non-Christian organization, naturally we’d think it was hardly our business what it did.

Ok, some people are snobbish about Wikipedia but re the Sydney diocese…“Since 1911 the diocese has prohibited the wearing of the chasuble, a vestment now generally worn elsewhere in Australia for the celebration of the Eucharist” and “Despite their adherence to the 39 articles, and with the exception of the few churches that have High Church practices, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is rarely used.[citation needed] Likewise, few churches sing canticles and responses, either from 1662 or An Australian Prayer Book.”
“The term “meeting” is sometimes used interchangeably with “service”. The most notable example of this is St Andrew’s Cathedral. Contrary to canon law, many meetings at Evangelical churches in the diocese do not use a prayer book or a liturgical form of service” and “The system of episcopal order is under review with some eager to redefine some of the roles of the threefold order of deacons, priests and bishops.” Not to say the question of advocating lay presidency in place of priests. These people may be called Anglican, but that doesn’t actually make them Anglican in anything but history and name. Sorry, but just because they oppose GVR, etc, it doesn’t make them ok in my book.

Ok, some people are snobbish about Wikipedia but re the Sydney diocese…“Since 1911 the diocese has prohibited the wearing of the chasuble, a vestment now generally worn elsewhere in Australia for the celebration of the Eucharist”

Right, but the wearing of the chasuble is not a definitive Anglican thing. In fact, its theological significance is contrary to the 39 Articles. So I’m happy if people want to wear chasubles, but let’s not claim that they’re essential for the essence of Anglicanism.

and “Despite their adherence to the 39 articles, and with the exception of the few churches that have High Church practices, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is rarely used.[citation needed] Likewise, few churches sing canticles and responses, either from 1662 or An Australian Prayer Book.”

And again, this is not an essentially Anglican thing.

“The term “meeting” is sometimes used interchangeably with “service”. The most notable example of this is St Andrew’s Cathedral. Contrary to canon law, many meetings at Evangelical churches in the diocese do not use a prayer book or a liturgical form of service”

Which shows a lack of understanding of the local canon law which allow the minister to choose another form of service at the permission of the bishop. That service, of course, must be in keeping with the character and doctrine of the BCP

and “The system of episcopal order is under review with some eager to redefine some of the roles of the threefold order of deacons, priests and bishops.” Not to say the question of advocating lay presidency in place of priests.

Again, there’s nothing essentially non-Anglican about these issues, unless we’re now defining “Anglican” as “Oxford Movement”.

These people may be called Anglican, but that doesn’t actually make them Anglican in anything but history and name. Sorry, but just because they oppose GVR, etc, it doesn’t make them ok in my book.

It’s a shame, then, that you would pick criticisms that do not strike to the heart of what it means to be Anglican. I, for instance, swore to uphold the doctrine and worship of the Anglican church are set out in the 39 Articles and BCP. In good conscience I have kept that vow. Now, of course, it’s not about me, but it strikes me as ungenerous to complain that others are not Anglican and then to hold them to a standard not set out in the forumlaries.

I don’t seek to justify the practices of the Sydney diocese to the Senior Priest, although I live in Sydney.  I’ve heard their/our kind of church life described (by a priest in the diocese) as ‘presbyterian Anglicanism’.  I’m a bit impatient with it (and in the parish where I worship, the Australian Prayer Book is used).  Still, it would explain (more fully than what I wrote before) why our dear brothers and sisters in the Anglican Church League care what’s happening in the Church of Scotland.

Still, it would explain (more fully than what I wrote before) why our dear brothers and sisters in the Anglican Church League care what’s happening in the Church of Scotland.

That’s not the actual reason. It’s simply a concern for any section of the Church. Our care and prayers, surely, do not extend only to the boundaries of Anglicanism?

know what? This is a thread about the Church of Scotland, not an excuse to bash Sydney Diocese (or anyone else).
Let’s keep on-topic, shall we?

Does the Diocese of Sydney still prohibit chasubles?

I would like to thank A Senior Priest, David Ould, and Rudy for demonstrating a one of the reasons I’m reluctant to join the Continuing or GAFCON movements instead of just moving on to something other than Anglicanism.

OK, this is where I begin to get confused.  If, as the writer says, “...any Christianity which endorses homosexual activity is not authentic Christianity…” (I’m not sure what the heck he means by endorses homosexual activity.  I’ve certainly never received TEC Seal of Approval for Sexuality.  He then quotes scripture to justify his statement:
“Indeed, when speaking to the Pharisees about divorce he explicitly reiterated God’s creational intention: ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’ (Matt. 19:4–6)”  Alright, fair enough, but then where is all the outrage over churches that endorse divorce?  It would seem to follows this logic, divorce would be a far cry stronger violation of this piece of scripture than homosexual activity or even celebate activity for that matter…for if we were created male and female in order to become one flesh, the denial of that plan would also be problematic.
I’m not trying to just be snarky here.  In the raging debates concerning protecting the sanctity of marriage (by denying any semblance of same in same gender relationships) I would expect a far greater outcry against divorce and I don’t even hear a peep.

renzinthewoods, if you think that conservative Christians of the Catholic and Evangelical stipe have not objected to divorce, you clearly haven’t been paying attention for the past 30 years.

Rizeninthewoods,
The horrors of ‘Easy Divorce’ and the fact that it has done more to harm the institution of marriage that any other thing offered up by the secular society and swallowed by the church is one of the few things that Carl and I agree on - passionately. 

Lots of us bewail the way the ‘church’ ignores its shepherd in such a vital area.

I have to say that the ease of remarriage in the church, especially the clergy, rather makes renz’s point for him.  We may not apporve but we don’t DISapprove.

renzinthewoods #11, you make homosexual activity and “sexuality” one and the same.  Conservatives maintain there is a difference between desires and actions.  Also, you had me for a minute on “celibate activity;” sounds like you mean abstinence.

However, on your main point, I can agree that the churches, including Anglican ones, have made some huge mistakes with easy divorce and remarriage.  I think the Jerusalem Declaration mentions it, and there are people who hope the new Anglican body will move towards restoring some discipline on marriage.

And I reiterate, not trying to be snarky, or counter the argument - it just seems to me there is scant attention paid by many to this issue.  I have infinitely more respect for “defenders of marriage” who are as opposed or more so to “no fault divorce,” “Vegas style weddings,” and such along side there stance against same gender marriage.  I hold similar views to abortion - if abortion is wrong, then it is wrong - no exceptions.  It is in making exceptions that I feel the arguments weaken for both of these issues.

It’s been a pattern.  The original arguments in favor of abortion were heavily weighted by the most difficult cases.  And for “no fault” divorce, we were encouraged to think about people stuck in truly awful situations.  For the sake of a few, we blasted the whole system apart:  sex, birth, marriage, family.

[14] renzinthewoods wrote:

In the raging debates concerning protecting the sanctity of marriage (by denying any semblance of same in same gender relationships) I would expect a far greater outcry against divorce and I don’t even hear a peep.

This is a fair question, and we shouldn’t brush it aside so quickly.  There is pro forma condemnation of divorce in many churches, but there is also a great amount of “looking the other way” when it comes to re-marriage. A second marriage does not sanctify adultery.  It causes adultery.  Very few churches want to address this issue in a culture so steeped in divorce.  They do not wish to say out loud “The man who divorces his wife without cause must seek to reconcile or remain celibate.”  Too many people have a vested interest in that not being true. 

The answer to renzinthewoods’ question is that divorce attacks the integrity of marriage, while homosexuality attacks the created ontology of human sexuality.  It directly challenges God’s right to order things as He sees fit.  It is the cry of the creature against his Creator as he raises his fist against heaven and says “Why did you make me thus?  Who are you to set these limits on my desires?  I shall do what I want with whom I want!”  God as Creator has the right to determine the purpose and nature of things - including our sexuality.  Homosexuality replaces the will of the Creator with the will of the creature in an act of idolatrous rebellion.

carl

Carl, you say, “who are you to set these limits on my desires?”  Couldn’t that also (in a different way) be the vast unmarried sexually active heterosexual community shaking their fists as well?  Sexual relations, out of wedlock, clearly not for the purpose of procreation…

Also much of the arguments against recognizing same gender relations (note I’m deliberately not using the term marriage, as I have no problem defining it as the sanctified relations of a man and woman) are because they are seen to destroy the integrity of marriage.  It’s called “The Defense of Marriage Act,” for example.

I recognize how passionately some of the commenters on this blog feel about gay marriage, gay rights, etc.  One only needs to count how often commenters attempt to connect pedophilia to anything gay to see that.  There are others who feel strongly about these issues, but are able to separate out the various topics, rather than lump them all together.

The question on this thread then is, what exactly does this action on the part of the Church of Scotland accomplish?  The original quote makes the claim that they have lost their authenticity as a Christian church in this act because they have endorsed homosexual activity.  I think they have really done no such thing.  They haven’t married these two men.  They haven’t married any two same gendered individuals.  They have chosen to ignore his sexual orientation and partnered relationship in favor of continuing his service to his congregation and to God.  At best that is a passive kind of endorsement.  Now I understand why this upsets many of you…but don’t you think that the original statement is a bit of hyperbole?

Does the validity of an entire church hang on the actions or behavior of a single ordained minister?  Or for that matter, is communion valid when taken from the hands of an individual who has fallen from grace?  Is it the man or is it the Spirit that binds us?

So why not let a minister move into the manse with his female paramour?  Or a couple of paramours?  Or the wife of one of his parishioners?

After all, one mustn’t interfere with his “service to his congregation and to God.”

Or for that matter, is communion valid when taken from the hands of an individual who has fallen from grace?

I’m entirely uncertain how the Presbyterians view issues of the validity of the sacraments, and I can’t say I particularly care.  However, the priesthood, or presbyteriate if you prefer, is not just there to administer communion. 

However, the classial Anglican view can be found in the 39 Articles.

LTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
  Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.

One can also look at ordination service from the 1662 BCP

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/ordinal/priests.html

For example,

ALMIGHTY God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church; Mercifully behold these thy servants now called to the Office of Priesthood; and so replenish them with the truth of thy Doctrine, and adorn them with innocency of life, that, both by word and good example, they may faithfully serve thee in this Office, to the glory of thy Name, and the edification of thy Church…

Also

WILL you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the Doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ?
  Answer. I will apply myself thereto, the Lord being my helper.

In essence, the job of the minister is not merely to administer the sacraments according the proper liturgies, but to set before the congregation, in his teaching and manner of living, a Godly example for the edification of the Churh.  Therefore, if they are teaching “erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word” or are living in open and unrepentent sin, they they are not fufilling their role as a minister and should be removed from office.

[22] renzinthewoods

Couldn’t that also (in a different way) be the vast unmarried sexually active heterosexual community shaking their fists as well?  Sexual relations, out of wedlock, clearly not for the purpose of procreation…

Fornication differs in kind from homosexuality in that the former is a corruption of the natural order while the latter is a perversion of the natural order.  The man who sleeps with his girlfriend is acting in the way God intended for a man to act with a woman, but he is doing so absent the context that God requires.  He is sinning but he is at least acting within the natural use of his body.  The homosexual is acting beyond the constraints of normative sexuality.  God did not create man to be sexual with another man.  The homosexual has moved into the arena of unnatural use.  Understand that natural use attaches to gender.  It is not specific to the individual.  This is the natural boundary to which I referred.

I should also say that sex among humans is not only for procreation.  Animals mate to reproduce.  Men have a more complex agenda that proceeds from our unique position in creation.  In addition to procreation, sex also serves to bind a couple together in union, and it happens to be fun.  These are all legitimate reasons for a married couple to have sex.  It is true that willful childlessness is sinful, and (I believe absolutely) proceeds from a selfish heart.  Accepting children is a necessary responsibility of taking up the privilege of entering a sexual relationship.  Procreation is a primary reason for sex, but not the single primary reason.

Also much of the arguments against recognizing same gender relations (note I’m deliberately not using the term marriage, as I have no problem defining it as the sanctified relations of a man and woman) are because they are seen to destroy the integrity of marriage.

As a necessary consequence, yes.  But the threat is indirect.  What is actually at stake is the whole idea of normative sexuality, and the integrity of marriage rests upon that foundation.  Homosexuality is ultimately justified only by the assertion of the homosexual that his desires are authentic.  To accept homosexuality as normal and good behavior on the sole testimony of the homosexual regarding the authenticity of his desires is to establish autonomy as the basis of sexual morality.  That will be death to marriage - indeed to any sexual restraint whatsoever. 

How are we to restrain profligate promiscuity once we have established autonomy as the ultimate arbitrator of morality?  Men (corrupted as we are by sin) are not by nature monogamous.  We can’t very well tell people to stop acting according to their desires once we have justified their sexual choices on the basis of their desires.  “It’s OK to have sex with other men if you want to” means you can’t say “But you can’t have sex with five different guys you never met before just because you want to.”  Autonomy once set free is notoriously difficult to constrain.

Marriage is founded upon public sexual constraints.  Demolish those constraints, and you will soon end up where Europe already is.  Lots of meaningless sex.  Lots of pointless empty orgasms.  Lots of venereal disease.  Falling birthrates.  Falling marriage rates.  Lots and lots and lots of people opting out of parenting in order to spend their time & money on themselves.  That is a quick way to kill your civilization.  Dead.  This is not to say that homosexuality is killing the west.  Far from it.  What is killing the west is an attitude towards morality in general (and sex in particular) that cannot help but approve of homosexuality.  The attitude proceeds from the presupposition that the first rule in moral conduct is that the will of the individual is inviolate. 

If someone writes an epitaph for the West, he will chisel “Died from Autonomy” on its headstone.

carl

Couldn’t that also (in a different way) be the vast unmarried sexually active heterosexual community shaking their fists as well?  Sexual relations, out of wedlock, clearly not for the purpose of procreation

To make this more focused on the topic at hand, I don’t think a single conservative Catholic, Evangelical or Prebyterian would suggest that a minister enganged in heterosexual sex outside of wedlock should not be deposed.

BTW, I have seen, in various contexts…

1) A self-labeled but clearly unobservant Roman Catholic heterosexual bust on homosexuality and then try to excuse his own fornication by saying “At least I’m having the right type of sex.”

2)  Homosexuals freak out when pedophiles use the same rhetoric of that homosexuals use: “I was born this way,” “Love can’t be wrong,” “It is the condemnation by society that causes harm, not the sexual acts,” “The Bible was talking about abuse of slaves and prostitutes, not mutually loving consensual relationships,” and so forth. 

3)  Pedophiles rail against nepiophiles using pretty much the same rhetoric and venom that everyone uses against pedophiles.

One can argue about various degrees of wrongness, but in the end, they are all wrong.

Dear David Ould,

I know this is “off topic” but I wonder if you could answer a question based on the comment by A Senior Priest.  Is Oxford Movement /Anglo Catholocism permitted in Sydney?  By the bishop?  How common is it?  The things you say may not be required of Anglicanism, but I wonder if I’d even want to be an Anglican in such a place.  What if I wanted to worship in a church where the priest wore a chasuble?  Would I have to become a Roman Catholic?  In my own diocese, we have anglo catholic, low church, liberal, conservative.  I also like Geralyn Wolf’s approach—the goal is not to push any group into another denomination.

Carl, I’m a little vague as to what you mean by authenticity of desires.  I have little doubt that homosexuals really do find those of the same gender sexually attractive, and many genuinely feel like they have “always” had those attractions or that the attractions were present from at least early puberty.  However, what bothers me is the notion that because something feels desirable, right and good to the individual person, it is in fact inherently good and acceptable in absolute moral terms.  It denies an external standard of morality (God’s Revealed Word), or requires trying warp the external standard of morality to mean precisely the opposite of what more than 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching has said it means, which in turn requires one to believe that God’s Revealed Word doesn’t actually Reveal much at all.

Matthew, Geralyn Wolf’s goal may not to push any group into another denomination, but while I admire some of the stands she has taken, she does push groups into other denominations.  Those that believe that it is wrong for a female to be bishop will find themselves pushed out of her diocese (some might accept alternate oversight, but for a few that won’t be good enough).  So will those that think they can be Christian and Muslim at the same time. 

“Inclusion” is an illusion.  Every organization has boundaries, and a doctrinal stance against boundaries is really a boundary.  In other words, you can’t make everyone happy all the time. 

However, that being said, I’m more than a little disappointed that a thread about the role of active homosexuals in the ordained ministry of the Church of Scotland has turned into yet another tedious “Lets refight the English Civil War” thread.

Matthew, sorry I got a little bored of the same old - didn’t mean to ignore you.

In answer to the question, yes there are a number of churches that have a churchmanship that is very closely aligned to the Oxford Movement. Perhaps the finest is St James, King St. A dear friend of ours was a regular there.

I even worked as a Student Minister in a similar church for a year and greatly enjoyed much of the liturgy.

The wearing of the chasuble, however, is forbidden. Just as it was under Cranmer

In general the current Archbishop, for all the bad press, is actually very accomodating of a variety of expressions. The chasuble rule, btw, is not his - that has been in place for a very long time. The theology expressed in that particular vestment is, to the mind of the diocese, outside the bounds of what is acceptable. With that single exclusion (to my knowledge, at least) there are few other restrictions. Certainly it is a lot easier to be an Anglo-Catholic here (and all the more so, since many have strong liberal leanings) than to be an evangelical in other dioceses in Australia.

[29]  AndrewA

I’m a little vague as to what you mean by authenticity of desires.

I mean exactly what you said - that homosexuals do in fact feel actual sexual attraction for members of the same sex.  This is the only justification for homosexual behavior that can ever truly be presented.  The argument flows as follows: “Because a homosexual feels the desire, it must be natural for him to feel the desire, and if it’s natural then it must be good.” 

But you have correctly identified the problem - desire is not inherently self-validating.  Many authentic desires are immoral.  Why is homosexuality separated off as moral on the basis of authentic desire?  Return to the governing presupposition - the primacy of the autonomy of the will.  According to this principle, sexual behavior is considered moral if it proceeds from an unconstrained will.  Sexual immorality is therefore defined in terms of coercion; of unbalanced power relationships. Homosexuality is considered moral when it proceeds from an unconstrained will.  Authentic desire is the evidence of an unconstrained will.

This logic ultimately justifies any consensual sexual relationship, for it presumes all sexual acts has are devoid of any necessary moral component beyond consent.  What about promiscuity?  Ultimately this behavior can be attacked as unhealthy, but it cannot be attacked as inherently immoral.  Inherent immorality of necessity appeals to an external standard.  As soon as any external standard is applied, the logic of autonomy feels the assault and casts off the restraint.  The question immediately arises: “Who establishes the standard, and why am I subject to it?”

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the external standard of Scripture.  Thus, the conflict between a homosexual apology based upon unconstrained will, and the divine requirement of submission to God’s will.

carl

Thanks David.  Soulds like if I were to ever live there (a VERY remote possibility), I’d find a place.  I don’t have a problem with anything you describe.  Not that I’d care that much about a particular article of clothing as the style in general.  And, I agree with AndrewA that there have to be boundaries (WO, muslim priests). Its a question of how petty they can sometimes be drawn (I don’t see anything petty in what you’ve described in Sydney).  Saying the eucharist must be moved to 10:30 instead of 10:00 so the bishop has more travel time is petty.  Thanks.

“The chasuble rule, btw, is not his.”  But it’s one that he could cause to be abolished quickly and easily in the interests of co-existence if he so desired, isn’t it, David?

SF Anglicans will be interested to read the Sydney “Jensenite” take on Anglicanism explained in “The Anglican Debacle: Roots and Patterns” by Dr Mark Chapman, Chair of the Board of Studies at Moore College, the Archdiocese of Sydney’s Theological College, and President of the Anglican Church League.  http://acl.asn.au/resources/the-anglican-debacle/

I would particularly commend the section of Mark Chapman’s essay that begins “However, the real seeds of the problem we now face lie in the nineteenth century. John Henry Newman’s infamous Tract 90, published in 1841, encouraged Anglicans to read the Thirty-nine Articles as a Catholic document.2 In this way he opened the door to the possibility that you might publicly assent to the Articles while reinterpreting them to say what you wanted them to say. What he did in the interests of a more Catholic version of Anglicanism others would do in the interests of a more liberal version before very long. As one scholar put it, ‘whether he intended to or not, he taught us to lie’”.

Mark <u>Thompson</u>.

Now, another reminder.This thread is not here for Sydney bashing. There’s plenty of far more suitable threads for that.

Thompson it is.  Sorry.  Don’t know where that one came from.  I don’t quite see where discussion of the opinions and theology of the individual who wrote the document that you have posted and that we are discussing can be termed off-topic.

well, whether you understand it or not, it’s off-topic. This is a thread about the ongoing General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, not another rehash of “is Sydney even Christian?”

So now it’s your (and others commenters’)choice. It would be a silly thing to get banned over, methinks.

[deleted - off topic. Commenter is warned. Next breach will result in banning.]

[deleted - off topic]

Just so we’re clear. The next breach of our off-topic rule will result in a commenter being banned.

If you’re uncertain as to whether a comment is off-topic (and I’m not sure why you would be, since I have made it abundantly clear) then perhaps better simply not to post.

Your choice.

Earlier someone asked (I think renzinthewood) about what exactly the Church of Scotland had done wrong by instituting a Priest in an open same sex relationship.

Simply put, they lowered the standard of morality among the priesthood to the least common denominator, i.e. UNREPENTANT sin.  If you are in sin, and you seek justification, you really only have two choices (truthfully only one, but stick with me on this).

1.  You can admit your sin, atone, try to do better, ask God for forgiveness; or
2.  You can re-define sin yourself, with a “well, that’s a silly rule, I won’t follow it” and go on with your life.

If you are in position 2, that’s failing to acknowledge the reality of sin as it is defined, then you are un-repentant, and unworthy of a position of authority in a Christian Church.  It has ever been true.  Not always followed, but always true.

So Scotland will now have their own fights and arguments over sexual sin, and ultimately have to decide, as TEC has, to redefine sin, or to abide in God’s Word and Commandments, as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have held to.

By ordaining this joker, they have allowed a local re-definition of sin, which TEC’ers can tell you is a sure death-knell for a denomination.  Now unless they can close this Pandora’s box they have just opened, they are done.

KTF…mrb