New Anglican leader sets church agenda

Or rather has agenda set for him by an ABC journalist, who is interested in the issue of sexuality....

EDMOND ROY: Now, one of the issues you will face is sexuality. You've said you're sympathetic to gay clergy and same sex unions, but you haven't actually come out and said anything about your personal stance, have you? Why's that?

PHILLIP ASPINALL: Well there may come a time when I judge it to be appropriate to do that Edmond, but I think that the deepest struggle we have as
a church at the moment is dealing with the polarisation that's gone on. The very
fracturing and isolating of one group from another that's going on in the world
around us is also happening in the church, and it's struggling with that issue,
I think, that is my top priority in that area.

EDMOND ROY: Now, you say you're trying to find a way forward, a compromise,
but the Sydney diocese in particular of your church, has said that there is no room here for discussion.

PHILLIP ASPINALL: Well I think there has to be discussion. I don't think we
can just pull up stumps and go our own way.That's the kind of fragmentation
where groups isolate themselves from each other because they disagree, which I
think spells disaster, not only for the church but for the wider community.I
think we have to keep talking, we have to get beneath the surface of these
things and find ways forward, and that will come through dialogue.

Weird Republic

Some interesting and long reading from http://www.weirdrepublic.com, especially re: the ECUSA ordination of Barry Stopfel (sponsored behind the scenes by Shelby Spong) and his book The Courage to Love. The author of the Weird Republic article was peripherally involved in the Church where Stopfel was a priest at Saint George’s Church in Maplewood, New Jersey.

The style is direct and a little overtly polemical for my liking - and while decrying ad hominem attacks the author indulges deeply himself -yet but the analysis of the logic, motivation and rationale of Stopfel et al remains compelling. The apparent source is revealed:

For each of its 287 pages Courage to Love clings tightly to the itemized guidelines for gay propaganda first articulated by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill back in 1987. Will Leckie is careful to follow the Kirk-and-Pill admonition to:
“talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible”,

on the theory that a relentless bombardment of such chat will make gayness seem normal. At every opportunity Leckie is quick to
“use talk to muddy the moral waters”

and
“raise theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings…”

Will Leckie also favors the Kirk/Pill admonition to
“undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as an antiquated backwater.”

In short, smear your intellectual opponents rather than engage them in honest debate. Leckie unfailingly follows point two of the gay agenda:
“Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”

As Kirk and Pill remind gay activists,
“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be included by reflex to assume the role of protector.”

I have no prior knowledge of "Kirk and Pill" phenomena - it may be a "conservative plot", a "faux manual for gays". But if it's just fodder for conservative hysteria, it's critically close to the mark.

What really caught my attention was this quote from Task Force on Changing Patterns of Sexuality and Family Life (quoted in the book):

“It is our conclusion that by suppressing our sexuality and by condemning all sex which occurs outside of traditional marriage, the Church has thereby obstructed a vitally important means for persons to know and celebrate their relatedness to God. The teachings of the Church have tended to make us embarrassed about rather than grateful for our bodies. As a means of communion with other persons our bodies sacramentally become means to communion with God.”

The author's response this is strong to say the least. Read it for yourself. The quote above reminds me of the "know god through sex" arguments - using the term "yada" (Seinfeld fans beware!) - I saw a while back.

Some more quotes from the author - highlighting the inseperable relationship between doctrine and practice:

The intent of new-wave Christianity is to be therapeutic, to reconcile people to their behavioral quirks, to welcome as congregants people whose behavior would previously have defined them as un-Christian, because Christians defined themselves as a people who did not indulge in certain behaviors. This is nothing less than a redefinition of Christianity.

And finally with regard to the Uniting Church, and its Interim Reporton Sexuality (1997), the following quote from the book Courage to Love (p.152-3) added a new perspective:

“I believe we are all bound by the same sexual ethic…Whenever human sexuality is self-serving, oppressive, demeaning to oneself or another, or is compulsive and impersonal, it exists in a state of sin…”

Doesn't this sound a little like the lead up to "Right Relationships"? What are the sources and who are the authors of the UCA documents on sex? Can a line be drawn through Spong, Kirk and Pill (however motivated), and Stopfel and Leckie to the Uniting Church Assembly? I think there is a case to be made, but in this brief space I will leave it at that.

What Does the Bible Say About Halloween?

(Kent Brockman voice...)

What Does the Bible Say About Halloween?
Tackle the controversial question, "Should Christians observe Halloween?" With no direct references to Halloween in the Bible, resolving the debate can be a challenge. How should Christians approach Halloween and is there a biblical way to observe this secular holiday?

Or maybe you're just looking for fun Christian alternatives to Halloween to enjoy this year with your family. We have quite a few suggestions.

(From http://christianity.about.com)

Relocation Sale

Relocating all my religion posts from http://fathermckenzie.blogspot.com

Lu Senituli's Synod 2005 Message

Excerpted from Uniting Church Queensland's Journey

...Mr Senituli introduced a number of proposals by reading from 2 Timothy 4:1-5 and offering a rebuke of Resolution 84.

"Our encouragement to you, our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (is) to stand firm on the doctrines and teachings of the one holy catholic and apostolic church," said Mr Senituli.

....

Mr Senituli said that, "The assembly has made this change which is vital to the continuing life of the UCA, without the concurrence of its members represented in Congregations, Presbyteries and Synods as provided in the Basis of Union."

"The change has been foisted on the church by a minority group who has seized control of the avenues of information and decision making in the church," he said.

....

Mr Senituli claimed that the church becomes mono-cultural and imperialist when it rejects the correction and rebuke from brothers and sisters in different cultures.

Mr Senituli and Mr Fihaki requested that the Synod ask the Assembly to adopt the process use by the Queensland Synod for listening to multicultural and indigenous voices of the church on the matter of homosexuality in leadership.

They also moved a resolution asking the Assembly to adopt a statement calling people to live in faithful heterosexual marriage, rejecting homosexual practice and requesting the church not to normalize such practices.

Gospel and the Uniting Church

My original post on this matter (Universal vs Particular) was deliberately vague in an effort to distance myself from the motivation for the post. Iwas also very rushed (as many blogs are), so perhaps it did come across as slip-shod and ill-defined as Craig identified in his comments. It is definitely not as thorough as I would have liked. However, an excellent opportunity now presents itself to expand on my original post.

My response to this article by Petter Sellick posted on Online Opinion was informed by three things:

1. My experience of preaching at my local Uniting Church
2. An article I read in the Briefing (1 Oct 96, #188, page 8), from which I will quote below.
3. Some reading I have done in a document called “A True Hearing” available on line at http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/pdf/truehearing.pdf

To expand:

1. I do not wish to address this issue in this forum at this time. Allow me to say that these are things I have heard with my own ears. There is publicly available follow up material if anyone would like to explore this issue with me further.

2. The Briefing article, written by John Woodhouse and Greg Clarke, addressed the author’s concerns about A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA). It would not surprise me if Uniting in Worship 2 touched on the same areas of concern. These sections caught my eye:

“APBA, in contrast [to the Book of Common Prayer], is a different planet. There is a general shift from the emphatic ‘sin and judgement / redemption’ thought world of the BCP to a decidedly more ‘creation / providence’ frame of reference. In both books, God’s mercey and redemption alleviates suffering, but in APBA it is more concerned with the suffering of this world – famine, sickness, injustice – than is BCP. In BCP, there is a far clearer recognition of the darkness, ignorance and hopelessness of this world – just like the Bible!

“BCP unmistakenly and consistently speaks of us as sinners who without Christ are under God’s wrath and condemnation. APBA contains much less of such ‘negative’ material. BCP Prayers are addressed to ‘Almighty God…to whom it belongeth justly to punish sinners, and to be merciful to them that truly repent”. APBA, on the other hand, contains many prayers which appear unrelated to the redemptive work of Christ. They are, however, often related to the ‘creation theology’, which dominates.”*

* By ‘creation theology, I am not referring to theories of creation or evolution, but an approach to theology which emphasizes the doctrine of creation more than the doctrine of redemption. This leads to less concern with judgement and salvation, and more concern with improving the world and battling against its imperfections.

There is a lot more. The difference at first seemed very subtle to me, and I felt these guys were nit-picking. However, on reflection, this critique provides, I find, a helpful interpretive framework to understanding where the messages I am hearing are coming from. I am still grappling with that. But in my mind there is quite a large a gap between, say, how I approach the Bible, and what I have heard in my experience in the UCA .

3. Overall, the material from A True Hearing (a selection of materials for the Anglican Consultative Council in its ‘hearing’ on issues of human sexuality) I found particular helpful when re-grappling with the Resolution 84 question. I believe it should be recommended reading for anyone interested in this issue. But this particular section caught my eye:

“Summary: In the light of its recent actions, Anglicans elsewhere and in the Church of England are understandably asking: how did ECUSA reach this low point in it history? The answer is this: beneath all its liturgies and confessional statements (which may look impressive and orthodox) there is in fact a gaping hole. Or, to put it another way, its official theology is quite separate from its actual 'working theology'.

Recent events might initially suggest that ECUSA's problems lie in morality, but more truly they lie in theology. ECUSA suffers from a theological poverty that is truly monumental. We see this in its 'working theology', which is what a 'participant observer' (such as myself for the last 35 years) discovers by listening to what clergy say from their pulpits or to troubled parishioners.

A typical sermon
As a new tutor in one of ECUSA's seminaries, I listened to my first student sermon, and was simply taken aback by its vacuity. His entire sermon was this: 'God is love; we must love one another'. There was no mention of Christ's cross or resurrection, no Holy Spirit, no waiting patiently for the Lord's return, and no call to repentance and amendment of life. I have now heard the same sermon preached from pulpit after pulpit. The standard Episcopal sermon goes like this: the incarnation is a manifestation of divine love (in Christ's death there is no judgment upon humanity, but an affirmation of creation); so God wants us to love and accept each other, which involves an inclusive approach to all— particularly those marginalized by oppressive social practice. The rejected must be included. The result is a practical equivalence between the Gospel of God's Kingdom and this form of social justice.

This explains, by the way, why in the present dispute both sides see the issue as a 'Gospel issue' (for one side the Gospel necessarily involves holiness, for the other side, justice and inclusion is the Gospel). The resultant deadlock suggests that the Anglican Communion is faced with what in fact may be more a theological divide than an ethical one.

The first point makes it most clearly. I am wondering if there is a similar “gaping hole” in the UCA – that is, an official theology is quite separate from its actual 'working theology'. I would like to be reassured that here isn’t. This doesn’t mean that this is the experience of most Uniting Churches.

However, UCA's approach to its doctrines are in question here – that is, how they are understood and interpreted – see for example the study on UCA’s ‘official’ position on the Bible called “Unique, Prophetic and Apostolic” .

Finally, knowing what most of its ministers are taught is not as convincing to me as what the ministers themselves actually believe and teach. Which brings us back to the start.