tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7231618967658396748.post8448195065651032143..comments2023-10-24T06:08:09.527-07:00Comments on Anglican Centrist: Tim Chesterton on Williams and WrightUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7231618967658396748.post-16593914638593548612014-08-09T07:36:55.333-07:002014-08-09T07:36:55.333-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08129715853608384149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7231618967658396748.post-16184420069635285252009-08-07T15:39:53.542-07:002009-08-07T15:39:53.542-07:00N. T. Wright’s academic work has contributed great...N. T. Wright’s academic work has contributed greatly to my understanding of Christianity, but I am appalled by much that Wright has written about the current disputes over how the church should treat gays and lesbians. As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, I commented on his recent remarks in Whither Thou Goest on the “Old” Anglican Centrist and will say no more.<br /><br />What really got me thinking was Father Chesterton’s discussion of the changes in the church’s attitude toward usury. In the social and economic conditions of the ancient and medieval world, lending money at interest seemed to have little or no social benefits and was seen to lead to repellant conduct and injurious consequences. Today, lending money at interest results in increased prosperity and a higher standard of living for huge numbers of people -- if you own a home or a car, if you attended college, if you own or work for a small business, and so forth, it’s likely that money-lending by someone made it possible. Morality didn’t change, but the world did.<br /><br />(I don’t mean that lending can never be evil – obviously it sometimes is. I only mean that we don’t regard lending as being inherently evil.)<br /><br />The same may also be true of homosexuality. The “shameful lusts” and “indecent acts” of the idolaters that Paul described in Romans I would have been regarded by his readers as typical of idolators and repugnant. But that conduct has no real connection to the desire by partnered gays and lesbians today to have their unions acknowledged and blessed by their church (and legalized by their government).<br /><br />Of course, some people don’t see things the same way I do (believe me, this is not the first time this has happened). The question before the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is whether we can worship together with people we disagree with. For myself, I can; if I couldn’t I’d be mighty lonely at the altar rail.The Godfatherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10575359417766667457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7231618967658396748.post-34036384071034983952009-08-07T06:45:24.333-07:002009-08-07T06:45:24.333-07:00[cont'd from last post]
I fully realize that ...[cont'd from last post]<br /><br />I fully realize that there is an immense history to which Rowan and Wright are now responding. To me, Chesterton has confused their response with an assumption that they are each preemptively attacking. Rowan and Wright are responding (perhaps not to our collective liking, mind you), not striking.<br /> <br />Chesterton cannot blame others for dismantling the Communion when it is we who took a different tack which deviated from the norm.<br /><br />In light of what I feel are flaws in Chesterton’s statements, I submit that there are two rather difficult questions we must ask ourselves: First, do we as the Episcopal church in the US want to continue being associated (however tightly or loosely that ends up being) with others who distinctly and devoutly disagree with us (whether here or abroad)? Second, should we lament the resulting disunity that inevitably comes with any non-normative act (again, whether our own act or that of others with whom we disagree)? To me, we’re drunk on our own Kool-Aid if we do not acknowledge the damage (for better or for worse) that ensues anytime anyone or any institution breaks with the norm--whatever the issue and whatever the method. <br /><br />Our resolution acknowledging the disagreement by others with us in doing what we have done is a good place to start answering the above questions in the affirmative. However, we shouldn’t be gobsmacked whenever those in the Communion take exception to our break with the norm. This is a natural and obvious response. What is key for us as Christians first and parishioners/clergy second is to understand and realize that our means are at least of equal importance to (if not more important) than the end result. <br /><br />If the end result is destruction, then we have merely replaced one form of fundamentalism with our own. We must also be careful not to engage in destructive means in an attempt to arrive at a peaceful end as that is no real peace at all.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13647539101326193733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7231618967658396748.post-12781703724285417502009-08-07T06:44:38.843-07:002009-08-07T06:44:38.843-07:00Fr Jones
Great post, as always. While I agree wi...Fr Jones<br /><br />Great post, as always. While I agree with Chesterton in nearly all respects, I wish to address critically a few of his observations beginning first with his closing observations/lamentations about Rowan and Tom: <br /><br />"I think it's a tragedy that Rowan's role as Archbishop of Canterbury requires him to play the role of an ecclesiastical politician in planning the future structures of a divided Anglican Communion, and I think it's sad that Tom seems to relish his role in these global machinations."<br /><br />Rowan is by hook or by crook certainly a servant of God but also a politician. Anyone who doubts that is neither honest with himself/herself nor fully grasps the systemic nature of the Communion’s administration and what is required for its polity. I wager that Chesterton has more than a healthy grasp of this reality, but it seems to have left him when he makes statements like that. <br /><br />While I would love to agree that Rowan and any other bishop is merely a well-vested apostolic instrument of God's peace (I certainly think they are), he/they are also consummate politicians charged with the very real responsibility of the governance of the Communion, diocese and local parish (in the case of a rector). Heck, we as parishioners are politicians in our own right, whether we realize it or not. To lament the fact that Rowan is merely engaged as an "ecclesiastical politician in planning the future of structures of a divided AC" is to miss the very important fact that a) he is indeed doing just that, and b) that is his job, like it or not. To lament Tom's "relish[ing] his role in these global machinations" is also to miss the very important place NT Wright carries within the Communion. <br /><br />While I certainly don't intend to devalue anyone, much less the fine folks within Wright's diocese of Durham, the primary things Durham has going for it are about 15 days of sunshine per year, one of the greatest cathedrals in the known world (completed in 1093, by the way; the burial place of the Venerable Bead and the first documented use of the ancient rite of sanctuary, all of which I find fascinating in their own right) and a beautiful river-side university (and a decent cricket ground up the road a bit). NT Wright’s appointment to his current post, I argue, was never about local Durham issues or solely that which would/should remain within that diocese. He, like Borg here stateside, is a consummate academic and scholar first and a churchman second whose opinion is widely regarded and much-needed beyond just his local charges. I agree with Chesterton and many others here that Wright seems to be coming from long mid-off (cricket reference) in some of his recent reasoning and statements.<br /><br />In discussing Wright, Chesterton states, “He sees the future in terms of new configurations and new excommunications and possible new instruments of unity between the two tracks. What is absent in what he has written is how he sees the future for gay and lesbian couples who love each other. He is dealing with an issue, not with individuals and couples.” Chesterton seems to forget that Wright is merely addressing the lay of the land as it has now been formed and, within his domain, issues are more important than individuals. For Chesterton to take exception that Wright is now acting for “possible new instruments of unity between two tracks” is incongruous. Like it or not, there are now at least two tracks. What else is Wright supposed to do? Chesterton should, rightly, take exception to what Wright is saying and not the fact that he is engaging in the debate or the now-concluded result of the debate. Instead, Chesterton seems to wish for a single, like-minded track without controversy or fissure. There has never been such a time in the Communion since its inception. Indeed, the very beginnings of the Communion were based upon dissolution, pillage and controversy. <br /><br />[continued on next post]Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13647539101326193733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7231618967658396748.post-41752653153299818242009-08-06T21:49:29.605-07:002009-08-06T21:49:29.605-07:00Sadly, I agree with his assessment of Wright, whos...Sadly, I agree with his assessment of Wright, whose books have nourished me enormously. He is spot on regarding the Resurrection and spot off when it comes to homosexuality. I'm concerned that his ecclesiastical gallivanting will keep him from finishing the series of books of which Resurrection of the Son of God is the latest installment.Joe Rawlshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10221521023205531736noreply@blogger.com