tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242521607435148042.post1882887084292467637..comments2024-02-16T12:05:54.873+00:00Comments on Tom's Sermons: What Price Unity?Tom Kennarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09059361977886521239noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242521607435148042.post-59421222307374509712012-02-07T22:09:57.643+00:002012-02-07T22:09:57.643+00:00"If I have understood your position correctly..."If I have understood your position correctly, you are essentially arguing for an approach to changing minds which says "so long as you hold different views to mine, I will have nothing to do with you". That, I would argue, is the way of misunderstanding and further conflict. "<br /><br />you have, i'm afraid, misunderstood my position. My position is not one of avoiding dialogue or even not meeting with people who don't share my view. It is though, a belief that in the central act of Christian worship, the Eucharist, where the definition of Priest is truly put to the test, there shouldn't be a compromise of integrity. Humility, patience, modesty, grace and hospitality may make us want to put aside our differences of opinion on such matters as the gender and sexuality of priests. But conscientious objection in this situation, to my mind, is far more powerful. Maybe it's the activist in me that's talking, but in the debate on women bishops and Gays in the church, it is the Christian Right who are actually the ones who have "shouted from the sidelines". <br /><br />here are very different attitudes in the Church on the issues of Women and Gays. The feeling about women is nothing to do with a "prevailing liberalism" and much more about timing. The CofE's general view on Gays is far from liberal in my experience, and increasingly less so in the last decade. Whilst I completely respect and applaud you for your Damascene conversion (sorry, that was facetious, but i couldn't think how else to put it),<br /><br /> "through the patient intervention of liberal friends, I was able, as a grew up, to change my mind and views" );<br /><br />I have to point out that you have the luxury of having nothing to lose in this debate. For Women and Gay people in the church, these endless debates about so-called theology are painful because they affect us as real PEOPLE and are not just abstract, intellectual differences. Real People die over these kind of issues, in Africa for example: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2011/0127/Murder-of-gay-activist-David-Kato-sends-chill-in-Uganda It's time for the Anglican church to take a step to one side or other of the fence and stop dancing around one another. Let us say what we believe, make the tough decisions either way, and then let those who disagree, make their choice about where they want to go from there. The continued sword fighting is more damaging than making a clear decision.The Ticcy Knitterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474448367731669652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242521607435148042.post-43955155408590533962012-02-07T12:20:30.109+00:002012-02-07T12:20:30.109+00:00Dear Bisto Boy,
I think the question you raise is...Dear Bisto Boy,<br /><br />I think the question you raise is essentially this: "How do we change minds?" <br /><br />One of the key differences between us, I suspect, is that I once shared the same views as our traditionalist friends. But, through the patient intervention of liberal friends, I was able, as a grew up, to change my mind and views. <br /><br />If I have understood your position correctly, you are essentially arguing for an approach to changing minds which says "so long as you hold different views to mine, I will have nothing to do with you". That, I would argue, is the way of misunderstanding and further conflict. <br /><br />The 'Listening Process' of the Anglican Communion suggests a different way. It asks that all people of good faith should listen to each other. <br /><br />I would, again, want to point to the example of Jesus. He attended synagogue, and took part in the liturgy - including reading the Scriptures (cf Luke 4.16ff). By doing so, he participated in worship with people who believed, for example, that women should not be educated in the Scriptures, and that only men should worship in the Synagogue. At the same time, as we well know, he drew women into his inner circle - teaching them alongside his male disciples. He worshipped in the Synagogue and Temple - but he also taught in public places.<br /><br />I would want to argue that my approach is similar. I worship alongside my traditionalist friends, whilst also worshipping in the inclusive environment of my own parish. I continue to listen to views that I profoundly don't share...but invite those who disagree with me to listen to my position too. <br /><br />By the way - for the record - I think you do my colleague at the Ascension a slight dis-service in assuming he 'wouldn't come if a woman priest was presiding'. I wouldn't presume to speak for Fr Mark (he can do that for himself if he wishes on this Blog!). But I do know traditionalist priests who would participate fully in worship led by a woman, even to the point of receiving the blessed bread and wine. (This happened at my training course at STETS). Whilst doing so, they would say that for them, the Eucharist was, theologically speaking, an Agape, not a Eucharist. For them, the experience was diminished theologically, but still valuable as an act of worship with fellow Christians who believe so much (but not everything) in common.<br /><br />I beg you not to make the assumption that all traditionalists are homophobic misogynists. Some, of course, may be (that's for them and God to judge)...but most, in my experience, hold their views painfully and uncomfortably, knowing that they are at odds with the prevailing liberalism of Anglican Christianity, but unable yet(!) to change their deeply held theological views about the nature of God. <br /><br />It is the duty of all Christians, I think, to confront different opinions with grace and patience. Consider Mother Margaret - the woman priest in our parish who regularly worships at local traditionalist churches. By doing so, with enormous grace, sometimes wearing her clerical collar, she gently reminds traditionalist congregations that there are other 'integrities' at play in the Anglican church. (She is currently leading a Julian Prayer group at St Saviours, for example, with the explicit support of the local traditionalist parish priest).<br /><br />Oh dear...I have gone on a bit, haven't I? Suffice to summarise like this: I would argue that few minds were ever changed by being shouted at from the sidelines. Minds are far more likely to be changed through dialogue. If I refused to participate in the worship of traditionalist churches, I might 'make a point' about my view of their theological position. But no dialogue will take place, and no minds (mine or theirs) will ever move in a new direction.<br /><br />I wonder if anyone else wants to participate in this discussion?Tom Kennarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09059361977886521239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242521607435148042.post-20093034541229487872012-02-06T19:01:03.713+00:002012-02-06T19:01:03.713+00:00the problem with
"That is why we are Anglic...the problem with <br /><br />"That is why we are Anglicans: because out of a desire not to speak evil of anyone, and to avoid quarrelling, we will continue to worship side by side with people with whom we might profoundly disagree, for example, over whether or not a Priest or a Bishop can be a woman" <br /><br />is this: it will always be a debate which is on 'their' terms (their= the anti-women, anti-gay, Forward in Faith leaning part of the church). As a straight male priest, sure you can attend Mass at the Church of the Ascension, kneel side by side with their vicar and disagree with what he's saying. You can disagree and debate till the cows come home, but he won't bar you from celebrating the Mass with him because of it. But your female colleagues couldn't do that at his church, he wouldn't allow them to take part in the Mass in the first place. And if you invited him to St Mark's for Mass, he wouldn't come if a women priest was presiding. He wouldn't lay aside his convictions for the sake of unity or hospitality. <br /><br />the difference between your approach and mine, I think, is that I do not see this as an intellectual matter of doctrine. You are, of course, perfectly at liberty to be friends with people you disagree with, I disagree with many of my friends about many things. That is entirely different from legitimising their point of view publicly and with all the force of 2000 years of Christian tradition in the celebration of the Eucharist. Rest assured that your friends wouldn't do the same for you...The Ticcy Knitterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474448367731669652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242521607435148042.post-20130719393890175122012-02-06T11:51:27.080+00:002012-02-06T11:51:27.080+00:00Hi Russell,
Thanks for the thoughts. I hear wher...Hi Russell,<br /><br />Thanks for the thoughts. I hear where you are coming from, and I hear very much the pain of your position. I too pray for Justice. You know, I hope, that I agree with you entirely that the church should not be run only by straight males. Unfortunately, I think you are wrong in saying that 'we are past' doctrinal discussions about such things. You and I may well be past them, but many are not. <br /><br />As you know, I'm off to West Africa soon, and will be spending time with committed, faithful Christians in a fast-growing church who would profoundly disagree with my position on sexuality and gender in church leadership. To pretend that such opinions are now minority opinions is simply unrealistic. The VAST majority of the world's 2 billion Christians would, in fact, argue that you and I are heretics for believing what we do. That, for me - and I suspect even more for you - is an awfully uncomfortable place to be.<br /><br />My argument is that we will never win the argument through separatism. The history of the church is largely a history of how small groups (with minority opinions) have split themselves off from the mainstream, and then effectively died out (or at least been systematically ignored). (How many mainstream Christians could tell you anything meaningful about the Quakers, Ana-baptists or Mennonites?) Schism doesn't work as a strategy for changing minds and hearts. Dialogue, mutual respect and tolerance are the only way of bringing about change (IMO!). It is interesting to note that Jesus never argued for a separate religion. He regularly attended the Synagogue and Temple, worshipping alongside people with whom he profoundly disagreed on all sorts of doctrinal issues. He threw the money changers out of the temple...but he never stopped worshipping there himself.<br /><br />That's why I continue to count as friends people with whom I utterly disagree on such topics. I worship alongside people in this very Cluster whose opinions about women and gay people I find abhorrent. But I stand a much better chance of persuading them to change their view if I do them the courtesy of assuming that they are not idiots, and that however much I might disagree with them, their argument arises out of the way they see (or have been indoctrinated into seeing) God.<br /><br />As for your idea that 'if their cause is Just, people will follow'....again, I believe that history is a vital teacher. People didn't follow Hitler or Bin Ladin because their causes were inherently Just. They followed them for all sorts of complicated reasons - fear, poverty, revenge, fundamentalism, brilliant marketing etc... Justice had very little to do with it!<br /><br />Instead of Schism, I argue that we should focus elsewhere... specifically on living holy lives, on charity, and on what St Paul suggests: being 'ready for every good work, speaking evil of no-one, avoiding quarrelling, being gentle and showing courtesy to everyone.' (Ti.3.2). St Paul was a man of his time in many ways (especially his views on homosexuality and women!). But I believe his instincts regarding the building of effective Christian communities was essentially right.<br /><br />I guess we are not going to agree on this. But that doesn't mean that I think you are wrong to argue your case!Tom Kennarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09059361977886521239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242521607435148042.post-43455652496647081772012-02-06T08:20:40.222+00:002012-02-06T08:20:40.222+00:00Interesting, but ultimately misguided (IMO).
ht...Interesting, but ultimately misguided (IMO). <br /><br /> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16900985 the vote on Women bishops is upon us and I for one would rue the day that Unity trumps everything else. The time has come for the hard decisions. It may be that the best thing for the CofE is a schism. A bit like a warring couple, sometimes a break is the best thing for the children. (i'm sure that analogy will bring a lot of discussion in itself). <br /><br />My sexuality as a gay man, or the gender of a women priest is not a matter of Doctrine that needs to be discussed. We're passed that. The dissenters who still cling to the idea that Jesus instituted a straight, male run church and that it should remain so for ever, are living in the past. God may be unchanging (another topic for discussion), but God's people are not, and neither should His church be. To say that we (gays and women) should lay aside our quarrel and dissent to find ways of accommodating eachother is, at this stage in the game, offensive. To be blunt, if this were an argument about race or disability, say whether a black man in a wheelchair could be a priest, there would be no discussion. Of course he could.... assuming he's straight. Gender and sexuality are NOT choices, neither are race or dis/ability. There is NO doctrinal discussion to be had on these issues. If the dissenters in the Church can't accept this change for the GOOD, they should pack up their tents and banners and go. If their cause is Just, then people will follow. But i don't believe they will.<br /><br />Unity does NOT trump everything else. Justice however...The Ticcy Knitterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03474448367731669652noreply@blogger.com