Dealing with conflicts in the Anglican Communion - part 2

Carrying on from last weeks' study, looking now mostly at approaches to scripture.

Some of us thought that GAFCON's idea that scripture should be 'translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church's historic and consensual reading' might make finding something new in scripture difficult, it might tend to fix the meaning or rather interpretation of scripture.
The statement from Lambeth was much longer (as it always seems to be!) and seemed a bit of a fudge to some of us. The statement talks of using a range of different approaches to scripture 'under the guidance of the Holy Spirit' so perhaps both groups are making an appeal for having authority for their views?

We looked at two passages. Romans 1.18-33 A traditional way of reading this passage would be to see it as condemning homosexual acts. It has also been seen as being primarily about idol worship, also that what Paul writes about here cannot be compared to faithful, stable homosexual relationships that are part of 21st century Britain. How we see scripture obviously effects how we respond to this passage. If we take the GAFCON view their seems little scope but to see this passage as condemning homosexual relationships, however some Christians will not think that this passage condemns homosexual behaviour as we understand it now in our culture, they will want to take into account the change in context from when the letter was written to when it is being read now. Also they will want to bring to the passage knowledge about human sexuality that was not know by Paul. Both of these approaches take scripture seriously and see scripture as authoritative. Another approach is to accept that Paul really is condemning homosexual behaviour and to see that this presents us with a choice - we can follow Paul, ie. follow scripture or we can choose not to.
It was noted that this passage lists a number of sins that people fall into:

evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, ³¹foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

and yet mostly the church only focuses on the sexual sins and other very common ones like gossiping and being rude to our parents are ignored! We wondered why the church over the ages has been so hung up about sex and sexual sin, some of us felt there was a fear of female sexuality at the heart of this. If we look back at our discussions about original sin we see that Augustine thought this was passed on during sex, which suggests that the church has had at least an ambivalent view of sex for a long time.

The other passage we looked at was Luke 14.15-24. It was suggested in the notes that some might want to identify the excluded with those who are excluded by the church now - eg. homosexual people. We talked about how this passage has been traditionally interpreted and also how it might have been understood by its first hearers. We felt that perhaps the first hearers of this passage might have been the poor and the outcasts of Israel, they might have seen it as a message of God's acceptance of them and rejection of their rich rulers. Traditionally we thought this was usually interpreted as being about Israel rejecting Jesus and the Gentiles becoming the new 'chosen people' (is this a 'plain' understanding of scripture?). Now another way is being proposed, that we widen the interpretation to make it about any group that is excluded. Asylum seekers in the UK came to to mind. Most of us felt that is was reasonable to 'use' this passage in different ways at different times and situations, and in general that the 'meaning' of scripture cannot be 'nailed down' for all time. If we think there is only one - received - understanding of scripture do we risk missing out on those moments of enlightenment that sometimes come when we look at a passage we might know very well but in which we somehow find something new revealed?

We wondered if GAFCON's position was tenable, do they always take the 'plain meaning'? - for example what does Jesus mean when he says that we must hate our Mothers and Fathers?. Perhaps they fudge things too? Perhaps Lambeth is more honest about problems of interpretation? Can we/should we use the bible tentatively? Some of us felt it was ok to live with doubt and uncertainty.

In general how should the church deal with disagreement? Should we always try and stick together or is it sometimes right to split?
Sometimes the local experience of church is more important than the institutional - we may not agree with the ideas of the institution but be happy in the local church. It will, inevitably, depend on the issue, however many of us were keen to hold onto the strength of the Anglican 'big tent' in which people can be together who don't agree on everything.
(still didn't quite finish, part 3 next week!).

Dealing with conflicts in the Anglican Communion - part 1

This session looks at the different approaches that GAFCON and the Lambeth Conference have to the issues of homosexuality, scripture and the structures of the Anglican Communion.

GAFCON take the view that changing the traditional understanding of homosexuality is a "different gospel". The Lambeth statement talks of the variety of views in society and the church and how views have changed over time.

In terms of dealing with conflict GAFCON seemed to be taking an uncompromising line, their statement was unambiguous. Lambeth on the other hand clearly saw that there were a number of views sincerely held. No preference was given for any particular view. In discussion a number of points were made:

• it seems that more people are know to be homosexual in affluent societies. Why might this be so? Possibly this is about affluent societies tending to be more tolerant of difference and therefore homosexual people are more comfortable to be identified?
• societies have changed a lot over the years. Our society now is much more accepting of homosexuality that it was a few generations ago.
• this issue might be so divisive that unity on it is impossible.

Looking at more statements form GAFCON and Lambeth specifically about homosexuality. GAFCON see the acceptance of same-sex unions as a "false gospel". Lambeth again recognizes the variety of views without preferring one over another, and talks of some people coming to a new understanding of scripture and pastoral theology which is more accepting of same sex relationships.
How did the group respond to this? Not surprisingly a range of opinion.

• some agreed with GAFCON that this 'new understanding' was wrong, others felt that a new understanding of scripture was possible and desirable.
  
• we can always see new things in the bible.
  

We also had a general discussion on this issue:

• we talked about what might cause someone to have a homosexually orientation. There are many theories, eg. genetic, exposure to hormones in womb, sociological/upbringing. But there seems to be no clear answer. It seems that most people accept that it is not possible to make someone change their sexual orientation and so we have to have the discussion in light of this.
• people seem much more concerned about male sexuality than female, eg. much more difficult for boys or men to behave in stereotypically female ways than the other way round. We wondered why this might be. Some of us felt that men were more insecure in their sexuality than women.

We considered how we might be able to deal with the tensions that this debate/disagreement creates. Again we had different ideas on this.

• can't agree to differ - a split within the Anglican Communion is almost inevitable.
• the idea of a 'Big Tent' in which there is a place for different beliefs. Seen as fundamental to the nature of the Anglican church.
• is it possible for different parts of the communion to move at different speeds? see foe example ordination of woman to the priesthood and as bishops.
  
• while the Church of England holds a tentative position people from both sides might be happy to stay - if a definitive position was adopted people might feel compelled to leave.
• we need to listen to each other.
  

(out of time again! will continue next week).

dealing with peak oil - part 2

Thinking about the story of Joseph and Pharaoh's dream. Anything for us to learn here? In some ways the situations are different, there was not a finite supply of food unlike oil. That said it gives an example of how planning and restraint can help people prepare for a difficult future.

We use oil for relatively unimportant things, eg. petrol in cars. We have better alternatives, eg. hydrogen. But there is little motivation for car manufacturers to switch, the amount of necessary investment is very high. The short termism of governments also hinders the development of alternative energy sources.

What ideas from the film could be adopted in Redbridge?

• An allotment market, like current farmers market.
• Give and take days - encouraging re-use.
• High impact symbolic actions. For example Milan banned cars completely from the city centre for a weekend.
• Reward people for recycling etc. rather than punish for not, eg. get vouchers for something [maybe LBR facilities like the swimming pool].
• Free cycle system / encourage cycling and make safer.
• Give clearer information on what exactly can be recycled.
• Less street lighting.
• Are the video displays on High Road really necessary? how much energy do they use?
  

What actions could we take in the next six months: as individuals; as a Church; and with other groups in the borough?

• Create a lending/borrowing list at the church centre. People could list large items that they are happy to lend out, also people could use the same space to list wants/needs.
• Regular sale of allotment produce.
  
• Lists of items to give away and possibly things for sale?
• Carry on doing small individual actions, refusing bags, avoiding packaging, walking and using public transport etc. refuse, reuse, recycle.
  

Using your ideas from Session 1, if we don’t agree on peak oil (for instance, don’t think it’s happening, don’t think it’s important, don’t think we can do anything about it, don’t agree on what we should do about it etc.) how should we deal with our differences at St John’s?

• We ran out of time again so no answer to this question...:-)