Latimer: December 2004 Archives

Home About Latimer Fellowship Join us - become a Member Issues and discussion News and upcoming events Free weekly newsletter Books and DVDs for sale Contact us

« November 2004 | Main | February 2005 »

December 20, 2004

A Christmas Heresy Filter: How to Detect and Avoid Christmas Heresies

Maybe, like me, you are in the middle of preparing those Christmas sermons. You may also be wondering how on earth you are going to make your umpteenth Christmas message fresh and vital? Perhaps you have thought of some new angle? If you have, make sure we subject it to the Christmas Heresy filter.

Or you might be on the receiving end of a Christmas message. As an act of worship, the sermon invites us to reflect critically on what we hear. How will you look to distinguish the ‘gold’ from the ‘dross’. For there is a lot of the later about at this time of year. As is demonstrated by the numerous newspaper articles written by well-meaning Ministers who display a woefully inadequate theology.

For instance, The Press, in Christchurch has been running a daily ‘Perspectives’ column this week on the meaning of Christmas. One writer declared that Christmas was not for children, it is “really an adult story… It is the story of growing up to full maturity, refusing to take refuge in yesterday and in childish ways.” Dross!

Surprisingly, on another day a writer declared “the depth of the Christmas experience is to look into the face of a child and see God.” The “Bethlehem experience” he writes, is the “experience of returning to childhood.” Equal but opposition dross!

Please do not fall into their error by neglecting the uniqueness of the Bible’s narrative. For it concerns neither ‘a’ baby in the manger, nor even an example, par excellence, of ‘all’ babies. It is ‘the’ baby – Emmanuel, God with us. The error of the liberal writes I have just mentioned is that they make the identity of the Bethlehem baby incidental to their message. They are so entranced by their ‘universal’ theme of ‘adult maturity’ or ‘playful childhood’ that they ignore completely what I term the ‘particularity’ of the Christian narrative.

Both Matthew and Luke’s Gospel are insistent on this point (each in their own way, of course). Matthew refers to Isaiah 7 and the name ‘Emmanuel’ (Mat 1:23), while Luke calls Jesus, ‘Son of God’ (Luke 1:35). Though both wish to emphasis that Jesus is ‘the Christ, the Messiah’ (Matthew 1:16 & 18; Luke 2:11 & 26).

So the Christmas Hersy filter is this. If the message that you have written (or heard) could be understood on its own terms without any need (apart from obligatory seasonal references) to refer to ‘Emmanuel, God with us’ (Matthew 1:23), then it is plain wrong. Sure, you might have a manger, and even a baby in the manger. The baby might even grow to become Jesus of Nazareth. But if it is not “the Messiah, the Lord” (Luke 2:11) then go away and put the real baby back in the manger! For without it, your message will not be founded on the Christian Gospel.

It matters not how grand your theme concerning God’s inclusive love, or the depth of your insight into the existential human condition. If it is not founded on the revelation of Scripture, then it is just another Christmas Heresy.

Malcolm Falloon
Warden

Posted by latimer at 09:06 AM | Comments (0)

December 17, 2004

Rev Wally Behan's response to the Bishops Pastoral Letter

An open letter from Revd Wally Behan, Vicar of St John’s Latimer Square, Christchurch, to the Bishops of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa in response to their pastoral letter concerning the Windsor report.

In response to the Pastoral Letter from the Bishops of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa.

Thank you for your Pastoral Letter, eagerly awaited as I’m sure you can imagine. Let us pray that we can remain in the ‘bonds of affection’ and in ‘unity’ with the rest of the Anglican communion worldwide. However as Archbishop Robert Eames, the head of the Lambeth Commission says today in the Irish Times ..

“The truth is that with no strict constitutional provisions to regulate relationships within the communion, Anglicanism depends on “bonds of affection", agreements and a desire to be in special relationships with its diverse parts. The vast majority of submissions to the commission expressed a genuine desire to see the Anglican Communion continue as a viable part of the Body of Christ.

When the crisis arose it was not to law we turned but to basic questions about relationships. Between now and the meeting of primates next February, reactions to the commission’s report will be received and analysed. It is a time for heart-searching for the communion. Many theories are already becoming clear.

A federation of churches rather than a communion?

A communion which can paper over the cracks but retain some semblance of agreement to differ?

A realignment which owes more to cultural and political difference than to a common ecclesiology?

Whatever emerges, the Anglican Communion can never be the same again.

The historic centrality of Canterbury may remain the point from which the Anglican journey stems and the point at which diverse roads meet, but the numerical strengths and much of the focus of international expressions of Anglicanism is now somewhere south of the Sahara. The vitality of the global south challenges the traditions of the north and west in ways of which cultural diversity is but one part. Anglicanism has always avoided a central curia. Interdependence has been at its core. Now Anglicans may well ask how much they are prepared to pay if schism is to be avoided. Does consensus inevitably mean some surrender of truth?

The machinery of this communion needs fixing. Is there going to be agreement on how we do it?”

Archbishop Eames is warning us that a great deal of care must be taken as we approach this report .. our future is in jeopardy! So although I welcome our Bishop’s response, I was disappointed in the ‘slant’ that was put on the Windsor Report itself. There is a certain ‘spin’ within your response, which seems to indicate that ‘minds have been made up’ and listening is not going to be part of the procedure.

For ease of comprehension, extracts from your pastoral letter will be printed in bold. My comments in normal font and quotes in italics.

The Windsor Report from the Lambeth Commission on Communion reached the media before the Church it was written for had read it.
And ..
We have yet to hear how those directly addressed by all these calls will respond.

Certainly there was much speculation in the media as to the content of the Windsor Report before it was made public .. but it is not true to say that we have not heard how those directly addressed will respond. Archbishop Frank Griswold, who obviously had the report before the rest of us, responded while the rest of us were still reading it. We have now had many, many responses from all sides but we can be quite clear from both ECUSA, and New Westminster .. that while they express ‘regret’ that they ‘upset’ others in the communion, they do not intend to heed the Report’s call for a moratorium. They are in fact determined to continue on the path that will according to our Archbishop of Canterbury, “tear the fabric of our communion.”

Our own General Synod in May 2006 will need to address the outcome of this international consultation process and discern what decisions are appropriate for the life of this Church.

In view of the long discussions about ‘autonomy’ and ‘unity’ in the Windsor Report. I suggest we need to be careful of any discussion that refers to the life of ‘this’ church .. which may seem to be saying that we are in some way separate from the rest of the Anglican communion. It is my firm conviction that the bulk of the members of the Anglican church of Aotearoa, wish to remain as part of the Anglican communion worldwide.

The strongest recommendations address the Episcopal Church of the USA, and invite that church to express regret for ordaining the Bishop of New Hampshire without sufficient consultation with the rest of the communion.

I believe this is called ‘spin.’ In fact the Windsor Report makes clear that ECUSA ordained the Bishop of New Hampshire without ANY consultation with the four instruments of unity that we have within our communion .. that’s quite a big difference. I quote from the report ..

33. The first reason therefore why the present problems have reached the pitch they
have is that it appears to the wider Communion that neither the Diocese of New
Westminster nor the Episcopal Church (USA) has made a serious attempt to
offer an explanation to, or consult meaningfully with, the Communion as a
whole about the significant development of theology which alone could justify
the recent moves by a diocese or a province.

35. The second reason we have reached the present impasse is that neither the
Episcopal Church (USA) nor the Diocese of New Westminster, in deciding and
acting as they did in 2003, went through the procedures which might have made it possible for the church to hold together across differences of belief and practice.

37. The third reason therefore why the present crisis has arisen is that many within the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Diocese of New Westminster hold to the opinion, at least by implication, that the questions they were deciding were
things upon which Christians might have legitimate difference, while large
numbers of other Anglicans around the world did not regard them in this way.

39. The fourth reason for our present problems is thus that it was assumed by the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Diocese of New Westminster that they were
free to take decisions on matters which many in the rest of the Communion
believe can and should be decided only at the Communion-wide level.

Bishops were urged not to proceed with approving rites for the blessing of same sex unions. More biblical and theological study of the issue was encouraged, including a need for clarity about the distinction between same sex union and same sex marriage.

The full sentence you refer to reads ..

145. We urge all provinces that are engaged in processes of discernment regarding the blessing of same sex unions to engage the Communion in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions. Such a process of study and reflection needs to include clarification regarding the distinction, if such exists, between same sex unions and same sex marriage. This call for continuing study does not imply approval of such proposals.

Again, 'spin’ that I do not consider helpful if we are to move forward in this debate. Your sentence reads as if such a distinction exists, whereas the Windsor Report makes it clear that it may not.

The report is very valuable in the advice it gives on maintaining dialogue across deep divisions which can so easily be jeopardised by precipitous action and demeaning the oversight role and authority of the bishop.

I don’t want to get sidetracked with issues that are not central to the problems we are facing as a church, but feel I must state as a result of the above paragraph, that you are not putting the whole picture here. There is a careful analysis of the role of Bishops in our communion, in particular their ‘teaching role,’ in the Windsor Report. If we are not extremely careful in our wording of such a sentence as yours above, many in our communion will feel completely disenfranchised. It appears to deal only with those who are seeking alternative oversight .. and NOT deal with those who feel their Bishop is taking unilateral action on their behalf .. but against their will. If I may remind you, the Windsor Report states ..

150. In these circumstances we call upon the church or province in question to
recognise first that dissenting groups in their midst are, like themselves, seeking
to be faithful members of the Anglican family; and second, we call upon all the
bishops concerned, both the ‘home’ bishops and the ‘intervening’ bishops as
Christian leaders and pastors to work tirelessly to rebuild the trust which has
been lost.

We also note that this report does not address the issue of new ordinations of gay and lesbian people.

I beg to differ with your above statement, the Windsor report quite clearly calls for a moratorium ..

141. The clear and repeated statements of the Instruments of Unity have also been to advise against the development and approval of such rites. Whilst proponents of actions in the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) may argue that such advice has only moral authority, we believe that it must be recognised that actions to move towards the authorisation of such rites in the face of opposition from the wider Anglican Communion constitutes a denial of the bonds of Communion. In order for these bonds to be properly acknowledged and addressed, the churches proposing to take action must be able, as a beginning, to demonstrate to the rest of the Communion why their proposal meets the criteria of scripture, tradition and reason. In order to be received as a legitimate development of the tradition, it must be possible to demonstrate how public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received.

142. Whilst there have been the beginnings of such demonstration, at present it would be true to say that very many people within the Communion fail to see how the authorisation of such a rite is compatible with the teaching of scripture, tradition and reason. In such circumstances, it should not be surprising that such
developments are seen by some as surrendering to the spirit of the age rather
than an authentic development of the gospel.

143. We believe that to proceed unilaterally with the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions at this time goes against the formally expressed
opinions of the Instruments of Unity and therefore constitutes action in breach
of the legitimate application of the Christian faith as the churches of the
Anglican Communion have received it, and of bonds of affection in the life of
the Communion, especially the principle of interdependence. For the sake of our
common life, we call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour
the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorise public
Rites of Blessing for same sex unions. The primates stated then:
“The question of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions is still a
cause of potentially divisive controversy. The Archbishop of Canterbury
spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express
what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same
sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of
such rites.

This is distinct from the duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all
Christians to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual
100 For example, Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10 Human Sexuality; the statements of the Primates’ Meetings in March 2000, May 2003 (quoted in paragraph 142) and October 2003

144. While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of
Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of
same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops. Because
of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all
such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites
in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper
constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation.
Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited
to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from
representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that
provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part
of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter.

146. We remind all in the Communion that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 calls for an
ongoing process of listening and discernment, and that Christians of good will
need to be prepared to engage honestly and frankly with each other on issues
relating to human sexuality. It is vital that the Communion establish processes
and structures to facilitate ongoing discussion. One of the deepest realities that
the Communion faces is continuing difference on the presenting issue of
ministry by and to persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual
relationships. Whilst this report criticises those who have propagated change
without sufficient regard to the common life of the Communion, it has to be
recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but
radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion. The
later sections of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 cannot be ignored any more than the
first section, as the primates have noted. Moreover, any demonising of
homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and
basic principles of pastoral care. We urge provinces to be pro-active in support
of the call of Lambeth Resolution 64 (1988) for them to “reassess, in the light of
… study and because of our concern for human rights, its care for and attitude
toward persons of homosexual orientation”.

It is misleading to say, “that this report does not address the issue of new ordinations of gay and lesbian people.” When the Report states, “ministry by and to persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual relationship,” it is quite clear that this moratorium is not confined to Episcopal ordinations only.

My immediate concern for the Anglican Church in New Zealand in view of the Windsor Report, is that we have done, in principle, exactly what ECUSA have done. Bishop John Bluck, acting unilaterally and against the principles of the Lambeth resolution 1998, has sent an openly gay person for ordination training with the obvious intention of ordaining him to the priesthood. Just as importantly, St. John’s College have accepted him, and I understand, his partner. This is a very provocative and potentially divisive move by Bishop Bluck. If we are to adhere to the spirit of the Windsor Report, then both Bishop Bluck and St. John’s College should apologise and put it right before others follow suit.

As I have personally warned our own Bishop here in Christchurch, if this situation is not addressed, it will create conflict of the kind we have witnessed in the worldwide Anglican Communion. Although no action has been taken up to now, I can assure you there will be, if a blind eye continues to be turned to what Bishop Bluck has done. Please allow me to be clear .. it is this sort of action which will cause disunity, not any action we may take as a result of it.

Those are my concerns, and they will be the concerns of many faithful and loyal Anglicans in New Zealand.

Revd Wally Behan

Posted by latimer at 09:26 AM | Comments (0)

Rev David Pickering's open letter in response to the Bishops Pastoral Letter

An open letter from Revd David Pickering, retired Priest in the Christchurch Diocese, to the Bishops of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa in response to their pastoral letter concerning the Windsor report

Rev David Pickering,
101a Harewood Road
Christchurch 8005
phone (03) 354 4981

e-mail:d.pickering@ext.canterbury.ac.nz

An open letter to

The Bishops of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
c/- The General Secretary
GenSec@hb.ang.org.nz

November 8 2004

Dear Bishops,

In response to your recent Pastoral Letter.

I believe that it was Thomas Merton who said that "One of the moral diseases we communicate to one another in society comes from huddling together in the pale light of an insufficient answer to questions we are afraid to ask."

I appreciate the pastoral intent behind your recent letter; you are sincerely trying to hold the church together in the best way you can. However, I sense a degree of Merton's description in your approach, which begs questions and reveals major inadequacies. I will attend to just two matters in this response.[1]

(1) In electing to highlight the impropriety of bishops interfering in the dioceses of
other bishops you overlook the fact that this has been going on for many years. In the 1960's when the Bishop of Woolwich published his "Honest to God" book his interference in the New Zealand church was substantial. As a vicar in the 1970's I had to contend with the effect of this work. When a past Bishop of Durham made known his reinterpretation of the Resurrection of Christ people in NZ left our churches, and a substantial proportion of those who remained waited in vain for a rebuttal from the NZ bench of bishops. When Bishop Spong visited our shores comparatively recently the silence of the bench of bishops in correcting his heresies was deafening. And when he was invited to propagate his theories in a cathedral it seemed that his interference was welcome.

You may respond that you are talking of structured interference, whereas I am talking of occasional intellectual dissent. True; but I would argue that the latter is infinitely more damaging to faith. I consider that bishops who let Spong's opinions go unchallenged singularly failed in their God-given duty to defend the faith. When those who have failed in theological defence of the Gospel come down heavily in the administrative niceties of church order, which by its very nature is constantly changing, I cannot but question their priorities.

Staying with the interference question; I noted at the time that NZ Bishops gave wide circulation to the Archbishop of Canterbury's reaction to the irregular consecration of Bishops for ministry in America, but failed to publish in like manner the reply given by those bishops who did the consecrating.[2] The action of the "offending" bishops was one of final resort in response to the heart-felt appeal of Anglican Christians who needed/wanted care from the wider church. Because these details were not widely published a fair balance was not presented. When Maori members of the NZ church wanted a degree of autonomy ways were found to accommodate that wish. It is not beyond human imagination to facilitate a parallel way forward in the American situation.

(2) My second concern is that you beg the question in your use of the word "unity". How can you expect us to understand a concept of unity which you do not spell out? What is unity?

I don't regard unity as "uniformity" any more than you do [3]; it is rather to do with unity of purpose built on a common foundation. It has a historical depth as well as a contemporary geographical spread. For it to be a true Christian unity it must reach back to the teaching of Christ and his appointed apostles who form the foundation on which the church is built. What disturbs me is how far that historical feature of unity has been broken already, and will be further wrenched if some of the writers in the latest issue of Taonga get their way. I see no possibility of unity in the Gospel with such persons. Certainly we could put up a united front on some issues; but beyond these we would be poles apart. It all comes down to the foundation on which we build, our epistemology. In a nutshell, it is the difference between people who merely see some value in scripture and those whose lives depend on scripture.

With reference to the matter which brought things to our present crisis point, it has been implied that the wish to celebrate homosexual activity is of the same order as that of the ordination of women. The comparison is preposterous. One is a matter of church order, the other one of morality. If the bench of bishops cannot see that, then, with due respects, we have a case of "the blind leading the" not-so-blind. Some of us have no intention of "falling into [that] ditch".

During the hefty debates on Church Union in the 1960's and 70's a major article appeared (was it in Church and People?) in which the writer pointed out that in reality the churches are "umbrellas" under which people of a number of different viewpoints shelter. In the Anglican case our relationships have been built because of our foundation in scripture, our appreciation of the spiritual experience of the past, and our common delight in liturgical worship. However, the relationships holding folk together under each umbrella are fragile. New alliances outside a given denomination could readily be formed if unhappiness within it get too great. We knew at that time we could easily have ended up with more churches than we started with. I still don't know if we did the right thing.

I sense that we are on more dangerous ground now than we were then. Those who are pushing to make radical amendment to the Christian understandings which reach back to the Bible have provoked a precipitous situation. There are many of us who would more readily change the structure of the church than the theological and moral teaching of the church. Not something we would want, but something we would do if it was forced on us. My appeal is that the bishops in NZ will recognise this and defend our historical faith before the church they claim to serve falls down round their ears.

(3) I have said enough to express my thoughts, echoed in the thoughts of many others. It was said when the Windsor Commission was set up that the church will never be the same. I pray you will find ways forward in which the church will be recognisably part of the historical Christian tradition in which those of us who stand with the scripture may be able to live happily.

David Pickering.

[1] My concern throughout is with your letter rather than with the Windsor Report itself. back to text

[2] I tried at the time to have this revealing response circulated through diocesan channels, but my request was ignored. The opportunity for objective consideration by the laity and many clergy was thereby hindered. back to text

[3] I was privileged to have a deep experience of unity without uniformity when I taught biblical studies at College House. An Oxford historian from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the church was brought out deliberately to give balance to my evangelical approach. We were totally different in personality as well as in theological emphasis, but it wasn't long before we recognised a unity in the Gospel as we both tried to live and teach the Scriptures. We found ourselves time and again shoulder to shoulder in our tackling of some of the tough issues of the time. What a blessing my friend Stephen was. More recently I have had the same blessed experience with Pentecostals in classes I have taught for NZ Bible College. Nothing like uniformity; but a great experience of unity. back to text

David Pickering
Latimer Fellowship of NZ Trustee

Posted by latimer at 09:14 AM | Comments (0)

December 12, 2004

Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all

A lost sheep has returned to the fold. One of the most renowned atheists of the past half century has changed his mind and decided that there is a God after all.

INTERVIEW By Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale The Sunday Times

LONDON (12/12/2004)--A LOST sheep has returned to the fold. One of the
most renowned atheists of the past half century has changed his mind and decided that there is a God after all.

Antony Flew, 81, emeritus professor of philosophy at Reading University, whose arguments for atheism have influenced scholars around the world, has been converted to the view that some sort of deity created the universe.

Flew, the son of a Methodist minister, is keen to repent. "As people
have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the
enormous damage I may have done," he said yesterday.

But he is unlikely to proclaim his faith from a pulpit. He is still not a Christian and dismisses the conventional forms of divinity as "the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam". He also stands by his rejection of an afterlife.

Instead, he believes that new scientific discoveries have revealed the existence of an organising intelligence. Investigation of DNA, he said, "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved".

Darwin's theory of evolution does not explain the origin and development of life to Flew's satisfaction. "I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature," he said.

Flew finds the conventional explanation that life arose out of a complex chemical brew or primordial soup "improbable". So he is emulating Socrates and "following the argument wherever it leads. The conclusion is - there must have been some intelligence". His volte face is all the more remarkable given his vehement denial of internet rumours in 2001 that he had renounced his atheism. His response was entitled: "Sorry To Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!"

He has always described himself as a "negative atheist", asserting the impossibility of either verifying or disproving the existence of God, a position he explained in his 1950 paper Theology and Falsification, reprinted 40 times in many languages.

His revised views are likely to cause as big a commotion as the astronomer royal's recent speculation that the universe could be no more than a omputer simulation, with humans reduced to bits of software.

Sir Martin Rees, Royal Society professor of astronomy at Cambridge University, said in a Channel 4 television documentary that on current trends that computers would be able to simulate worlds as complicated as the one we inhabit - or think we do.

"This raises the philosophical question: could we ourselves be in such a simulation and could what we think is the universe be some sort of vault of heaven rather than the real thing?" he asked.

Flew became an atheist at 15 and went on to proclaim his non-credo while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities. The professor is now revising the introduction to one of his 23 books, God and Philosophy, incorporating his revised ideas.

"I am certain I shall surprise a lot of people," he said.

Peter Atkins, an atheist and professor of chemistry at Oxford University, is not impressed by Flew's reasoning. "It's absurd to think that because something is improbable it's impossible," he said. As for evidence of divine design, he observed: "There are several faults in nature's design. If I were God I would expect the current design to be sent back to me for improvement."

Atheist Becomes Theist Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony
Flew

The following is an exclusive interview that will be published in the Winter 2004 issue of "Philosophia Christi" the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (www.biola.edu/philchristi). "Philosophia Christi" is one of the top circulating philosophy of religion journals in the world and we are pleased to offer up the definitive interview on this breaking story of global interest.

Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades.

His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.

The interviewer is Dr. Gary Habermas, a prolific philosopher and historian from Liberty University who has debated Flew several times. They have maintained a friendship despite their years of disagreement on
the existence of God.

Sincerely, Craig J. Hazen, Ph.D. Professor of Comparative Religion, Biola University Editor, "Philosophia Christi"

DR. ANTONY FLEW Professor of Philosophy Former atheist, author, and debater

DR. GARY R. HABERMAS Professor Philosophy and Theology Editorial Board
for "Philosophia Christi"

Antony Flew and Gary Habermas met in February 1985 in Dallas, Texas.

The occasion was a series of debates between atheists and theists, featuring many influential philosophers, scientists, and other scholars. (1)

A short time later, in May 1985, Flew and Habermas debated at Liberty University before a large audience. The topic that night was the resurrection of Jesus. (2) Although Flew was arguably the world's foremost philosophical atheist, he had intriguingly also earned the distinction of being one of the chief philosophical commentators on the topic of miracles. (3) Habermas specialized on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. (4) Thus, the ensuing dialogue on the historical evidence for the central Christian claim was a natural outgrowth of their research. Over the next twenty years, Flew and Habermas developed a friendship, writing dozens of letters, talking often, and dialoguing twice more on the resurrection. In April 2000 they participated in a
live debate on the Inspiration Television Network, moderated by John Ankerberg. (5) In January 2003 they again dialogued on the resurrection at California Polytechnic State University=96San Luis Obispo. (6)

During a couple telephone discussions shortly after their last dialogue, Flew explained to Habermas that he was considering becoming a theist. While Flew did not change his position at that time, he concluded that certain philosophical and scientific considerations were causing him to do some serious rethinking. He characterized his position as that of atheism standing in tension with several huge question marks.

Then, a year later, in January 2004, Flew informed Habermas that he had indeed become a theist. While still rejecting the concept of special revelation, whether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, nonetheless he had concluded that theism was true. In Flew's words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads." (7)

The following interview took place in early 2004 and was subsequently modified by both participants throughout the year. This nontechnical discussion sought to engage Flew over the course of several topics that reflect his move from atheism to theism. (8) The chief purpose was not to pursue the details of any particular issue, so we bypassed many avenues that would have presented a plethora of other intriguing questions and responses. These were often tantalizingly ignored, left to ripen for another discussion. Neither did we try to persuade each another of alternate positions.

Our singular purpose was simply to explore and report Flew's new position, allowing him to explain various aspects of his pilgrimage. We thought that this in itself was a worthy goal. Along the way, an additional benefit emerged, as Flew reminisced about various moments from his childhood, graduate studies, and career.

NOTE: For the complete interview, read the story from VirtueOnline's
website:=20

http://www. virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3D1785

Posted by latimer at 09:31 AM | Comments (0)

What does the Windsor Report say about blessing same-sex unions?

Now that Civil Unions will become recognised under New Zealand law, we can expect the liberal lobby within our church to press for official rites of blessing for such unions. Of particular concern are the statements made by Bishop John Bluck (Waiapu) on the National Radio back in June 2004 where he gave the opinion that such rites were already authorised within our church. If that is so, it would come as a great surprise to the rest of the church! Do they have their own General Synod there in Napier?

Fortunately, the Windsor Report has been very clear as to the status of same-sex blessings within the Anglican Communion, something that was noted in the Pastoral Letter of the New Zealand Bishops released in response to the Report.

The following are some relevant excerpts from the Windsor Report:

Paragraph 138
“…normally in the churches of the Communion there is not unqualified freedom on the part of any bishop or diocese to authorise liturgical texts if they are likely to be inconsistent with the norms of liturgical and doctrinal usage extant in the province’s Book of Common Prayer or other provincially authorised texts.”

Paragraph 141
“The clear and repeated statements of the Instruments of Unity have also been to advise against the development and approval of such rites. Whilst proponents of actions in the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) may argue that such advice has only moral authority, we believe that it must be recognised that actions to move towards the authorisation of such rites in the face of opposition from the wider Anglican Communion constitutes a denial of the bonds of Communion.”

Paragraph 142
“…it should not be surprising that such developments are seen by some as surrendering to the spirit of the age rather than an authentic development of the gospel.”

Paragraph 143
“For the sake of our common life, we call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorise public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions.”

Paragraph 144
“Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation.”

Rev Malcolm Falloon
Warden

Posted by latimer at 09:18 AM | Comments (0)

December 10, 2004

Does the Bishops’ Pastoral Letter square with the Windsor Report?

The New Zealand Anglican Bishops released a pastoral statement on the Windsor Report, yet they seem to misread one of its key findings! I do a little woodworking, and I know that it doesn’t matter how nice the grain is, if the edges ain’t square then it’s going to be wonky!

The Pastoral Letter reads:

“We also note that this report does not address the issue of new ordinations of gay and lesbian people, any more than it addresses the question of homosexuality in general.”

But paragraph 127 of the Windsor Report reads:

“The Communion has also made its collective position clear on the issue of ordaining those who are involved in same gender unions; and this has been reiterated by the primates through their endorsement of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution. By electing and confirming such a candidate in the face of the concerns expressed by the wider Communion, the Episcopal Church (USA) has caused deep offence to many faithful Anglican Christians both in its own church and in other parts of the Communion.”

The Windsor Report is clear as to the “collective position” of the church, namely Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference which declares “This Conference: … cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” This is the resolution that the Primates of the 38 Anglican provinces were affirming when they said, “We also re-affirm the resolutions made by the bishops of the Anglican Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 on the issues of human sexuality as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues.”

Have our Bishops misread the significance of the paragraph 127?

Yes! Either that or they have been misinformed. For the Report does not confine itself merely to the particular ordination of Gene Robinson to the episcopate, as the Bishops’ Pastoral Letter implies. But to all ordinations of those involved in same gender unions in the most general sense. This is made clear by the footnote references directly to Resolution 1.10 and the Primates Statement and their inclusion in the appendix to the report. So how can our Bishops then say that the Report does not address the issue of “new ordinations”! Especially when the Report makes clear that the “old” ordination “has caused deep offence to many faithful Anglican Christians both in its own church and in other parts of the Communion.”

Why mention the possibility of “new ordinations’? What are “new” ordinations anyway and why would they need to be mentioned here? Is this a signal that New Zealand Bishops are planning to disregard one of the key findings of the Windsor Report! Let me be plain: any further ordinations (“new” or otherwise) of candidates involved in same gender unions will cause “deep offence” to many “faithful Anglican Christians” within our own Church, let alone the wider Church! To even contemplate such a course of action, given the findings of the Windsor Report, is nothing short of reckless and can only be regarded as a breach of good faith. I don’t think I can put it any plainer than that.

Of course the irony of it all is that the Pastoral Letter criticises those who have misread the report:

“The debate triggered on the Internet before and after the report’s release bears little resemblance to the careful and prayerful process of reception that the Commission proposes. Much of the media debate has little to do with what the Windsor Report is really about.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! One has to wonder whether our Bishops have leaned too heavily on insider trading from the two New Zealand Commissioners and have not allowed the text of the report to stand on its own terms.

Pastoral, yes, but for whom?

It is now almost two months since the Windsor Report was released and our Bishops issued their Pastoral Letter, and my “careful and prayerful” reflection has led me not to a growing re-assurance, but to a deepening anxiety for our New Zealand Church. It is almost as if the Bishops have given no consideration as to how Anglican evangelicals would “receive” their letter. Do they understand us at all? The Bishops write that they have “deep concern over all these issues and their potential to divide us,” yet they seem at a loss to know how to communicate effectively to the conservative wing of their church.

Let me attempt to articulate what it is that I feel has been left so unaddressed by the Bishops? This is how I see it. Here I am, looking on with horror as my Church seems to be careering down the road after the ECUSA and Canadian Church; and hoping to hear that the Windsor report has had at least an arresting, if not a sobering affect, on our leaders. But what do I hear? Only the declaration of “Business as usual!” This may well have been an unintended message from the Bishops, but one that I am hearing none the less.

How do I hear such a message? Well, consider the language of the Letter:

“We are encouraged that much of the spirit and direction of this report echoes our own General Synod resolution in May 2004, including the acknowledgement of the ministries and contributions of gay and lesbian people in this Church.”

Notice that Windsor is said to “echo” General Synod not the other way round. The Windsor Report is cast as the familiar echo and not as the strange and different voice that I hear. Hence the message communicated to me is, “business as usual”, “Windsor agrees with us.” Whether the Bishops intended it or not, the overall effect of the Pastoral Letter for me, is to say “Don’t panic, we are still on course. Windsor won’t affect us. General Synod can get on with its ‘active listening’; Bishops can still ordain practising gays. And we will win them over in the end!” I almost felt as if I was a third party to the intended audience of the letter, and that it was talking about someone else’s church.

The Bishops talk about not wanting to “close any doors or drop a portcullis on the debate.” Yet I believe they have! For why is it that the only portcullis dropped onto the path of the church, is the one that is dropped directly behind us, barring any attempt to return and seek another road? For there seems to be a determination not to countenance the idea that we might have it wrong, that we might need to ‘back up’ and pursue a different course if we are to achieve healing and restoration.

Can we give a name to that portcullis? I believe we can, for it is the stubborn triumphalism of the liberal worldview that bars our way. It is all about ‘progress’ we are told. “It’s going to happen eventually, it’s only a matter of time!” Sure, we can express “regret”, for progress always comes at a cost. But the idea of repentance is quite another matter. Yet, if we are to “choose to walk together” (as the Windsor Report urges us), we must at least concede the possibility that we may have got it wrong and have to retrace our steps. Maybe it is not just a case of the ‘Global South’ catching up with the modern civilised ‘West’. Perhaps there are lessons we can learn from them, if we have the humility to listen. That, it seems to me, is the true “spirit and direction” that the Windsor Report is asking us to consider.

Malcolm Falloon
Warden

Posted by latimer at 09:22 AM | Comments (0)

Civil Unions and the Church

The following is an article which first appeared in the Anglican Taonga Magazine (Spring 2004) concerning the impact that the proposed Civil Union legislation would have upon the New Zeland Church. Now that Parliament has passed such a law, it is important to establish the status of such unions within the life of the church.

If anyone had any doubt as to the significance of the Civil Union legislation for the Anglican Church in New Zealand, they need only to have listened to Linda Clark’s Nine to Noon talk show on National Radio, Monday, 21 June. Her guests that morning were Bishop John Bluck, Diocesan Bishop of Waiapu and the Rev’d Hugh Kempster, Vicar of Grey Lynn in Auckland. In the course of the conversation, Mr Kempster announced his determination to be among the first to register as a civil union celebrant when the new law is passed, so that he could solemnise same-sex civil unions within his parish church and follow it by a service of blessing. “I want to ‘test’ the Church on this,” Mr Kempster declared.

Space prevents me from addressing the supposed authority on which Mr Kempster wishes to base his unilateral action. Instead, I wish to focus on what response the Church should make to this new category of ‘civil union’ in the event that the two bills before Parliament become law. Should the Church, following the ‘prophetic’ voice of Mr Kempster, register its clergy as civil union celebrants as well as marriage celebrants? In the future, will couples approaching the Church wanting to enter into a public and exclusive relationship, be offered a choice of civil union or marriage? Should the Church recognise and ‘bless’ same-sex civil unions? The answer to all three questions should, in my view, be no!

For it is my contention, that although the church would want to respond with compassion to all who sincerely wish to commit their lives to one another, nevertheless there can only be one service of marriage that the Church publicly offers and that any priest in licensed ministry who becomes a civil union celebrant should be subject to discipline. In addition, that if the civil union bill becomes law, the Church should continue to distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual unions. For while the Church can do nothing less than recognise heterosexual civil unions as sharing the same status as marriage, the same argument cannot be applied to homosexual unions. The reasons for holding this view do not depend on some adverse psychological state, or on a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. But rather, I believe, they turn on a deeper understanding of the essence of the marriage relationship as the Christian Church understands it.

For marriage must be considered a ‘social’ act, before it becomes a ‘religious’ or ‘political’ act. By this distinction I simply mean to point out that the essential character of marriage is established independently of the offices of either the Church or State. The State may ‘register’ a relationship (and name it whatever they choose – whether marriage or civil union), the Church may “witness…celebrate…pray” (NZPB, pg 780), but in the end, the ‘social-family’ context is primary. The essence of marriage consists of a man and a woman, publicly declaring their intention to live together as husband and wife (whatever their particular cultural understanding of what this might entail). The Church may wish to teach a particular view of ‘Christian’ marriage and invite couples to acknowledge the spiritual significance of their action. The State may wish to ‘register’ that relationship for the good ordering of society. But in the end, while the Church celebrates and the State legislates, neither is essential for the marriage bond itself.

This distinction is clearly implied in the thematic text of Genesis 2:24 as well as from the church’s practise down through the centuries. In Africa today, if a couple are married according to tribal lore, they are not ‘remarried’ by the Church but simply ‘blessed’. So, it matters not whether the State wishes to use two registers, a civil union register and a marriage register, the Church is bound by its understanding of creation to recognise both as referring to the same social contract, which the Church traditionally calls ‘marriage’. Therefore the Church cannot offer two services of blessing, as if a civil union was of a different order to that of marriage, without doing violence to the meaning of one or the other.

As a consequence, it is inappropriate for Anglican priests to conduct civil unions, for by doing so they are failing in their duty to uphold the Church’s understanding of Christian marriage. This is also why the Church cannot allow the blessing of same-sex civil unions. Because the equation ‘civil union’ plus ‘blessing’ is marriage! The State, in its wisdom, can choose to ‘register’ any manner of relationships and homosexual relationships may be one of them. But that does not then force the Church to alter her understanding of marriage.

The Church’s understanding of marriage remains founded on the complementary union of a man and a woman, and as a consequence the Church can only recognise heterosexual unions as marriage. And I believe that this conclusion can be arrived at quite independently of the (albeit related) question of how one regards the morality of homosexual sex. The pastoral instinct that wishes to affirm homosexual civil unions quite independently of careful theological reflection is, I suggest, ultimately misguided and unhelpful. Therefore, heterosexual civil unions, if New Zealand law allows it, can be recognised within the Church without the need for re-marriage, though a service of prayer for God’s blessing may well be appropriate. Whereas, homosexual civil unions must continue to be unrecognised by the church if we are to remain true to our Christian heritage.

Rev’d Malcolm Falloon

Warden

Posted by latimer at 12:02 AM | Comments (0)