October 21st, 2008 Posted in News |

October 20th, 2008 Posted in News |

Why “playing nice” by postmodernist standards is a losing proposition

The favorite buzzwords of the postmodern spirit all sound so warm and friendly, don’t they? Conversation, dialogue, openness, generosity, tolerance. Who wouldn’t want to participate in discourse with someone who truly prized human values such as those?

On the other hand, the very same Zeitgeist has demonized a host of other essential biblical values, such as authority, conviction, clarity, and even truth. In the milieu of the emerging discussion, this second category of words has been made to sound harsh, unreasonable, arrogant, and extreme—if not downright evil.

Moreover, postmodern human values are increasingly being defined in a way that expressly precludes eternal biblical values. For example, the prevailing opinion nowadays is that you cannot be “open” and certain at the same time. A person who speaks with too much conviction is ipso facto deemed an “intolerant” person. Above all, anyone who recognizes the full authority of Scripture and insists that God’s Word deserves our unconditional submission will inevitably be accused of deliberately trying to stymie the whole “conversation.”

This is not to suggest that disagreement per se is prohibited in the postmodern dialectic. Quite the contrary, “deconstruction” is all about disputes over words. Postmoderns thrive on dissent, debate, and contradiction.

And (giving credit where credit is due) it should be noted that postmodernists can sometimes be amazingly congenial in their verbal sparring with one another.

One thing the participants in the postmodern “conversation” simply will not tolerate, however, is someone who disagrees and thinks the point is really serious. Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable. The notion that erroneous doctrine can actually be dangerous is deemed uncouth and naive. Every bizarre notion gets equal respect. Truth itself is only a matter of personal perspective, you see. Everything is ultimately negotiable.

Now, if you want to join the postmodern “conversation,” you are expected to acknowledge all this up front—at least tacitly. That’s the price of admission to the discussion. Once you’re in, you can throw any bizarre idea you want on the table, no matter how outlandish. You can use virtually any tone or language to make your point, no matter how outrageous. But you must bear in mind that all disputation at this table is purely for sport. At the end of the day, you mustn’t really be concerned about the truth or falsehood of any mere propositions.

Read more……..

The Opening of an excellent piece lengthy but more than worth the read.

Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Tuesday, September 9th, 2008

The Anglican Communion is currently pursuing a number of activities in response to the acrimonious struggle over sexual teaching and discipline within our churches. These activities have been encouraged by the Communion’s leadership, including at the recent Lambeth Conference. I have, to various degrees, been a supporter of these activities, not least because I have trusted those who have promoted these means towards ecclesial healing. I am increasingly skeptical, however, that the way these activities have been framed – descriptively and practically – represents the true nature of our disputes.

Categories like “moratoria” and “reception” and “listening”, for instance, are now prominent elements in our strategic ecclesial discussions. Unfortunately, they no longer appear to be useful categories, in large part because they do not accurately reflect the actual relationship of expectation and possibility that the disputing parties hold, one to another and with respect to their own commitments. When one party says, while responding to the request for a “moratorium” on specific actions, “yes we will consider it; but there is no going back on our underlying commitments”; and another party says at the same time, “yes we will consider it; but only on the condition that you others give up your practical commitments”, then the very category of “moratorium” functions in very different ways in each case. Similarly, when “reception” is a “process” that seeks to discern the Christian authenticity of an innovative practice, but also does so by the very means of rooting that practice within the life of the church in different areas, the notion that discernment has a possibly restraining role to play seems practically undercut. Or when “listening” presumes an ecclesial practice even as it refuses to evaluate that practice, one is not so much listening as receiving justification ex post facto.

Read more

September 8th, 2008

Why did TEC invest so heavily persuading people to come to Lambeth? And did its strategy pay off?  One of its key people shares how important the ‘listening’ process had been to gain support for TEC - and affirms that yes, indeed, its strategy worked.  Read the rest on AAC’s site below.

All of this was mostly positive, and it gave me the opportunity to describe the polity of the Episcopal Church to bishops from other provinces – how we are governed by the voices and votes of the laity, clergy and bishops and not by the solitary decision making of the bishop or primate of the province. Some African bishops expressed wonderment that American bishops had very little decision making and enforcement power and saw our system as difficult, if not unworkable. One bishop from Sudan came up to me after I spoke at a hearing on the Windsor Report and apologized for his primate’s position on human sexuality. He told me he had been threatened with losing his diocesan oversight if he attended the Lambeth Conference. Others from Africa, India and Asia had not been aware of the incursion of primates and bishops from overseas jurisdictions into the Episcopal Church and were saddened to learn that such behavior was seemingly tolerated by some in leadership positions within the Communion.

It was reassuring to me that many bishops, even those who do not share our understanding of human sexuality in the life of the church, said their disagreement with me and the Episcopal Church was not a “breaking point” in our relationship. Some said they knew in time they would have to be facing the same issue in their own countries, and we all needed to have more conversation about human sexuality in a non-legislative format. All of these reflections, although problematic in some instances, were centered on an optimism that can hold us together as a Communion if we continue to work at it and not remain in isolation from one another.

More………………

Listening to Bp Gene Robinson … again

September 8th, 2008 Posted in Culture, From Lisa’s Lookout, Homosexuality, Politics |

But now it’s time to get serious. It is no longer enough to make a decision to vote for Barack Obama. The polls – unbelievably and frighteningly – are close. The election of a LGBT-friendly candidate is not a foregone conclusion. We now have to WORK for his election. That means calling your parents, your siblings, your friends from college; it means talking to your co-workers at the water cooler and your next door neighbors – about why this election is important to you as a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person, and how it will make a difference to you and your family who inhabits the White House. It’s time to tell them that a vote for the Republican nominee is a vote against YOU, against YOUR rights, YOUR family. And if they don’t understand how that could be true, be ready to tell them.

More………….

September 7th, 2008 Posted in From Lisa’s Lookout10 Homosexuality | No Comments »

Of course, all this really says is that along with other ‘progressive’ Christians in the Anglican Communion, Tutu has abandoned the biblical claim that certain moral behaviours actively embraced will cause one to forfeit one’s eternal salvation.  He no longer believes such is the case and admonishes others to join him. In matter of fact, the entire sexual realm would appear to be unimportant - certainly not a cause for concern! - and what people get up to sexually - and the soaring cost of these behaviours in terms of the individual, marriage and the family, the community and the nation - are matters which are downplayed or ignored entirely.

I have no doubt but that Tutu’s concern for the Have Nots is very close to the heart of God. However, I have huge doubt that he is correct in his sexual ethic and its impact on church and culture or in his evaluation of the present Anglican crisis.

But that is only the first part of the saga.  Given the fact that Tutu is one of the most vocal and popular advocates for gay rights now on the planet, why did the Tearfund organizers invite him to speak?  Did they not realise what they were letting themselves in for?  Or is Tearfund shifting, ever so slowly, ever so incrementally, from its mooring in a strong, compassionate evangelical heritage which embraces both grace and truth?  If not, then perhaps the organization might wish to distance itself from Tutu’s sexual ethic.

If you would care to contrast the BBC’s account with what is on Tearfund’s site, the addresses are here.  And if you wish to contact Tearfund directly, its details are here as well.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7602498.stm

http://www.tearfund.org/News/World+news/Tutu+conference+news.htm

Email: enquiries@tearfund.org Tel: 0845 355 8355