I've experienced something of the same treatment. I went to seminary a conservative evangelical (not so sure we know what this is anymore). There I discovered Barth and Torrance and was changed forever. I was "accused" of being a liberal and even told by one of my professors to be careful - I could lose my salvation being liberal!
I then attended a bigger university in their Th.D. program and I was considered a total conservative again. My faith in Christ was seen as "cute" and archaic. So interesting the contrast . . .
The terms here are one of the reasons I wish we would abandon the terms conservative/liberal or even left/right. They are oversimplifications that now have been compounded by further developments so that they are more confusing than useful. Look at how American Republicans call Democrats extreme leftists when in most countries the Democrats would be a Center-Right party.
And this isn't new. A lot of the ritualists and oxford movement Anglicans were what we would think of as Conservative in some ways, but many were socialists and were seen as changing too much for Low Church Anglicans - who were actually conservative by the dictionary definition of resisting change. Even the term postliberal now is old enough to require explanation, or at least an idea of postpostliberalism.
What are your thoughts on the Appellate Tribunal of the Anglican Church of Australia's Wangaratta decision (11/11/2020)? Where do they fit in to these liberal theologies? (The cultural apologists?)
Will we look back and see that decision as one of the major causes that will have led to the split in the Anglican Communion? (by the cultural apologists?)
What about the Anglican Church League's (of Australia- mainly Sydney based?)) response to this decision in their publication "Line in the Sand"? (Trajectory theologians?)
How about Richard Condie's article in Journal of Anglican Studies, 2022, 20, 139-149?
Thanks Mike. I agree with you about the Appellate Tribunal. But the question I have is "How on earth could they have got it so wrong?" and "If they got this wrong, is the Tribunal fit for purpose at all?"
Heretic? That has got to be an interesting story! Perhaps a future post?
As for their Line in the Sand doc- I have not read much of it, but there is a part which responds to the Appellate Tribunal's judgement.
But even without a theological deep dive on the subject, I think basing any kind of human hierarchies sheerly on biology - and claiming such hierarchies are God’s will - is an enormous red flag. As is teaching that you need another human in your life to be fully human yourself (whether that’s a spouse, or a male “cover” for your spiritual life, if you’re female).
The one exception to that would be the parent-child relationship, since children lack maturity and experience. Even then, though, children are infinitely precious and valuable as God’s image-bearers, which is why parents are not to exasperate them, but instead to model God the Father’s patience and compassion. (Also, children grow up, and when they do, the parent-child relationship changes.)
I saw a great video by Dr. Diane Langberg (can’t remember which one), who talked about the ways in which traumas like child sexual abuse, squash and distort those very aspects of our being that make us God’s image-bearers. She specifically mentioned 3 aspects: language (our ability to communicate), agency (our ability to influence, to make meaning) and relationships with other humans. Instead of language/communication, trauma silences.
I was fascinated by what Dr. Langberg said, because I think human hierarchies based on biology can have the same impact on God’s image-bearers as trauma does.
This article is very helpful - thank you!
I've experienced something of the same treatment. I went to seminary a conservative evangelical (not so sure we know what this is anymore). There I discovered Barth and Torrance and was changed forever. I was "accused" of being a liberal and even told by one of my professors to be careful - I could lose my salvation being liberal!
I then attended a bigger university in their Th.D. program and I was considered a total conservative again. My faith in Christ was seen as "cute" and archaic. So interesting the contrast . . .
That's really good stuff.
The terms here are one of the reasons I wish we would abandon the terms conservative/liberal or even left/right. They are oversimplifications that now have been compounded by further developments so that they are more confusing than useful. Look at how American Republicans call Democrats extreme leftists when in most countries the Democrats would be a Center-Right party.
And this isn't new. A lot of the ritualists and oxford movement Anglicans were what we would think of as Conservative in some ways, but many were socialists and were seen as changing too much for Low Church Anglicans - who were actually conservative by the dictionary definition of resisting change. Even the term postliberal now is old enough to require explanation, or at least an idea of postpostliberalism.
Lots of food for thought here.
I have some questions:
What are your thoughts on the Appellate Tribunal of the Anglican Church of Australia's Wangaratta decision (11/11/2020)? Where do they fit in to these liberal theologies? (The cultural apologists?)
Will we look back and see that decision as one of the major causes that will have led to the split in the Anglican Communion? (by the cultural apologists?)
What about the Anglican Church League's (of Australia- mainly Sydney based?)) response to this decision in their publication "Line in the Sand"? (Trajectory theologians?)
How about Richard Condie's article in Journal of Anglican Studies, 2022, 20, 139-149?
James,
I think the Appellate Tribunal got it wrong.
I'm sceptical of the ACL since they've called me a heretic in the past.
I haven't read Richard Condie's article, but I probably should.
Mike
Thanks Mike. I agree with you about the Appellate Tribunal. But the question I have is "How on earth could they have got it so wrong?" and "If they got this wrong, is the Tribunal fit for purpose at all?"
Heretic? That has got to be an interesting story! Perhaps a future post?
As for their Line in the Sand doc- I have not read much of it, but there is a part which responds to the Appellate Tribunal's judgement.
Condie's article is well worth a read.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Elizabeth,
I agree, I don't think "being gay" is a sin, like are "sexuals," it's what you do with it.
On singleness, see the forthcoming book by Dani Treeweek, its good I'm told.
Mike
Interesting comments, Elizabeth. Any good books you recommend on a richer discussion on the whole image of God idea you talked about.
Lucy Peppiatt’s book is a good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/Imago-Dei-Humanity-Cascade-Companions/dp/1498233406
But even without a theological deep dive on the subject, I think basing any kind of human hierarchies sheerly on biology - and claiming such hierarchies are God’s will - is an enormous red flag. As is teaching that you need another human in your life to be fully human yourself (whether that’s a spouse, or a male “cover” for your spiritual life, if you’re female).
The one exception to that would be the parent-child relationship, since children lack maturity and experience. Even then, though, children are infinitely precious and valuable as God’s image-bearers, which is why parents are not to exasperate them, but instead to model God the Father’s patience and compassion. (Also, children grow up, and when they do, the parent-child relationship changes.)
I saw a great video by Dr. Diane Langberg (can’t remember which one), who talked about the ways in which traumas like child sexual abuse, squash and distort those very aspects of our being that make us God’s image-bearers. She specifically mentioned 3 aspects: language (our ability to communicate), agency (our ability to influence, to make meaning) and relationships with other humans. Instead of language/communication, trauma silences.
I was fascinated by what Dr. Langberg said, because I think human hierarchies based on biology can have the same impact on God’s image-bearers as trauma does.