Sic et Non: Fudge or ~ Fudge

Rev Dr Bryden Black, Christchurch

Some 65-70 of us gathered on Sunday evening (18
th
May 2014) at a post GS debriefing meeting
here in Christchurch. A good percentage of our diocesan GS reps were there to convey what
transpired over the days they met together. However, I will not try here to pass on a precis of my
own extensive notes taken during the meeting. Rather, I want to pass on for others reflection my
summary questions that have arisen during this entire business (some of which I have posed before
in various ways).

1. How did western Christianity finish up here? How did we reach the point we have? And where is
that? To frame it in the form we are currently being presented with: we have a complete stand-off
between those who deem homoeroticism per se a sin and those who desire to see it set within what
they suggest is a reasonable and holy relationship. Nor should be fail to note well: neither side
sees the matter to be adiaphora; positions are therefore held strongly and with seeming strong
justification.

Such an historical exercise will employ both theology and sociology, cultural analysis of the kind
often called the sociology of knowledge, which itself is a form of hermeneutics and epistemology,
via cultural traits both material and immaterial. (See for example John Milbanks Theology and
Social Theory, NT Wrights and Alister McGraths oeuvre, Michael Polanyi and TF Torrance, to
name but a few: Id also nail my own colours to the mast, by avowing an a priori perspective of
critical realism - contra a good deal of what passes for so-called Critical Theory in the world of
literature and/or contemporary philosophy - even though some of their insights might be helpful.)

2. To be quite specific, noting the Christian Faith as an Incarnational Reality, we here in
ACANZ&P, are presented with this core to the GS 2014 Motion 30:

1. This General Synod/Te Hnota Whnui resolves to appoint a working group to
bring and recommend to the 62nd General Synod/Te Hnota Whnui:

(a) A process and structure by which those who believe the blessing of same-gender
relationships is contrary to scripture, doctrine, tikanga or civil law, will not be
required to perform any liturgy for the blessing of same-gender relationships, will
continue to have integrity within the Church, and will remain compliant with the
parliamentary legislation within any relevant jurisdiction;
(b) A process and structure by which those who believe the blessing of same-gender
relationships is consonant with scripture, doctrine, tikanga and civil law may
perform a yet to be developed liturgy for blessing same-gender relationships in a
manner which maintains their integrity within the Church, is compliant with the
parliamentary legislation within any relevant jurisdiction, and can remain in
communion under scripture, doctrine and law; including
(i) A proposal for a new liturgy to bless right ordered same-gender
relationships;
(ii) A process and legislation (whether church or parliamentary) by which a
new liturgy to bless right ordered same-gender relationships may be adopted;

Now; much could, and no doubt should, be said re such things as what on earth is meant by right
ordered same-gender relationships? Huge things are presupposed right here, as other commentators
on ADU have already pointed out, and as emerged last evening when trying to consider what on
earth was meant by the final Therefore resolution re recognition of ss relationships. Yet I wish
to probe more deeply still, as even such questions are only symptomatic.

As was granted last evening, there is absolutely nothing to assure us that this process, having been
set in motion, will actually be able to conclude with a satisfactory outcome. What has been offered
here - to all - is a mere breathing space, probably even a gracious space. What drove this outcome
was the desire - by all - to try to remain together (for as long as possible in good conscience ...?).
Yet my question is this. Granted (for the moment) each sides respective integrity, how do we
move from this mere phenomenon of (a) and (b) within a single organization to an evaluation? By
what criteria or frame of reference might we truly conduct such an evaluation? This is a basic
dilemma! For related to it is the other question, supposing any successful outcome: what of the
integrity of the eventual structure that seeks to house BOTH of these stances? How on earth
might we read the integrity of this new whole?! For the Christian Faith is in the end an essentially
moral entity. The one holy catholic and apostolic Church, of which the AC, and its constituent
members like ACANZ&P, claim to be a part (cf. the opening pages of our Constitution), necessarily
embodies and reflects the character of the Living Triune God. Christians do NOT subscribe to a
monist ethos and world-view.

To reach adequate answers, careful readers will be able to see I am assuming quite a bit of what Ive
already said under a number of other threads, especially that generous posting of Peters at 30 April,
which is my critique of the Theology Commissions Report of the Ma Whea? Report.

3. These two sections 1 & 2 lead to an interim conclusion; I say interim as I am trying to sit also
with this process which has now begun without preempting its outcome ...

If there is indeed an essential link between history, and the ontological and the logical, in the final
analysis - another set of questions: how do people become sincerely mistaken? NB I do not say
are mistaken; I am being resolutely historical here. For all humanity is comprised of both each
little history (all our multiple histories), and our respective cultural histories - all set within that
Grand Story that is the Triune Gods Economy of Salvation. Added to which now our 21
st
C is a
polyglot confluence of many cultural strands. In fact, our own Three Tikanga experience these past
decades, I strongly suggest, is a partial reason for how the ACANZ&P reached its own interim
conclusion in this Motion 30 - however inadequate this very Constitutional Form might appear to
some/many. I.e. here especially might we see our own Gracious Gods Good Providence at work ...
despite ourselves?!

This last series of questions seeks to probe the very possibility that either one or the other side in
this stand-off is indeed mistaken. In fact, it might be that BOTH are mistaken, to varying degrees. It
is this third sections questions which have prompted my own frail attempts these past 25+ years to
get to the bottom of our present dilemmas. To be sure; I tend strongly to a particular conclusion at
the present time. For all that, this is not (yet) the Eschaton; there is even about my own judgments a
certain eschatological reserve - imposed by the very Economy in Whom we all live. Yet again;
Jesus has clearly said, he will not leave us as orphans: we are not adrift in an alien cosmos! [This
last quote from John 14 presupposes indeed an entire hermeneutic about how the Upper Room
Discourses give rise to both the canon of Holy Scripture and our reading of it by means of the
Holy Spirits corporate guidance - for another day!]

So; thanks to the ADU community, hidden and silent, vocal and visible - not least both Richard and
Mike Reddell, who anticipate delightfully my own musings on the way home last night under the ~
Fudge thread. For anyone who has lived through the 20
th
C knows well the pull of the likes of
Hitlers Germany (cf. Hitlers Willing Helpers ...): it takes a huge amount of social and cultural
context to produce a Bonhoeffer, let alone a Barmen Barth (and cf. Barmen links to the Belhar
Confession of RSA, which Mike distantly alludes to), plus individual spirits of indomitable courage.
Is this combination what 2014-16 Aotearoa NZ is capable of producing ...?? I suggest the answer
involves our grappling with all the questions of 1,2 & 3, answers to which might come from well
beyond our shores. But we are still an integral part of the poor old AC - after all!

19 May 2014