Women's Ordination Unlikely in Lutheran Church of Australia: Holy Spirit and Tradition direct Lutheran Magisterium...

Tom Pietsch, Lutheran Seminary student and blogger at Unto This Last, has this report on his page:

My sources tell me that Pastors voted 50.9% in favour and 49.1% against the ordination of women. As two thirds are usually needed for a majority, it seems that the Holy Spirit has given no clear indication to proceed.

For those unsure what I’m talking about, every three years the Lutheran Church of Australia holds a General Synod (next week). The week beforehand (this week) is the General Pastors’ Conference where the Pastors determine the direction for Synod. This year the biggest item is whether or not to ordain women, and it seems that the Pastors have given no clear direction to proceed on the issue. My understanding was that many expected a greater vote in favour of women’s ordination.

My comment on this blog was as follows:

I was there last time when this happened six years ago. Then the vote was almost exactly the same, 118 against to 115 for (I think the slight difference in favour of the proposal this time is because in 2000 they were able to truck in a fair number of retired pastors who were included in the vote). So nothing has appeared to change as far as the pastors’ conference is concerned.

What will happen now? The PC advises the Synod on all matters deemed theological, but no change can take place without a 67% majority in Synod.
The unwritten “tradition” was always that any theological matter on which the Pastors’ Conference had not reached a consensus (ie. well over 2/3 in favour) could not be submitted to the Synod for discussion, let alone vote.

That rule was broken when Lance Steicke exercised his powers as chairman of General Synod to take the matter to the 2000 Synod anyway, with the result that 55% voted in favour and 45% voted against. So nothing changed in the life of the LCA, although everything changed in the lives of some of the pastors who attended (I for one).

The hue and cry after the unwritten tradition was broken was so great in some quarters and the confusion so great in the LCA in general after the 2000 debacle, that I would be surprised if the new chairman, Mike Semmler, would open himself up to the same situation again this time. Because of course, if the Synod does vote on the matter, and approves it (the level of education among the laity in Lutheran theology possibly having declined since 2000), then the LCA would be caught in the rather awkward situation of introducing women’s ordination when barely 50% of the pastors accept the idea.

Home again, home again

Well, we are back in Casa Schütz-Beaton again after two weeks away, which included a delightful stay at Watson's Bay with Bishop Anthony Fisher (that's him with my two little inkblots in the picture), an overnight stay in the historic town of Berrima (est. 1831) in the Surveyor General Inn (est. 1834, making it the longest continual hotel licence in Australia), a visit to our nation's capitol, and travelling home the long way, via Cooma and Orbost. I have never been so far east in Victoria before, and found it delightful country. Glad to be home, but perhaps not so glad to be back in the office on Monday.

How do you distinquish a sect from a religion?

The Mormons have given Cardinal Cassidy the "John Simpson Standing for Something(?)" award. I wonder how he reacted? I wonder if he had to turn up to the award giving ceremony? I wonder how he felt? If it were me, I would have felt pretty silly.

It is very easy to see what the motivation is in this handing out of awards. There is an ancient saying (or at least there should be) that "giving awards honours the giver". I have seen other groups use this method as a way of gaining respectability in the Interfaith world.

The difficulty we are facing in this new world of interfaith harmony, is how to distinguish between a religion and a sect. The new VCC document "One Faith - Multifaith" document speaks of "the great religions" that have "stood the test of time", in such a way as to exclude the newer international sects, such as scientologists, Mormons and (what used to be called) the Unification Church or Moonies. This is what I call the "respectability by longevity" principle, and I have heard it defended on the basis of the Gamaliel Principle from Acts 4 "If it is not of God, it will not last".

However, at this time, there is an increasing desire on behalf of these new sects to be regarded as venerable traditoins and to take their place at the Interfaith table. How do we react? We need a better theology than the "longevity principle", which, after all, is not even closely adhered to in the Interfaith club. For some reason, the Club is happy to allow the Bahai religion a place at the table, when they are surely no more "respectable" or "ancient" than the Mormons (just more in touch with the "enlightened" relativistic syncretic modern ideas of religion).

If we are going to start accepting awards from these groups, we better have an answer ready when we fail to invite them to the next interfaith do.

Finally, an excommunication for someone way over the limit...

My friend, the inestimable and inobscure Fraser Pearce, often asks me why the Holy See doesn't issue far more excommunications than it does to those who bring its reputation into disrepute by teaching and actions incompatible with the faith. I always point out that the Church demonstrates great patience in its dealings with the erring and the wayward (Thanks be to God!), but of course there are limits. It seems that those limits have finally been reached in regard to Archbishop Milingo.

Ben Elton on Conscience

You don't expect high philosophy from television script writers turned comic novelists. But that is what I found only a few pages into Ben Elton's 2005 novel "The First Casualty" (found on the shelf of mine host). This is a serious historical novel set in the last years of WWI, and I think it way and above his best writing ever. I was bowled over by this simple exchange in the first few pages:

"It is intellect that sets man above the beasts."
"It is conscience that sets man above the beasts."
"The two are surely connected, sir. It is intellect that informs a man what is right and conscience that determines if he will act on that information."

Okay, you philosopher theologians out there (or theolosophers, as my wife called the combined genus this afternoon). What mark do you give him?

"That they may have life" - Evangelicals and Catholics Together

I said the other day I would give a short review of the new Evangelicals and Catholics Together statement "That they may have life".

Well, I've read it (yes, on the beach again), and I can't say I'm bowled over by it. It isn't really very significant ecumenically. It doesn't break any new ground as far as working out an agreed basis for Catholic and Evangelical pro-life ethics. I mean, we already know that Catholics and Evangelicals are agreed on anti-abortion.

I was slightly interested by the way it began by addressing "those who do not identify with our communities, or with any Christian community" and went on to claim that it would approach the subject on the basis of "a common humanity" and "a Godgiven capacity to reason, to argue, to deliberate, to persuade, and to discover moral truths regarding questions related to the right ordering of our life together." OK, I thought, so this is rather going to be a joint appeal addressing those outside the Evangelical and Catholic pro-life circles on the basis of rational argumentation. Good.

But what passes for civic discussion and discourse on the basis of reason in the good ol' US of A is obviously different from the rest of the world.

First, make no mistake that this document is firmly addressed to Americans. They talk about "sustaining the American experiment", quote "the Declaration of Independance", propose "to all Americans" that they join in the discussion. But hey, that's OK, they are, after all, Americans.

More disconcerting is the fact that they can't really decide who their audience is. Is it non-Christians who need to be persuaded by reason, or is it Christains who will be persuaded by biblical arguments from the commandments and the gospel? They have logical argumentation for the first audience and biblical references for the second, but they mix them up into a rather unconvincing conglomerate. Arguments puporting to be based on pure reason end up using biblical proof texts as their main support. Maybe this works in America. It won't cut much ice anywhere else.

There are some good bits. They do talk about the difference between the Protestant and Catholic assessments of reason.

"We also affirm together that human reason, despite the consequences of sin, has the capacity for discerning, deliberating, and deciding the questions pertinent to the civil order. Some Evangelicals attribute this capacity of reason to “common grace,” as distinct from “saving grace.” Catholics typically speak of the “natural law,” meaning moral law that is knowable in principle by all human beings, even if it is denied by many (Romans 1 and 2). Thus do we, as Evangelicals and Catholics together, firmly reject the claim that disagreements over the culture of life represent a conflict between faith and reason. Both faith and reason are the gift of the one God. Since all truth has its source in Him, all truth is ultimately one, although our human perception of the fullness of truth is partial and inadequate (1 Corinthians 13:12). Thus do we invite those who disagree, including those who do not share the gift of faith in Christ, to join with us in attempting to move beyond “culture wars” to a reasonable deliberation of the right ordering of our life together."

There is much here that accords with the Pope's argument in the Regensburg lecture, but I rather feel that the statements by the Pope on the essential place of Hellenistic culture and philosophy in Christianity would not get much support from the Evangelical signatories to this new ECT statement.

Perhaps that is the problem with the document as a whole. They couldn't decide who they were addressing, and they couldn't agree on the method by which to make their argument--faith or philosophy. Perhaps too this is why there is no agreement in this document on "the moral permissibility of artificial contraception".

Ah well. If nothing else, "That they may have life" is a demonstration of the comeradery that has emerged from the "ecumenism of the trenches" in the ever continuing Culture Wars.

WHO'S IN CONTROL of the Pope? He is.

An astounding revelation recently on Cathnews. Cathnews carried a story sourced from UCANews, sourced from SperoNews, about comments which appeared in the Turkish political journal Yeni Asya by Jesuit Father Tom Michel. Fr Michel served on the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue from 1981 to 1994, and it is said that at that time he was the Vatican's "top expert"(?) on Islam.

Apparently, Fr Michel opined that in the old days the Pope would not have been allowed to say what what said in Regensburg. Back then, the PCID "look[ed] over the late Pope John Paul II's speeches to Muslims to see if there was anything that might be considered offensive in them, and if there was something of that nature, to propose changes for the Pope."

Then comes the clanger. Michel is reported to have said:

"Had the Pope's talk been reviewed and controlled by any competent staff person, they would immediately have told the Pope that the citation of Manuel II Paleologus, which was in fact marginal to the Pope's main point, should not be included in the speech."

Yes, I am sure that they would have. But would Papa Benny have taken any notice? No doubt there would have been some wisdom in having someone else look over the papal ponderings. And perhaps such a "looker-overer" might suggest that such a comment may not be best in the context. But "controlled"? Does the Holy Father strike you as a person who would submit his theology and writing to be "reviewed and controlled"?

Our new Archbishop in Canberra, Mark Coleridge, has opined that every word of the Regensburg speech was Benedict's own. And I for one believe him. It was pure Ratzinger. And if there is one thing that this man will not allow his pontificate to be, it is "controlled". Perhaps the great sadness of JPII's reign as supreme pontiff is that it was ultimately the Curia that reigned supreme, not the Bishop of Rome.

Great theology, like great poetry, is never written by a committee. Good leadership never comes from a committee either. Viva la Papa. I support the Pope.

You want to know what you think? I'll tell you what you think!

Mmm. That seems to be the approach of some Christian commentators re Islam. For that matter, the same approach has a long tradition in Protestant commentary on the errors of Catholicism. John Allen, in this week's All Things Catholic has an interview with Jesuit Fr Daniel Madigan who makes the following comment:

"Its no use staging a dialogue in the 21st Century on teh basis of perceptions formed six centuries ago. The key is to sit down with individual Muslims and ask, 'Where do you stand? How do you justify that? What can I expect from you?' We can't tell them what we think they believe, and then criticize what we think they believe."

But that is exactly what I come across again and again. Dialogue does not begin with us telling them what they believe. It begins with listening to them tell us what they believe. And believing them.

I had a dialogue recently with a non-catholic chap who, after a while, started telling me that I was pulling his leg about Catholic doctrine and trying to "fool" him, because he knew what we Catholics believed and it wasn't what I was telling him. Where had he learnt his "facts" about the Catholic faith? From a website by an ex-priest who left the Church and is now a stridently anti-Catholic Evangelical preacher.

I therefore have some sympathy with those Muslims who complain when Christians use anti-Muslim publications and websites to form their understanding of Islam. These Christians are the ones who, when told of Muslims who promote peace and freedom of religion and who denouce terrorism, respond by saying: "Yeah, but that isn't true Islam, is it?"

And what about the old "Yeah, but they are taught to lie, aren't they? You can't trust them. What they tell you and what they really believe are two different things." Give me a break. That's a worse situation than poor Brian in the Monty Python film when he is told that "only the true Messiah would deny his divinity." As Brian says, what chance does that give us?

Who the bloody hell are we to tell them what is and what is not "true Islam"? And, moreover, who are we (who can't even read Arabic and have no training whatsoever in Koranic exegesis) to tell them what the Koran does and doesn't say on the basis of reading a translation (or, as our Islamic friends insist, an "interpretation")? And when we don't even take the time to check out whether or not the translation is kosher (or should that be Hallal?). His Eminence George Cardinal Pell, bless his little red cotton socks, learnt the hard way recently how important it is to take note of who the translator is if you are making a reference to an English translation of the Koran.

Dear Catholic friends reading this blog: Please do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you don't like other people forming their opinion of your faith on the basis of the rantings and ramblings anti-Catholic polemicists, don't form your notion of their faith on the basis of information clearly biased against them. If you want to find out about Islam, talk to a Muslim (they don't bite, you know). Or at least read something written by a Muslim (such as this PDF file).

And if the golden rule isn't enough for you, perhaps the eighth commandment will help: Do not bear false witness against your neighbour--or take note of false witness against them. Learn the truth, and learn to trust that what they say. You might say, "Yeah, I'll trust them when they start to do x, y and z", but thank God that it was while we were yet sinners that he began his great dialogue of love with us. As Dan Madigan said to John Allen:

"The message of the New Testament begins with grace, with God's gratuity towards humanity... It's the same thing in the Christain approach to dialogue. We must be ready to listen, to discuss. We have to make it clear that we're going to be there, eveing if you're not taking notice. We hope that will gradually transform the other."

Evangelicals and Catholics Together: New Statement

I have just found a new statement from "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" on the First Things website called "That they may have life". I am taking it out to read with my pipe now. Commentary soon!

The Aftermath of the Regensburg Lecture

For someone who earns their bread and butter working in interfaith relations the last seven days has been quite a week. I am very pleased that things have been quiet in Melbourne, and that the many years of hard work that has been put in building a positive relationship between the Catholic and Muslim communities has been paying off.

In particular, the Islamic Council of Victoria has displayed an examplary degree of care about the way in which they have reacted to the current furor over the Pope's Regensburg lecture. Their spokesman, Waleed Aly, wrote an exemplary piece for The Age. The President of the ICV, Malcolm Thomas, has personally expressed the committment of the ICV to their relationship with the Catholic Church. I must say that such expressions are quite touching.

Our own spokesman, Catholic Interfaith Committee Chairman Rev. Dr John Dupuche, has been busy putting out the flames. He was widely quoted in an article by Barney Zwartz in The Age, and had a letter published also.

I waded through about 30 pages of printout from various sources while sitting on the beach yesterday, and from what I can tell, the world's press, while generally agreeing that a more PC and diplomatic Pope would not have quoted the passage he did, the reaction from some quarters of the Muslim world has been both hysterical and at the same time irrational--seemingly proving the Pope's very point.

While one of our Australian prelates has reacted with anger toward this unseemly display, most of the rest of us have reacted with sadness--some sadness directed toward the Pope's seeming lack of judgement, some toward the reactions that resulted.

But there have been a number of commentators who believe that Papa Benny was not being quite as naive as some would like to make out, and that he really did deliberately choose the statement from Emperor Manuel II Paleologus intentionally. I must say that I tend to agree with this estimation. He did not, and does not, completely share the Emperor's point of view, nevertheless, he did want this point of view (expressed very often by many Christians) put on the dialogue table. What better way than as a passing remark in an academic address.

Emperor Manuel had good reason to fear the violence of the followers of Muhammad. He had seen his entire kingdom reduced to next to naught by the Ottoman sword. I had to have a real chuckle at the interpretation put on this situation by a letter writer published in the same edition of The Age as Fr John's letter, on Khatira Anwari of Reservoir. He writes (and I quote):

"The latest comments by Pope Benedict are not only inflammatory but are purely based on historical propaganda generated by some Christian leaders when Islam became rapidly popular as a way of life."

Well. That's one interpretation, I guess. Islam was becoming rapidly popular in what had been the Christian Byzantine empire because to choose Islam was to chose survival under the new Islamic regime. But if this is what passes for history today, then, in Chesterton's words, "The Past isn't what it was". And I got that little quote from this week's "All things Catholic" by John Allen, who has a fairly good roundup of the current controversy over the Regensburg lecture as well as a neat piece on Chesterton and Shaw.

Other good reading on the current controversy:
Sandro Magister
Father Richard John Neuhaus
Spengler
The Stephen Crittenden Show (ABC Religion Report) with Fr Fessio and Andrew Robb
Two articles by Sydney Muslim lawyer and writer Irfan Yusuf: "Papal Free Speech" and "If you cant stand the missionary heat, you should get out of Abraham's spiritual kitchen".
More from John Allen in the latest "All things Catholic"

Taize issues statement on Brother Roger's "conversion"

Here is the full text of a statement issued by Taize. (I will simply note that when I entered full communion with the Catholic Church, I was not required to abjure my protestant "heresies", but simply declared that I accepted the faith of the Catholic Church and demonstrated this in the words of the apostle's creed. So there was nothing unusual in the rite of reception used by the bishop of Autun for Brother Roger!)

In an article concerning Brother Roger, the French daily Le Monde of Sept. 6, 2006, gave credence to and reproduced the claims of a small newsletter issued by Catholic traditionalist circles that misrepresents his true intentions and defames his memory.

A document of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity in Rome is used to support the thesis of a "conversion" undertaken by Brother Roger, although the text says nothing of the kind. As for the bishop emeritus of Autun, Raymond Seguy, he has already qualified his words. Rejecting the term "conversion," he declared to France Presse: "I did not say that Brother Roger abjured Protestantism, but he showed that he subscribed fully to the Catholic faith."

From a Protestant background, Brother Roger undertook a step that was without precedent since the Reformation: entering progressively into a full communion with the faith of the Catholic Church without a "conversion" that would imply a break with his origins. In 1972, the bishop of Autun at the time, Armand Le Bourgeois, simply gave him Communion for the first time, without requiring any other profession of faith from him besides the creed recited during the Eucharist, which is held in common by all Christians. Several witnesses were present and can attest to this.

Whoever speaks of "conversion" in this respect has not grasped the originality of Brother Roger's search.

There was never anything hidden about this undertaking of Brother Roger's. In 1980, during a European meeting in Rome, he spoke these words publicly in St. Peter's Basilica, in the presence of Pope John Paul II: "I have found my own identity as a Christian by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone."

Brother Roger's step was not understood by all but it was welcomed by many: by Pope John Paul II, by Catholic bishops and theologians who celebrated the Eucharist in Taizé, as well as by Protestant and Orthodox Church leaders with whom Brother Roger patiently built up trust in the course of many years.

Those who at all costs want the Christian denominations each to find their own identity in opposition to the others can naturally not grasp Brother Roger's aims. He was a man of communion, and that is perhaps the most difficult thing for some people to understand.

September 6, 2006

Taizé Community

Raising a tricky question: How to express the Historical relationship between Islam and "the Sword"?

I often have people tell me that Islam is a religion that is spread only by the sword. Well, I'm not to hot on that aspect of history, and many things are passed off as "fact" which may be capable of another interpretation (the Crusades too for instance). But the place of violent action within the religion of Islam is a subject that needs to be raised if the interfaith dialogue between Christianity and Islam is to be entirely honest. I'm not saying that there have not be many and horrific atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. What I am saying is that today, Christianity--at least Catholic Christianity--clearly and unambiguously abhors such violence.

The Pope, speaking recently at a Mass in Munich, said:

"The tolerance which we urgently need includes the fear of God respect for what others hold sacred. This respect for what others hold sacred demands that we ourselves learn once more the fear of God. This sense of respect can be reborn in the Western world only if faith in God is reborn, if God become once more present to us and in us.

"We impose this faith upon no one. Such proselytism is contrary to Christianity. Faith can develop only in freedom. But we do appeal to the freedom of men and women to be open to God, to seek him, to hear his voice. As we gather here, let us here ask the Lord with all our hearts to speak anew his Ephphatha, to heal our hardness of hearing for God's presence, activity and word, and to give us sight and hearing. Let us ask his help in rediscovering prayer, to which he invites us in the liturgy and whose essential formula he has given us in the Our Father.

"The world needs God. We need God. But what God? In the first reading, the prophet tells a people suffering oppression that: He will come with vengeance (Is 35:4). We can easily suppose how the people imagined that vengeance. But the prophet himself goes on to reveal what it really is: the healing goodness of God. The definitive explanation of the prophet's word is to be found in the one who died on the Cross: in Jesus, the Son of God incarnate. His Avengeance is the Cross: a No to violence and a love to the end. This is the God we need. We do not fail to show respect for other religions and cultures, profound respect for their faith, when we proclaim clearly and uncompromisingly the God who counters violence with his own suffering; who in the face of the power of evil exalts his mercy, in order that evil may be limited and overcome. To him we now lift up our prayer, that he may remain with us and help us to be credible witnesses to himself."

These statements ought to form the background to the other statements that caused shockwaves throughout the Muslim world, with Lebanon, Indonesia and Pakistan all voicing protest and calling for an apology. In a lecture at his old University in Regensburg, the Pope addressed the matter of faith and reason. In this speech, he equally criticised Western Secularism (which is not true to the heritage of the West) and Muslim violence (which, ipso facto, is not true to the message of Islam).

But what has really gotten up the noses of some of our Islamic brethren and Sistern is this one sentence in the lecture: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Now if that was indeed the opinion of the Holy Father, there would indeed be something to talk about. However, "context is everything", as I am fond of saying, and no more so than in this instance. Here is the entire section:

"That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: This, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

"It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

"In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

"In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" -- controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.

"Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry. "

As you see, what he said at the University accords entirely with what was said at the Mass. However, for those who only want to listen to soundbites, it is too much to have to sit still long enough to listen to the fact that what the Holy Father was speaking against was a certain idea that the ends of God can be achieved by violence. On the contrary, violence negates God, and cannot be used to serve God's purposes.

Welcome addition to the world of blogging: Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum

Finally, one of best analytical minds of the Lutheran Church of Australia has taken the plunge and gotten his own blogsite. Yes, my dear friend, one-time colleague and God-Father to my daughter Mia, Pastor Fraser Pearce, has his own blogsite: Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum (and you thought my blog name was a little overdoing the latin...).

Fraser is not an "obscure" man, although the lack of detail in his "profile" might lead you to think this. He is the latest and most junior member of the Australian Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue, a true catholic at heart (lacking no vital ingredients in the cake--needing only mixing and baking), a philosopher (he has the masters degree to prove it) and a theologian (that's the ecclesiatical equiv. of an "officer and a gentleman"--he is the latter also).

Please forgive him the fact that he only has two entries on his blog for now. Being a new Dad for the third time will take its toll--on his wife Margaret, at least. Fraser, if he follows previous form, is getting plenty of good night's sleep due to the ear plugs he treacherously inserts upon retirement...

Check regularly to see what wisdom he has in store!

Brother Roger: Revisiting the Conversion question

Yes, my namesake Frere Roger Schutz has been in the news again in the last couple of weeks with a French historian, Yves Chiron, claiming that the founder of Taize had indeed "converted" to the Catholic Church.

Actually, as it turns out, there is no fresh data other than that which we already knew, that (in his own words) Br Roger had reconciled in himself the faith of his origins with the mystery of the Catholic faith, "without any rupture whatsoever". Perhaps the only new news is that this "reconciliation" took place around 1972.

There has been a lot of discussion on how it is possible to enter full communion with the Catholic Church without "rupture" of fellowship with other Christian communions. Normally, I would say that this is not possible. However, if the Catholic hierarchy--both at local level and at the highest level of the Pope--were willing to regard Br Roger as being "in communion" with themselves (and it seems that even Pope Ratzinger shared this view, as is evidenced by the fact that he personally gave him communion at JPII's funeral and that, at his death, he made public the letter in which Br Roger professed his profound communion with the Pope) and if, at the same time, there were other ecclesial communities who regarded him in the same way, perhaps in Br Roger God showed us a glimpse of what the ecumenical goal may look like...

In any case, from my own humble perspective, I have come to regard myself not as o much as an "ex-Lutheran", but rather as a Lutheran who has entered into full communion with the Bishop of Rome. There is room in the Catholic Church for many different spiritualities--Franciscan, Dominican, Ignatian--why not Lutheran? Why not Taize? There are the inevitable doctrinal questions of course. One cannot be in communion with the Pope and not accept the fullness of the Catholic faith. However, and this is something that non-Catholics often fail to appreciate, communion is not primarily a matter of an intellectual assent to a collection of doctrines but of a real and binding relationship with real human beings. In this sense, what finally keeps the (extremely) disparate members of the Catholic Church united (and with regard to our personal opinions, we are no more united than the Anglicans) is that we all cling to our relationship with the Bishop of Rome, and hence with one another.

In the end, as I have always maintained, the primary requirement for catholicity is communion with the Pope. (Take note, you Anglo-Papists!)

Why do we do it? Evangelisation: is it just so that we can "Grow the Church"?

Just a few more thoughts on the matter of Evangelisation (those not interested can go to the Rocket Science class).

I went to a VCCE ("Victorian Council of Christian Education") seminar today given by Phil Hughes on the recent Spirituality of GenY report. All very interesting. One young chap, currently studying the phenomenon of the "megachurch", asked whether the motivation for the survey was to learn how more effectively we could "grow the church", in which case he had serious concerns. Dr Hughes responded "no" to that question, but it links up with something I read today in the latest Commonweal magazine by Timothy P. Shilling called "A report on Europe's New Evangelization".

He says:

"One also hears calls to “take back Europe,” as if a kind of religious imperialism might save the day. Such tendencies are unworthy of the church-evangelization is a matter of love, not of religious competition or dominance-and Benedict XVI has suggested repeatedly that a smaller, more perfectly devoted church is preferable to a large, self-satisfied one. Recall that the 1991 Vatican document Dialogue and Proclamation called dialogue an integral element of the church’s evangelizing mission. Are we prepared to honor the God-given dignity and freedom of those who have made a different choice, and to hear their good news besides proclaiming our own? Do we want evangelization to succeed out of love for others, or do we need the church to succeed in the world’s eyes to prove to ourselves that our own faith is real?" (my emphasis)

That's a very good question, isn't it? Not many people know of the 1991 D&P statement. You can find it here. It should be better known, as it places interfaith dialogue firmly within the category of "evangelisation". Most Interfaith Dialogue Devotees would be surprised (and perhaps embarrassed) to learn this, but they needn't be. As Schilling says above, real evangelisation for the sake of the gospel honours those who have made different choices.

Schilling goes on to identify "four distinct publics" which are targets for the Church's proclamation:

1. "those who practice Christianity and whose faith needs support and inspiration;
2. "those who remain ignorant of or indifferent to the church because of a lack of exposure to its teaching and practice;
3. "those who reject Christianity on experiential or intellectual grounds; and
4. "those who adhere to another religion (most typically, Islam)."

This reminds me of Shannon's recent post regarding apologetics.

I reckon we have traditionally focused evangelisation on the second and fourth group Schilling identifies.

We urgently need to focus on those in the first category--ie. those in the Church who need stronger grounding in their faith. This is the work of formation and catechesis, and it is sometimes called "inner evangelisation", because it is about continuously evangelising the evangelised. We all need that, which is why the Church tells us we have to go to Mass on Sundays to hear the word and take part in the Eucharist.

Just as urgently (and this was borne out by today's seminar on the GenY report) we need to focus on those (primarily young) people who have rejected the faith "on experiential or intellectual grounds." This is the job of apologetics (as Shannon points out), and is particularly urgent today. The results of the Spirituality of GenY survey seem to point out that kids today want clear, intellectually respectable answers to their questions as well as a genuine religious experience.

In all this, we must not be afraid of the "D" word: Dialogue. You can't evangelise without dialogue. It is the key to catechesis, formation, and apologetics.

The Devil Made Me Do It? Or: What Would Jesus Do? Schütz gatecrashes parish workshop on "Woman in the Tradition"

I can be really naughty when I want to be. Not being a parish pastor anymore means it doesn't matter if people like me or not, I am free to stand up for what I believe no matter what opposition I am likely to encounter.

I am fresh back from a seminar that was held in my local parish called "Women and the Tradition", given by Dr Mary Coloe, a Presentation Sister, biblical theologian and author teaching New Testament at Australian Catholic University and St Paul's Seminary in Brisbane.

Something in the back of my head said: Go and see what she has to say. I googled her, and found nothing at all objectionable.

[Reader: Why would you?
Schütz: Oh, I don't know, something about the words "Sister" and "Biblical Theologian" and "Australian Catholic University" used in the same sentence, I guess.]

Anyway, the gathering was smallish--about 20 of us, three blokes, the rest women, mainly 50+. (I was going to say "elderly" but I have to be careful using that word these days as I am now over the 40 mark myself).

Was the presentation objectionable? No, not really. Bits of it were excellent (as the Curate said to the Bishop re the egg). But then, there is that calculated way in which things are suggested or half-said which leave the ignorant and the easily led to come to their own conclusions that wasn't quite honest. There was that subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) suggestion that the Church's Tradition could not be trusted on this one, and that a revolution had to be started.

I'm not going to go through the whole lecture. That would be tedious. But I did find myself rather vocally objecting to one part of her presentation, namely, the suggestion that Paul was actually very pro-women, and the bits in the Pauline letters that seem to be negative (eg. 1 Cor 14:32-38, and all the bits about women being silent and submitting) were not genuine Paul, but either non-genuine letters or interpolations.

Her authority for this? No, not textual criticism (since there are no texts that do not have these passages) but a sort of literary criticism that says: This is what Paul says passages A, B and C; and this is what is written in passages X, Y, and Z. Since I can't see how A, B, and C square with X, Y and Z, the only conclusion is that X, Y and Z are not genuine.

But, I interjected, there is no textual basis for this assumption, nor is there any authority for it prior to contemporay scholarship (she cited the great authorities of Brendan Byrne and Elizabeth Fiorenza!). She replied: if I see a row of oranges, and there is a pear in the middle, I can pick the odd one out. I replied: Yes, but if I see an orange tree, I assume that all the fruit on it will be oranges.

So Dr Mary tried structural analysis. She appealed to the structure of 1 Cor 14 to demonstrate that verse 32-38 are a later addition, because they don't fit the otherwise neat structure of Paul's arguement. To which I replied that I have often preached a classical three-point sermon, and snuck in a sub-point (2b) between points 2 and 3 because there was something important I wanted to say that didn't fit my preordained structure. The arguement from structural analysis seems to me to be a matter of deciding what I think the text should look like, and then chopping out any bits that don't fit the model. Not very scientific really.

And what really is the point? Even if it isn't genuinely Pauline, it is genuinely canonical New Testament, a point Dr Mary didn't dispute. So how does it help to say it isn't "genuinely" Pauline?

I find it ironic that a good deal of time was spent talking about the way in which male translators have intentionally obscured the Pauline text for their own purposes (eg. in Rom 16:1-2 by translating Junia as Junius, and prostasis as "helper"), and then turning around and doing their own "wax nose job" on the text in this way. Dr Mary was sincerely puzzled when I said to her that I thought exegetes had a duty to take the text as it was, and if there appeared to be a contradiction in the meaning of various Pauline statements then the difficulty lay with our interpretation, and not with the text. I believe it is a dereliction of duty on the part of theologians (or sceintists, or historians) when they exclude evidence because it doesn't fit their idea of the way the theology (or theory or narrative) should go.

Dr Mary ended by refering to the 1976 International Pontifical Biblical Commission conclusion that there was nothing in scripture that said we either should or shouldn't ordain women. That isn't exactly of course what the Commission actually concluded. I quote here from an article that appeared in L'Osservatore Romano on the 2 March 1978, page 5:

"In fact, in the three points drawn up by this Commission...a certain disagreement was seen to exist among the exegetes. Some admitted the presence of "sufficient indications" to exclude the access of women to the priesthood, in connection with the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and of Reconciliation. Others, on the contrary, without affirming anything, however, asked if the Church, to which the economy of the sacraments was entrusted, could not entrust also to women, according to circumstances, these two ministries of the Eucharist and of Reconciliation. They all agreed, however, in saying that there is no "evidence" properly speaking on the matter in the New Testament.

"Actually there was no opposition between the Biblical Commission and the Declaration [INTER INSIGNIORES]—nor could it be otherwise—owing to the fact that the two points on which the exegetes diverged were not fully opposed to each other. In the first place their respective stylistic tone was different. One group affirmed the existence of "sufficient indications". The other group did not put forward an affirmation, but raised a question; they asked, that is, if the hierarchical Church had not the faculty to entrust those ministries to women. Furthermore, while the first affirmation was purely exegetical, the other abandoned this field for a theological question: whether the hierarchical Church, to which the economy of the sacraments has been entrusted, did not also have the power of entrusting the Eucharist and Reconciliation to women. In short, the "disagreement" between the exegetes was the following: some affirm, others ask; some remain in the exegetical field, others pose a question of theological hermeneutics. It is obvious that there could not result from this context a real opposition between the two authorities, between the Biblical Commission and the Declaration, since there was no clash of opinion between them."

Ah, very subtle. But then a parish seminar is probably not the place for subtlety. Nor, I was informed, is it the place for an "in depth discussion". Still, I don't have to be popular. As I said to Sister, our pastoral associate, on the way out: "I'm sorry I kept interupting, but I'm very good at it, and I like to stay in practice."

Rest in Peace Colin Thiele (oh yeah, and Steve Irwin too)

Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter) wasn't the only person who died yesterday. Yeah, I know, lots of people did, and may God's angels guide them all to heaven, but I want to just let the world know that another splendid chap, who will be remembered long after Steve Irwin is forgotten, also died yesterday: Colin Thiele, the renowned South Australian, Lutheran, Barossa-dwelling author of more books than you can poke a stick at(mostly for children, including the famous Sun on the Stubble and Storm Boy).

The notice on his website reads:

Monday 4th Sept. 2006, Colin Thiele died in hospital after a short stay due to breathing difficulties (and a failing heart). He was 85 years old.
He leaves behind his loving wife Rhonnie and two daughters and their families.

He was, of course, one of my people--or I was one of his: the Barossa Deutsch, that bunch of crazy, fanatical, pietistic, fundamentalistic German Lutherans who emigrated to South Australia between 1838 and 1855 all because a new worship book was being foisted on them by a new king which called into question the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

My father was born in Eudunda. My grandfather was a few years ahead of Colin in the same school when they were kids. To get some sort of idea of how tight-knit/insular/interbred this community was, consider this: my grandfather's grandfather's grandfather died in Hahndorf in the Adelaide Hills in the winter of 1839 (a famine). My father (count the intervening generations) grew up speaking German (or Barossa Deutsch) and only learnt to speak English when he attended school for the first time in 1946!

Enough of me, more of Colin: he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia in 1977. But his list of awards is endless:

W.J. Miles Poetry Prize,1944, for the manuscript of Progress to Denial Commonwealth Jubilee Literary Competitions,
1st prize in radio play section, for Edge of Ice 1951
South Australian winner in World Short Story Quest, 1952
Fulbright scholar in the United States and Canada, 1959-60
Grace Levin Poetry Prize, 1961, for Man in a Landscape
Miles Franklin Award, 1962
Children's Book of the Year Award, 1962
Commonwealth Literary Fund fellowship, 1967-68
Hans Christian Andersen Award , international honours list for Blue Fin in 1972
Writers Award, 1973, for The Fire in the Stone
Children's Book of the Year Award, 1974, for The Fire in the Stone [commended]
Edgar Allan Poe Award, Best Juvenile Mystery, runner-up, 1975, for The Fire in the Stone
Visual Arts Board Award for Illustration, 1975, for Magpie Island
Children's Book of the Year Award, 1975, for Magpie Island [commended]
Netherlands Award of the Silver Pencil ,1976, for the film of Storm Boy
Companion of the Order of Australia for his services to literature and education, 1977
Austrian State Prize for Children's Books, 1977, for Magpie Island
Austrian State Prize for Children's Books, 1979, for The Hammerhead Light
Austrian State Prize for Children's Books, 1979, for the Sknuks
Advance Australia Award, 1980
Children's Book of the Year Award, 1982, for The Valley Between
German Publisher Award ,1984
Austrian State Prize, 1986, for Pinquo
Christian Blind Mission International Book of the year, 1988, for The Seed's Inheritance
Great South Australian Award - Services to the Arts, 1989
Family Award of Children's Books - New South Wales Family Therapy Association, 1989
The International Board on Books for Young People Certificate of honor, 1992, for Blue Fin
Christian Book of the year, Children's Award- Australian Christian Literature Society, 1994 , for Martin's Mountain
Christian Book of the year , Children's Award, 1995, for Gemma's Christmas Eve
YABBA Shortlist, 1996, recommendation for Jodie's Journey
New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards 1997
Wilderness Society Environment, 1997, Award for High Valley
Dromkeen Medal was awarded in 1997 for his contribution to children's literature

That seems to me to beat getting chased by or chasing crocodiles as a claim to fame.

You ask a silly question and you get 40,000 silly answers! The Democrats survey debacle...

In an article in The Australian, Jill Rowbotham interviews the Anglican military bishop Tom Frame (ie. he is a bishop for the military, not the "Onward-Christian-Soldiers" type which Melbourne Catholics are hoping for in their prayers!)

I'm not too fussed with the article itself, but I did perk up a little at this paragraph:

"At the same time the Australian Democrats' online survey, God and
Government, was allegedly bombed by a Christian campaign in which 40,000
people responded, overwhelmingly pro-church in their answers. (A normal
response rate is 1000.) The God survey yielded no information about what
the broad community thinks, but confirmed that some in the churches are not
prepared to take perceived attacks lying down."

"Bombed"? "Attacks"? Golly. Whoever heard of survey being "bombed" before? Is this leakage onto the Opinion page from the World News section?

And the logic (or lack of it) in that conclusion is quite breath-taking, isn't it? A survey is overwhelmingly successful in its response rate and so it is deemed unsucessful. The "broad community" is someone else other than the 39,000 who responded with the "wrong" answers, ie. the religious answers, as opposed to the "right" answers, ie. the secular atheistic ones.

One presumes that the secular atheists got out in force too, not only the Christians. I imagine that the entire secular atheistic community in Australia voted in the survey (yep, all 1000 of them--the ones that are the "normal" respondents to such a survey).

Danny Nalliah's "Call to Action": In the Lost Baggage department?

Go here to listen to Danny Nalliah’s mish-mashed diatribe against our political and church leaders. I say “mish mash” because he mixes up a lot of different issues into one, including the Racial and Religious Tolerance laws, the threat of legalised abortion up to birth, the proposed Bill of Rights, interfaith work, bibles in hotels and hospitals, the National Council of Churches in Australia, gay marriages-—some which are reasons for concern, other things that are just scare-mongering, but all of which is dealt with emotively rather than rationally.

It is fair to call it a “diatribe”. It is a “Call to Action”, and expressly calls for a “revolution for Jesus”. Nalliah sees the future of just civil society in Australia (and in the UK and America) as tied to the identification of the nation as a mono-cultural “Christian country”.

Here he is on Steve Bracks, our erstwhile Premier:

“He basically wants to pamper and take care of all the minorities while the very majority which opens their arms to welcome the people into the country pay a huge price. I ask the question: is it because Steve Bracks is from a Lebonese background that he’s pandering so much for the minorities rights? I don’t know. Sometimes you can carry that mentality into another country. As far as I’m concerned—I’m an immigrant into this country—I’ve left my baggage back at home when I came into this country. I became an Australian and I love this country. Now we cannot be pandering to everyone’s whims and fancies and try to please everyone. The people who come into this country come in because they think that this is a better place to live. So for goodness sake, if you don’t like this country and you think where you came from is better I think its time for you to get back to where you came from, not try to change this country. Now we need to be taking note of all the politicians who are trying to take away our freedoms in order to appease all these people who are coming into the country.” (My emphasis)

I wonder how much of his “baggage” he has left home, in Sri Lanka. How much of his religious extremism is in fact influenced by his experiences outside Australia? He claims to have embraced Australia, but how many Australians would hold Danny Nalliah up as a model of our national values? Has he rather not embraced a vision of Australia which is alien to Australia? There seems to be a lot about Australia that he doesn't like and which he wants to change.

So it seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black. I could think of many others among the 25% of Australian citizens who are non-native who embody Australian values much better than Pastor Danny does. Yasser Soliman, the previous president of the Islamic Council of Victoria, for one. And yet go here to see how some in our community respond to "calls to actions" action our multi-cultural communities.

If you have the patience, listen to his video through to the end. Then tell me if he is a hero, a villain, or just rather sad.

Intelligent Design, Faith and Science: Prof Ormerod helps out

I have just finished reading an excellent article by Professor Neil Ormerod called “Intelligent Design: the last gasp of the God of the Gaps”. He sent this article to me personally, and it isn’t available on the web, but a shorter synthesis of it can be found in his Nov 15, 2005, Sydney Morning Herald article “How design supporters insult God's intelligence” () .

In any case, if you google "intelligent design" and “ormerod”, you will find lots of neat stuff, including this edition of Ethics Education (Vol 11, no. 2) which is all about ID and its ramifications.

Also extremely useful is this week’s “All Things Catholic” in which John Allen does us the great service of gathering together Benedict XVI’s various ruminations on the matter. (Benedict met with his Schülerkreis this weekend to discuss Evolution and Creation.)

In any case, with his help I feel that I have just about sorted the whole matter out sufficiently and satisfactorily for myself.

I used to use the example of faith and science as the two parallel rails of a railway track, held together at a constantly equal distance by the wooden sleepers. You can’t have a [conventional] railway without both rails. The two rails run perfectly parallel in the same direction, but never cross. If you try to bring them together, or if you try to pull them apart, you derail the train. Yet, while they never meet, if you look down the line toward the horizon, they seem to meet at a point somewhere faraway. Both rails will eventually arrive at the same destination.

As a metaphor, I still think that is quite good. But there is a level at which the discussion can take place and make some real sense, and that is at the level of metaphysics. This is what Prof. Ormerod’s work has helped me to understand.

It is a truism to say that Creationism is bad theology and Evolutionism (the ideological version of evolutionary science which claims to disprove the existence of God) is bad science.

Some things can be said:

1) God not only can but does use statistical chance (otherwise known in classical philosophy as “contingency”) to achieve his intended plans—in which case contingency is a secondary cause whereas God is the primary cause of being itself
Thus, the existence of Creator cannot be disproved on the basis of any scientific theory of origins positing random causality;

2) The cosmos is plainly “intelligible” (even in its randomness and chaos, it is not absurd—we can make sense of it), otherwise science itself would be impossible
Thus, through reflection at the level of metaphysics one can identify an “intelligent cause” behind the cosmos, and this “intelligent cause” is, as Thomas Aquinas put it, “what everyone calls ‘God’”.

3) The previous conclusion cannot be demonstrated scientifically (as the proponents of Intelligent Design would have us believe), but science would not be possible if it were not so.

4) Thus there is no necessary divide between science and faith, as long as science does not stray into metaphysics and faith does not stray into science.

And I am pretty comfortable with that.

The Five Meme (Thanks, Shannon)

Shannon tagged me for the "Five" meme some time ago, so here goes.

Five Things in my Freezer
1. Discounted meat from Coles
2. last week’s leftover’s (for lunch next week)
3. Bacon
4. bag of frozen chips
5. peas (ditto in my experience to Shannon’s—good for using on bruises as an ice pack)

Five Things in my Closet
1. My Collection of Waistcoats
2. My Collection of Ties, Bowties and Cravats
3. My Collection of Hats
4. Lots of Black stuff (I live in Melbourne, where we don’t need a “new black”)
5. Lots of White shirts

Five Items in my Car.
1. Audio Books from the library
2. A can of oil (I have one of those cars that you fill up with oil and top up with petrol)
3. Dental Floss (for some reason, it is always in the car that I notice that I have something stuck between my teeth)
4. A faded umbrella
5. Pipe and tobacco

Five interesting things in my briefcase
1. Pipe and tobacco
2. MP3 player
3. A book of Sudoku puzzles
4. Rosary and prayer books
5. An edition of ACU’s Ethics Education journal on Intelligent Design

My Horoscope justifies me from all blame once again!

This time I get to blame that “provocative” planet Mars for my general rudeness and argumentativeness ! Here's my horoscope for last week from The Sunday Age's Life magazine:

"You want to be certain of someone's reaction this week, even if it means having an argument. If they’re stung into a response, they must be interested, you reason. Pushy, provocative Mars in your opposite sign means that you enjoy the clash of opinions. Just keep things in proportion and believed the other person when they insist they care.”

And here was me thinking I enjoyed an argument just for the sake of the argument!