| Friday 22nd August, 2008 You are here: Home - 22nd August 2008 Index Page - 22nd August 2008 Letters |
Letters to the Editor
Archbishop Harper’s comments on homosexuality
Among all the uproar over what Archbishop Alan Harper said or didn’t say about homosexuality, no one yet seems to have asked why he said what he did say and why he chose to say it at that particular time.
Given that Archbishop Harper chose to make his speech against the backdrop of the (then forthcoming) Lambeth Conference, and given the already intense press interest about clashes and divisions within the Anglican Communion over homosexuality and the authority of Scripture, he must have been aware that his comments would gain widespread media attention.
One can only assume, therefore, that he chose this time to speak with the very intention of gaining the maximum press coverage for his comments - with the desire to promote his views and so to help mould public opinion? If so, then his speech was not so much a public relations blunder as a deliberate political move designed to advance a certain agenda.
That then raises the question of just what his agenda was and that, in turn, brings us back to our opening question of why did he say what he said.
Regardless of whether certain elements of the press allegedly distorted what he said, the fact remains that Archbishop Harper chose to speculate about possible scientific discoveries and he chose to speculate about the Church of Ireland perhaps needing to provide a "new status for homosexual relationships". Can he really complain that he is misrepresented by the media when he engages in such speculation? So why did he do so? Was he merely naïve or was he ‘testing the waters’ to see how far he could push the Church of Ireland in a liberal direction? One could perhaps excuse him for naïvety, given that, as Primate, he is still settling into his post. However, he had already sparked a row over previous comments on homosexuality made while Bishop of Connor, causing deep distress to many members of the Church of Ireland; he spread confusion about our teachings and undermined our Church’s witness to society.
As we reflect upon the compromised and enfeebled witness of our own Archbishop, we can only pray for an Archbishop like Daniel Deng of the Sudan, who spoke out so clearly during the Lambeth Conference and with such prophetic authority.
Bryan Follis (The Revd Dr)
All Saints’ Rectory
25 Rugby Road
Belfast
BT7 1PT
Scripture, tradition and reason
Many thanks to Canon Stewart who has caused me to look deeper into my own limited understanding of Richard Hooker.
I think perhaps we should consider exactly what Hooker meant by Scripture, reason and tradition. Hooker’s primary purpose in the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is to investigate the meaning of authority and he consequently writes with a keen respect for law; naturally, this stems from the ecclesiological disputes that surrounded the sixteenth century Church.
Hooker understands law to be a necessary force for the maintenance of order. According to contemporary puritan thought, Christ gave one perfect law for the entire world and no extra-Scriptural law was necessary for either salvation or for government. Hooker argued that law required the application of God-given human reason for the settlement of disputes, and that while the supernatural revelation of God is always the most significant, God has given us the capacity to form laws which are based upon reason. Thus, we are mandated to apply reason to the particular cases where Scripture is silent.
With regard to Scripture, it was certainly not Hooker who first argued that the full capacity of human reason ought to be applied to our understanding of Scripture. Such an approach was expounded by philosophers from as early as Origen in the second century. Hooker similarly argued that reason, in light of our traditional understanding which is always guided by the Holy Spirit, should be applied to teasing out the meaning of Scripture. Hooker understood this not as a novel contribution but as congruous with tradition.
Thus, authority is threefold and exists within a pyramid consisting of Scripture on top with reason and tradition below. This forms the essence of Anglican theology as a via media between Puritanism and Roman Catholicism. While Hooker does not directly advocate a simplistic triad, which was far from a systematic theology, he provides the bones of a method for understanding authority in three dimensions. As humans, we are guided by supernaturally revealed law found within Scripture, by the laws of our collective construction and by the law of reason.
Perhaps the confusion which Prof. O’Donovan highlighted in his 2006 lecture is the result of an oversimplification of the paradigm which is certainly discernable in Hooker’s thought?
Eimhin J. Walsh
13 Park Crescent
Kimmage
Dublin 12
I was saddened by the Revd Donard Collins’ suggestion that the Irish bishops should not have attended the recent Lambeth Conference (Gazette, 8th August). At Lambeth 2008, the Anglican bishops would appear to have engaged in a process of listening to each other - listening to the hurt of African bishops in their reaction to actions that are abhorrent to them; listening to the hurt of American bishops that their actions which they based on informed conscience have aroused such condemnation and controversy.
Surely such a listening process is only to be supported and encouraged.
Our Lord in his ministry reached out to those on the margins of society. Surely we must do the same.
At a time when our world faces so many major issues, such as hunger, famine and the results of global warming, the Anglican Communion is spending too much time arguing over an issue of much lesser importance in the overall scheme of things.
I pray that in the Church of Ireland we will continue to listen to each other and to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit on how we should face all the issues facing our Church and our world.
Michael J. T. Webb
2 Mount Salus
Dalkey
Co. Dublin