Simon, as always, you provide an excellent and very helpful roundup. I enjoyed reading your piece in Anglicans Online. Your observation that the General Synod primarily provided their full support to Rowan Williams (as opposed to explicitly endorsing the recommendations of the WR) was an interesting one, and worth considering.

Thanks as well for all the helpful clarifications and information you frequently provide on Titusonenine, etc. It is good to have your voice in the Anglican blogosphere.

Instead of debating and giving personal views, perhaps we should look at what God says in the bible, should we not...?

Nick, how do we separate what God says from what we think He says, other than to talk about our personal views of the Bible? Even the words in that book are the personal views of the translators, who interpret the words they found, which are the words that some copyist transcribed, we hope accurately.

If we ever think we KNOW God's will, we are probably wrong. It is in the interface between knowing and doubt that we find God.

I'm tired of that lie, the one that claims that the more liberal among us put no authority in scripture. It is nothing less than bearing false witness against your neighbor and not loving your neighbor as yourself. If you love your neighbor you would listen when they tell you something because you would want for them to listen to you. If we could get past the fundamental dialogue of hatred (which is not Christlike), maybe we could get to the meat of the matter, what is clear to one and what is clear to another. ... walk in love.

As for what took place today: We must pray that the Lord's will be done--whatever it is. Few of us possess the mind of God. (Pete's got it!)

Annie

The Times Leader is interesting, but it ignores an aspect of the problem within the Anglican Communion that everyone (except perhaps Bishop Spong) seems determined to ignore.

The decision of the American Church to ordain Gene Robinson, or of the Diocese of New Westminster to license the development and use of liturgies for the blessing of same-sex couples, happened after a decision at Lambeth 1998 that effectively closed discussion of theological issues related to homosexuality and the Church. The Leader says, very reasonably, that “There is more than one side to the discussion over how best to read the Bible on this question.” Well, yes, no doubt that is so. But, by calling homosexual relationship incompatible with scripture (Lambeth 1998 1.10), Lambeth effectively brought this discussion to an end, and came down decisively on one side of this question.

The actions of the North American Church may have rashly upped the stakes, but what other choice did it have? Since discussion had been closed, and since the African and other conservative bishops had made it clear that they considered the issue closed, the only way to make it clear that there was an opposing view, both regarding the inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the Church, as well as regarding the bounds for the interpretation and understanding of scripture, was to act according to its developing understanding of these things.

This it did, and certainly this has brought about a imminent rupture in relationships within the Church. However, it would be foolish to suppose that this rupture did not already exist. It did, and now the drama of this division will play itself out in the only way that it can. Whether this means that the Anglican Communion becomes a loose federation of churches, or strives to become a genuinely international church with a clear orthodoxy with authority to enforce it, or whether we will have to learn to walk separately, remains to be seen; but it is, in my view, wrong to suppose that the threatened division in the Church is merely because the North American Church made and ill-calculated unilateral decision without adequate consultation with the rest of the Communion. The seeds of division were sown in 1998, and in the politicised atmosphere of Lambeth 1998. Nor should we forget the role that Archbishop Carey played in setting the stage for our present divisions.

The Windsor Report recognises that questions have been asked regarding the process by which decision on Lambeth 1998 1.10 was made, but does not hold this to be relevant to the questions now before the Communion. This decision, and the deep concerns of so many regarding the way in which it was made, is, however, the source of much of our present troubles. If we cannot revisit this decision, then there is really no hope for consensus, and we will inevitably go our separate ways. This will be a tragedy, but it will not happen because of unilateral actions by the North American Church. It will happen because of the unwillingness of the various parts of the Communion to enter into a discussion which, according to the Times Leader, has more than one side.

It's always worth remembering that even within the Bible there are interesting examples of scripture being turned on its head - there's one I can't quite track down at the moment, but basically a line used in a negative sense in the OT is used positively in the NT.... Others with brain will spot it, I'm sure.

Try Ephesians 4 - 'received gifts from men' changes to 'gave gifts to men': the opposite, in a way. There are some instances where one has to reckon with the NT writers using the Septuagint not the Masoretic Text. From memory, Hebrews (quoting Ps. 40: 'a body you have prepared for me' replaces 'my ears you have opened').

Ah, discovered the one I was thinking of - Job 5:13 has Eliphaz deploying the argument that God undoes the work of the wise, the line Paul then uses in I Cor 3:18. However, Eliphaz is condemned in Job for NOT accurately rendering God's thinking.... Plenty of other of course, including God withdrawing his earlier support for genocide (IIKg 10:30 vs. Hos 1:4)

Not that Scripture-juggling has much to do with events in Ireland at the moment, but it's good to 'touch base' occasionally with an awareness of the complexity of the scriptural tradition (whatever we decide 'scripture' means).

Peter wrote "how do we separate what God says from what we think He says, other than to talk about our personal views of the Bible?....... If we ever think we KNOW God's will, we are probably wrong. It is in the interface between knowing and doubt that we find God."

Hi Pete, Aren't these just pretty experientialist words that really have little meaning? We may experience some occasional revelations in our struggles with faith, but live most of our life is actually lived in the light of what God (and life) has shown us - ie based on what we believe.

The logic that says that we can't know what the bible writers really meant, would look unsustainable if used regarding, say, Shakespeare. If we really believed that we could not know what anyone else meant, only our perception of it, then we wouldn't be bothering to try to interact on this forum either..... But in the light of our experience, we all know that we can communicate, be understood, and elicit an understandable response.

I agree with Nick that we can look in the Bible and see what God, through Jesus and the Apostles, has already taught us. Obviously this takes effort - to understand what was really meant, and how it might apply to us nowadays; but otherwise we are just making it up as we go along!

Then we should simply follow every word of the bible? Is that what I'm to understand some are suggesting?

I may stone to death my disobedient son?
God hates shrimp?
Women should be silent in church?
Slavery is an accepted practise?
Polygamy and concubines are an option?
Christians must follow some Jewish dietary restrictions?

As you can imagine, that list can go on and on. On a number of issues we have reconsidered, in light of the culture in which it was written, many of the ethical and moral teachings in the bible. Jesus questioned the scriptures, as did Paul and the early Church.

Why the right to marry whom we choose is such a line in the sand is beyond me. One would think that one of the "clear teachings of scripture" (meaning a repetitive theme) would be that we should be encouraging more committed relationships, not trying to destroy them.

The whole point of Jesus is that the New Testament (= new covenant) is a new constitution / dispensation from the old one (OT). So why is Jake writing as though we were still under the old one.

But we are under the new one, so why go against it?

I do find the 'dew dispensation' argument problematic, given that the NT is decidedly ambivalent about the place of the OT (so-called) in Christianity. It can be used as a convenient get-out (as if the OT makes a distinction between 'moral' and 'ritual' anyway)to avoid us facing up to the inherent difficulties of applying LBA literature's mores to C21.

And the clear teaching of the NT has a lot to say about the necessity of poverty and the non-permissibility of divorce, rather more than it does about homosexuality — which some exegetes would dispute is represented by the word 'arsenowotsit' anyway.

Oops, that should have been 'new dispensation'!

But Acts bans Christians from black pudding consumption (just as well I didn't eat the one on my breakfast plate the other day) — you can't use the OT/NT divide as a way off the hook, I think.

Hi David-

I love the way you write as though the black pudding is what clinches it. (Can't stand them, personally...)