A rule of thumb is: Up with those who will debate (constructively & open-mindedly); down with those who won't.

Isn't the position of the heterodox group on the Bible presented as (a) a bit too uniform and (b) a bit too fixed? The more so as this conflicts with their principles of flexibility in such matters.

My suspicion is that one will find a correlation between different clerics' actual attitude to homosexuals and homosexuality and their interpretation of the Bible. I still suswpect that what is really happening (despite protestations) is that the former is determining the latter.

But in that case, they are not 'reading' the Bible at all. The Bible (a) is independent of them, and (b) was around long before they existed. No-one with any knowledge of stats can think that they sincerely believe that an independent and older document (or library) just so happens, by coincidence, to support their own existing and culturally-determined position of two millennia later.

At least their excolleague Richard Holloway had the honesty to admit that the Bible did not support his position, and that therefore he thought the Bible was wrong. This, by contrast, is at least a coherent position, whether or not it is a correct one.

Dr. Shell,

I completely agree with your rule of thumb and I think that you have correctly identified the issue as differing hermeneutics. Do your labels and caricatures assist open-minded and constructive debate?

"My suspicion is that one will find a correlation between different clerics' actual attitude to homosexuals and homosexuality and their interpretation of the Bible."

As opposed to? Presumably EVERY "cleric" (not to mention layperson) will form their attitudes to *any* issue in reference to "their interpretation of the Bible."

*My* suspicion, is that Christians with a contemporary prejudice, will continue to justify that prejudice by (anachronistically) reading it into ancient scripture (and that those Christians who don't engage in this anachronism will be disparaged as "heterodox").

JCF wrote: "*My* suspicion, is that Christians with a contemporary prejudice, will continue to justify that prejudice..."

Aahh.. more labelling (prejudice, anachronistic etc) - I really think that we should debate the *issue*, and where we use adjectives to describe our disagreement with other groups, try to avoid the variety which are shrill accusation, rather than actually descriptive. Or are we going to descend to the level of "knife attack" debate, where anyone we think disagrees with us is just attacked by any means possible ?

Changing Attitudes wrote. “...... It is a joy and a delight that the Bishops have spoken warmly of their gay clergy colleagues. In making their statement, the Bishops have witnessed to a generous orthodoxy which is the norm for the Scottish Episcopal Church. The good news of Easter is for everyone in the church - gay or straight.”

Hey! Let's not confuse issues here. The Good News of Easter is for everyone, liberal or conservative, gay or straight, male or female, rich or poor, married, single or living in a sinful relationship, respectable or social outcaste, law-abiding or criminal, adulterers, liars, thieves, robbers, drugs pushers, child abusers and murderers!

I don't think that anyone is disputing that Jesus died and rose again to save us *all* from our sins, if we believe and trust in Him! However, the *question* is whether homosexual sexual relationships are sinful in Gods eyes (and, therefore, homosexual sexual desires are sinful desires)...

ps I notice that Dean Colin Slee's proposed new adjective for "liberal" (was "tolerant", now "generous") has made it into the official CA vocabulary.
However, from their response to the “Scottish Anglican Network”, I think that CA is rather less *generous* to people who disagree with them ! (presumably the ungenerous) And I seem to recall that evangelical church members generously give something like twice as much per head to the church...

Sorry JCF, what I meant to say was that I suspected a correlation between (a) any views they might have had re homosexuality in advance of being confronted with the NT passages and (b) their interpretation of those NT passages.

Derek -

Yes, I agree. All Im voicing is an unproven suspicion not an allegation. I think the grounds for the suspicion are good ones, since the chances of a first-century document just so happening to voice twentieth-century views (and to be seen to voice such views only by precisely those who would wish that it did hold such views) - let alone on a topic like this - are so small.

"I suspected a correlation between (a) any views they might have had re homosexuality in advance of being confronted with the NT passages and (b) their interpretation of those NT passages."

Christopher, you've nailed the crux (Ouch! So that's what those are for!) of my consternation.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that "consistent ethic" Anglicans (chastity in singleness, fidelity in monogamous relationships) just wake up one day w/ that belief, and then discover this collection of books called the New Testament? "Hmmm, do you think Paul's Epistles confirm my gay lifestyle? {They better, I'm meeting a hot date tonight at The MaleBox!}"

Is that what you think is happening? That our pathetic rationalizations drive us to jam a square NT "Thou shalt not" peg into round "If it feels good, I'll do it!" hole?

No LGBT Christian over 30 has grown up w/ anything *other* than being TOLD "The Bible says homosexuality is Bad" (and there's probably not more than a few under 30 who weren't told, relentlessly, the same thing).

In other words, the cultural commandment that "Homosexuality = BAD" is stamped onto your brain at an early age (perhaps even before one has the slightest sense that you have tendencies in a same-sex direction).

Certainly by the time you actually been "confronted with the NT passages," you've already been force-fed many large helpings of the majoritarian interpretations.

Only years later (if ever), usually, does one learn to *read texts in historical context* (and judge set scriptural interpretations in the same way!)

In short, Christopher, the description you've given above is bass-ackwards. It's in reading what Scripture actually says---being "confronted" by it---that is *so formative* of a Christ-like ethic: to hold all people to same standard ("Love one another as I have loved you"), and not put words into Christ's mouth that aren't there. Above all, it is through reading (learn, mark, and inwardly digest) Scripture that I have learned that the Word of God is CHRIST . . . who makes all things new.

[NB to Dave: I'm letting my yes be "yes" here. I perceive prejudice, therefore I call it "prejudice." The tenor of your response does not dissuade me from my observation.]

JCF, I guess your remarks are probably true for those who grow up in awareness of the NT text.

I dont know what things are like in America, but in Britain I very much doubt whether more than 1% of our youth would know what Romans 1 or 1 Corinthians 6 say (as opposed to what Christians think on the topic).

Whereas the vast majority will have formed views on the morality of homosexuality.

That is why I think the latter precedes the former in most people's life story.

It's always our tendency to attribute our own views to good reasons, and others' views to cultural factors, prejudice, and so on.

I suggest that what's needed is a move to debating the issue itself, perhaps the scripture passages, etc..

After all, that way, we treat everyone on the presumption that the reason they believe what they do, is that they have what they take to be good reasons supporting & justifying that viewpoint. I think that working on this assumption is a good way to honour people made in God's image.

So ... There seem to be - at least - three key questions:
- do the scriptures teach that gay sex (even in a context of lifelong commitment) is sinful?
- if they do, on what basis? (i.e. on the basis of creation order, human nature? or on the basis of time-specific factors that no longer apply?)
- and if the scriptural view were that gay sex is sinful, on the basis of creation order (as +Richard Holloway seems to have thought), does this mean that gay sex *is* sinful today? (+RH thought not.)

Good thinking Jamie.
Your proposed questions rightly bear in mind that mere 'argument from scripture' is circular. In any case, it's not as though Romans or 1 Corinthians fell from heaven carved on stone: they reflect deeper and prior experience and thought. And Paul would hardly have felt himself controversial in penning these particular words.

It's for this reason that I keep scripture out of it (though I do comment on others' use of scripture). Less circular factors include:
(1) biology and nature
(2) STD-rates
(3) life expectancy.

Yes, to base oneself on Paul, one has to query what his reasons were for relevant statements. (Tangent: I find his arguments about head-coverings / hair-length rather dubious, myself.) One also has to consider just how authoritative the OT is - "taken away the old code with all its regulations and nailed it to the cross", in the words of Col.2:14, or "not an iota of the Law shall pass away"?

I'd like to comment about one phrase in all the above, though. This one: "can live open godly lives". Let's not forget that godliness, the process of *becoming* more Christ-like, is not a binary concept, it's analogue.

Jamie,

Dr. Shell and I and some others did have a slight discussion on the issue on this board a few months back. While interesting and edifying comments were made and it sparked some collegial discussion, I don't think that the issue was solved or that anyone's mind was substantially changed.

A broader question not addressed in your questions that we discussed then was not simply what does Scripture say but how does Scripture function in the Christian life; is it a set of static rules or is it a guideline that demonstrates how faithful (and unfaithful) people of God have made decisions in the past. So, the issue is a little more difficult than just what does Scripture say.

Jamie

I'd love to get a thorough debate going, though I'm not sure that Simon has designed his site for that...

Maybe we could use a more appropriate site, such as "anglican-mainstream.net" or "biblicalliberal.com" - there have been such discussions on both, though each is predominantly occupied by folk from a conservative or liberal viewpoint (guess which is which!).

Anyone else up for a full debate ?
.

I don't always agree with JCF's comments on this site, but on this occasion I think she hits the nail on the head (if she will excuse my phallocentric metaphor).

Christopher maintains that 'the heterodox group' are allowing their culturally-determined views on homosexuality to determine their interpretation of the New Testament. To which I ask: why should they bother? It's not as if Christians are under any great pressure to reinterpret the NT in accordance with contemporary social norms. Rather, they are under pressure to reject the NT altogether as being totally irrelevant to contemporary social norms.

As Christopher points out, most young people today neither know nor care what the Bible says about homosexuality. In these circumstances, Changing Attitude Scotland are actually being quite radically counter-cultural in suggesting that the Bible might have something relevant to say on the subject.

"I very much doubt whether more than 1% of our youth would know what Romans 1 or 1 Corinthians 6 say (as opposed to what Christians think on the topic).

Whereas the vast majority will have formed views on the morality of homosexuality."

Waitaminnit! So you're saying you *agree* with me, Christopher? Only 1% have read Scripture, as opposed to something closer to 99% who have been *told* "what Christians think on the topic" [of homosexuality---and thereby had their morality formed by this . . . well, I would say "indoctrination"]?

*****

Oh dear, I get to play Bad Cop yet again: Jamie has calmly and logically proposed debating "do the scriptures teach that gay sex (even in a context of lifelong commitment) is sinful?"

And I come back with "what do you mean by 'gay sex'"? What makes you think the Bible says ANYTHING about "gay sex"?

Or, in other words, why isn't the doctrinal burden to PROVE that Biblical injunctions (among many injunctions forthrightly set aside by Christians) against *certain acts* by *certain persons* in *certain historical/religious contexts*---where *consent* may or may not be at issue---who HAPPEN TO BE OF THE SAME GENDER . . . ought to be *equated* to the contemporary designation "gay"? Why is the burden of proof invariably constructed, as Jamie implicitly has, the other way around (other than the fact that *despised minorities* USUALLY get saddled w/ the burden)?

I don't like screaming (shrilly, as I've been accused) "No! Stop the debate! You're asking the wrong questions!"

. . . but there it is.

JCF -
Whether the Bible does or does not say anything about 'gay sex' is not up for dispute. It clearly does, albeit the thought-framework is in some respects different from our own, which is inevitable. This doesnt mean that our thought framework is superior (or inferior), merely that it belongs to our own period of history.

Andrew-
I wonder about the idea that 'contemporary social norms' are likely to be something good, something that one ought to change in order to accord with. How can this be? They are neutral and historically contingent. There is no more chance of social norms imporving across the board than there is of their degenerating across the board (CS Lewis's 'chronological snobbery' again.) This being the case, the fact that socail change has happened could not be less relevant. The questions are rather:
(1) were the said social changes an improvement, and if so why?
(2) What were the forces that brought them about?
(3) Are they internally coherent?

Not up to your usual standards of logical rigour, Christopher.

"Whether the Bible does or does not say anything about 'gay sex' is not up for dispute". Well, actually it is up for dispute. In fact it is precisely the point that JCF is disputing.

I find your term 'thought-framework' misleading here, as it implies that the moral 'thought' stays the same even though the historical 'framework' may change. You don't seem to be engaging with the relativist counter-argument, which is that we are not just dealing with the same ideas framed in different ways, we are dealing with radically different paradigms that can't easily be mapped onto each other.

In response to my last comment, you say: "I wonder about the idea that 'contemporary social norms' are likely to be something good". Reasonable enough; but it has nothing whatever to do with the point I made. You have simply taken my phrase, 'contemporary social norms', and constructed an entirely different argument around it.

To repeat my earlier point in slightly blunter terms: it seems odd to suggest that liberal churchmen are selling out to a secular worldview, when the proponents of that secular worldview are profoundly uninterested in anything that liberal churchmen might think or say or do, except possibly for its comedy value.

Andrew wrote:
"...it seems odd to suggest that liberal churchmen are selling out to a secular worldview, when the proponents of that secular worldview are profoundly uninterested in anything that liberal churchmen might think or say or do, except possibly for its comedy value."

Very well said! Almost lost my mouthful of morning coffee chuckling at that ;)

A terribly important point, too. Here in the U.S., moderate to progressive Christians with a liberal political bent (as I have on some issues) really get slammed from both sides. Conservatives tout the "great Liberal/secular humanist/political correctness conspiracy" while the majority of true political liberals ignore or disdain their religious counterparts.

As Andrew has reasoned, we "liberal churchmen" (and women) have no motivation for "selling out to a secular worldview." Why would we, when those we're accused of pandering to think we're irrelevant ?

"Whether the Bible does or does not say anything about 'gay sex' is not up for dispute. It clearly does, albeit the thought-framework is in some respects different from our own, which is inevitable."

Two words, Christopher: PROVE IT.

[A TA discussion thread isn't a Primates Meeting, where you can dictate terms---and the burden-of-proof---to *this* Episcopalian!]

With prayers for the repose of the soul of Karol Wojtyla+.

Andrew Conway wrote "Not up to your usual standards of logical rigour, Christopher. "Whether the Bible does or does not say anything about 'gay sex' is not up for dispute".
Well, actually it is up for dispute. In fact it is precisely the point that JCF is disputing."

Andrew, Every time the bible's writers mention men having sex with men it is condemned as sin. The translators don't use the words "gay sex" but you may have noticed that male gay sex generally involves two men....

Andrew Conway wrote: "I find your term 'thought-framework' misleading here, as it implies that the moral 'thought' stays the same even though the historical 'framework' may change. You don't seem to be engaging with the relativist counter-argument, which is that we are not just dealing with the same ideas framed in different ways, we are dealing with radically different paradigms that can't easily be mapped onto each other."

My first response to this sort of relativist arguement is that when we engage with biblical moral ideals we are not talking just about men's perceptions or moral frameworks, we are talking about God's too..

Certainly finding that a group of people have a particular sexual desire does not always justify it's morality, even in humanistic terms!

And I'm far from convinced that inventing that words "sexual orientations" to define groups of people who experience similar sorts of sexual attractions was significantly more than "the same ideas framed in different ways".

Dave,

"Every time the bible's writers mention _________ it is condemned as sin."

is a pathetically weak argument in the context of all the "mentioning" that goes on within the obsessively-ritualized (and ethnocentric) worldview of the Hebrew Bible (a worldview Christians view as *finished, via Christ's completion*).

And *that* is even where the "mentioning" can be *understood in contemporary terms* AT ALL! Of all the mention of sexual behavior (Old Testament OR New)---and vis-a-vis other types of sins, it ain't much---the fact remains that we're still just *guessing* at the meaning much of the time. (Someone possess some special Seer Stones, or sumthin?)

[And please: let's not forget that in OT or NT, "righteous" sexual behavior permits women no real say? Hardly the standard for the Church today!]

Why, for tendentious reasons, should we rely on a house-of-cards that is "Every time the bible's writers mention _________ it is condemned as sin" when there is the far more compelling *weight-bearing* test: "By their fruits you shall know them"?

Gosh, this is a new one on me!!

Ive heard all sorts of views on this topic, but never till now the view that male-male sex (ie gay sex) is never even mentioned in the Bible.

I know this is being disputed (as one might dispute that grass is green etc) - but ppl are at liberty to dispute anything. It doesnt mean that the topics in question are really up for dispute or matters of contention.

Well - I dont know - maybe Im wrong, but if I am wrong, what are the points in favour of believing that the bible never speaks of male-male (gay) sex?

Christopher, the very notion of sex---ANY kind of sex (good, bad, gay, straight, ancient, modern, male, female, intersexed: w/ whatever plumbing, or none at all) is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

The fact that you can just casually toss off an equation like "male-male sex (ie gay sex)" merely shows *your* construct, Christopher---not necessarily anyone else's (much less the Biblical writers).

Yeah, I'm sure you can just pish-posh this away again (Gosh---via your faux incredulity, for one!). After all just because JCF objects, "doesnt mean that the topics in question are really up for dispute or matters of contention." (Easter Greetings from the "Unreal" BTW: Alleluia, Christ is Risen!) But the attempt to erase me from the conversation doesn't hide the fact that the "orthodox" (so-called) has no clothes (or persuasive arguments).

You've still yet to make your case, Christopher: recall that the burden of proof is on *you*. [To refresh your memory, from a few posts above: "PROVE that Biblical injunctions (among many injunctions forthrightly set aside by Christians) against *certain acts* by *certain persons* in *certain historical/religious contexts*---where *consent* may or may not be at issue---who HAPPEN TO BE OF THE SAME GENDER . . . ought to be *equated* to the contemporary designation "gay"?]

I await something more than just another of your distractions from the real issue at hand (which, like myself, is *not* going away from Anglicanism).

We seem to have stumbled on something important here .. a mutual incomprehension which may help to explain why constructive dialogue on this subject is so difficult.

The problem with the term 'gay sex' is that it assumes a fixed and stable notion of sexual identity ('gay') expressed primarily through erotic activity ('gay sex'). It is not obvious that these assumptions can be applied to the New Testament (because the NT writers may not have thought of people as possessing a fixed and stable sexual identity); nor is it obvious that they can be applied to modern gay relationships (because many gay people would resent the implication that their relationships were based primarily on erotic attraction).

Does this clarify matters for you, Christopher? I don't think it is merely a matter of semantics. I think this is a situation where the initial terms of the debate tend to determine the outcome -- so that if you begin by asking "what does the Bible say about gay sex?" you slant the debate in one direction, and if you begin by asking "what does the Bible say about faithful and committed same-sex relationships?" you slant the debate in another direction.

The challenge is to define the terms of the debate in a way that everyone can agree on -- and if we can do that, then we may actually begin to make real progress. But careless talk about "male-male (gay) sex" only clouds the issue and makes it more difficult to engage in constructive dialogue.

Interesting stuff, one and all .... I'm most appreciative of all this discussion.

A couple of (slightly tongue-in-cheek) opening salvos:
1) I've always found the contention that 'sex is always a social construct' a rather amusing idea, and quite manifestly false .... er ... does it really need explaining why?!!
2) Burden of proof. The BoP lies with anyone who takes a position on a topic to defend it. Burdens of proof don't lie anywhere, as far as I know.

Now, the main stuff.

Hermeneutics:
The following seems to follow from what has been said by JCF and others:
>> Since every concept used in both OT and NT Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic did not have exactly the same sense or reference as ours (and belonged, often if not always, within worldviews that are not exactly identical to those we hold), it seems to follow that there is no subject matter that we share with any of the bible writers.
>>Consequently (on this view), the Bible cannot be relevant to any aspect of our life, conduct, worship, church-life, ethics or beliefs, because it "does not say anything about" any of the things we are interested in (God, life, behaviour, relationships, sex, money, careers, dying, families, the world, politics, etc.). It only says things about its own 'world'.

For my money, the fact that all OT and NT concepts need to be understood in context, seems clear and agreed by all. But saying "The bible says nothing about x" is to say something highly ambiguous - an ambiguity of which JCF seems unaware - and an ambiguity so stark that on-one-disambiguation it comes out obviously TRUE, on another, obviously FALSE!
(a) Yes, it is true in the sense that 'none of our concepts are used in the bible'.
(b) No, it is not true, in the sense that this means that 'what the bible says has no bearing on the things we are interested in'.

I take both of the latter points to be pretty intuitively obvious. If therefore it matters to us what the bible says, and if it holds any authority for us, we cannot dismiss *a priori* (from the armchair) the possibility of its having something relevant and challenging to say about sex ethics, merely on the grounds that it doesn't use *our* concepts! For, on those grounds, neither would it have anything relevant to say to us about _God_!

Derek, your question about what authority (exemplary / precept-giving / etc.) the scriptures have for us, was part of the 3rd question that I was raising. But interestingly, on this point, I'm not sure that it matters. After all, if you find that over the whole sweep of the historical period covered by the scriptures, God's people have consistently adopted the same stance towards something, it hardly matters whether you have an example-based view of how scripture should guide our conduct, or a precept-based view: the outcome will be the same. I submit that this is the case in relation to gay sex.

The alternative for the liberal is to cut loose from 'authority' altogether, somehow ...

Thanks, Andrew: you put things far more clearly than I can (And Everyone at TA said "Amen!" *g*)

However: "I've always found the contention that 'sex is always a social construct' a rather amusing idea, and quite manifestly false .... er ... does it really need explaining why?!!"

. . . the distractions keep a-comin'. Think I'm gonna bail on this thread now, before my blood pressure gets the better of me.

Indeed, He is risen. Alleluia!

Andrew Conway wrote: "The challenge is to define the terms of the debate in a way that everyone can agree on -- and if we can do that, then we may actually begin to make real progress."

Sounds good to me. Why don't you make a proposal of the terms of the debate as you see them Andrew ?... Then we can start testing and working on something.

But if you want to listen to what conservatives are saying you will have to not just discard our starting positions by making the following sort of assertion: "But careless talk about "male-male (gay) sex" only clouds the issue and makes it more difficult to engage in constructive dialogue", since it is same-sex sex that most conservatives believe is sinful according to the bible.

Therefore, to try to clarify things from the conservative side, one use of terms that I would request is that we carefully distinguish between same-sex attraction (the desire) and same-sex sex (the activity).

What is a sin?

Is it something which is written in the Bible and is said to be sinful? For those who live in faith and with Christianity do we then live with what was written hundreds of years ago or do we move forward and live for today. Much of the churches world would not be what it is today if the readings in the Bible were lived out in an altogether strict (conservative) fashion.

It is my hope that we can all learn to accept all of Gods creations in the fullest sense of acceptance. Those who accept their great calling should be able to live in harmony with all of Gods children and should not be treated with such prejudice.

Man-Man, Woman-Woman, Man-Woman - none of this is an issue for me simply because a person's sexuality should not be of such great importance. What matters is love, commitment and faith.

It is a great shame that once again Gods children are in battle when already we are on the road to destroy our own race ie wars.

What would God be thinking? What would Jesus say if he literally walked among us today? I very much doubt that this issue would rank at all when faced with the natural disasters, starvation etc which kills so many.

This issue does need to be discussed openly and with great honesty. I do not belive that this is about what is or is not written in the Bible. I have still to figure out what the real issue is and until someone can tell me I will go on with the belief that it is caused by prejudice.

I pray that everyone will keep an open mind and heart and that this issue will soon be resolved so that church life can progess in a healthier way.

Peace be with you.

We can see the situation in terms of sets and subsets.
The biblical passages are fairly sweeping - therefore they are more likely to be speaking of sets than of subsets.
Likewise, the phrase 'gay sex' is a broad one, inclusive of all sorts of things. It's a set rather than a subset.

As I understand it, what is being contended is that neither is a set, and both are subsets - possibly even non-overlapping subsets. This seems unlikely.

A second point: I do think that the fact that we have got into this amount of hair-splitting may itself be a warning-sign. It may indicate that the broad contours of the issue have become hopelessly entangled, and that therefore we are on the wrong track.
There is also the danger that there is a correlation between the issues where ppl are 'hoping for' a particular answer/conclusion and the ones where they 'see' enormous complexity in texts and ask for innumerable qualifications (in the sense of 'death by a thousand qualifications') in interpretation.

Thanks all, once again.
I think that those on this thread who have pointed to the relevance of our doctrines of creation - the dignity of human beings, and implications that this has for the respect and value and dignity that all those in God's image deserve - are to be thanked.
These are central to how we respond to people of whatever race, creed, colour, lifestyle, orientation, whatever. They are easily lost sight of.

But these won't answer our questions about sex ethics.

I want to take issue with one apparently very plausible argument that runs as follows:
QUESTION: "what does the Bible say about faithful and committed [lifelong] same-sex [sexual] relationships?" The supposed ANSWER is: nothing at all.

Let's _suppose_ this is the correct answer. It still seems to me that *even this* doesn't establish what it's proponents take it to establish.

After all, bible writers may have things to say about other kinds of homosexual relationship, and what they say about the latter may also, in fact, apply equally to lifelong relationships.

This, I take it, is exactly what the mainstream anglican position maintains. It does NOT require the (implausible) view that the homosexual practices in Sodom or Corinth were identical to those under consideration today. It points out instead that the objection God's people have in the scriptures, to the homosexual practices of bible times, was on the grounds of its incompatibility with God's creation intentions for human sexuality. And specifically that the aspect of bible-times homosexuality that is asserted to be impermissible in the eyes of God is that it is *same*-sex intercourse.

If this is right, then the mainstream anglican can readily admit that the bible does not consider lifelong same-sex sexual partnerships, whilst maintaining that they are also still clearly impermissible, on the supposition (common to Jesus, NT, Ordinal, 39 articles, etc.) that it is right to accept scriptural authority.

Am I missing something? It may be that the argument I'm taking issue with here is more subtle than I have recognised. If so, I'd be glad to understand it better.

Homosexuality/same-sex whatevers/NH bishops are the presenting cases, not the root issue. The root issue once again seems to be a disagreemenet over hermeneutics. How do we interpret Scriptures, what are the boundaries, and who gets to call an interpretation in or out of bounds? Fundamentally as protestants it's that last one that's the kicker. We all formally agreed to disagree with the bishop of Rome and now it's kind of a free for all.

As most know this fight has been fought before--several times. Fundamentalism and modern biblical criticsm were the two tracks that emerged last time. We'll see what emerges from here...

Derek Olsen wrote: "Fundamentalism and modern biblical criticsm were the two tracks that emerged last time."

I'd have thought that liberals might be a bit miffed to be omitted from your list of principal players, which seems to include only fundamentalists and mainstream-evangelicals.

You are surely right, though, to identify the root issue as interpretation and authority in relation to the scriptures. (And you put it rather more snappily than I managed in my earlier post!)

I'm interested that you include "who gets to call ..." among the root issues. Why do you say that? I don't think that's any part of the motivation of McCarthy et al., so perhaps instead you see it as part of the SEC bishops' agenda, to control interpretation? But that seems unlikely, no? And I don't even know of many Catholics who *really* think the issue turns on _WHO_ controls how we interpret and apply scripture. To my mind, all of the above parties are concerned with your first 2 questions (roughly: what are the *principles* of good interpretation), plus the question of what authority the scriptures (duly interpreted) have. So, I'm interested in why it is that you think the issue turns on this further aspect: "who gets to call". I'm not seeing it just now, but I sense you may be onto something v interesting there.

The number of people actually qualified to interpret a biblical passage is (whether we like it or not) relatively small. Everyone has their six haporth of opinion - then on closer examination they turn out not to know Greek at all (or whatever).

That's why I always say - Let's go back to the big commentaries. Since the 1980s we have been blessed with several well-nigh exhaustive commentaries on all the books of the NT.

Sure, Christopher, but really what you are saying is really concerned with interpretative *principles* (e.g. original language, original context, understanding of the conceptual background, etc.), which - only secondarily - has implications for who it is that 'gets to call an interpretation in or out'. I'd agree with your implied view: anyone with the necessary ability to apply correct interpretative principles, gets to call. But I'd really call that a view on "how", not "who".

As someone who's academic life is spent working on some fairly well-worn ancient texts, I'm not quite as sanguine at the idea of exhaustive semi-magisterial commentaries. Sometimes you get a genuinely new insight from an undergraduate class. But it's a small quibble. You are surely right that there are some really excellent scholarly materials out there on the biblical texts, particularly from the last 20 years or so.

Jamie-

I think I got most the whole crowd in there. the majority of Protestants and Catholics aknowledge and participate in modern biblical criticism to one degree or another. One of the traditional ways to describe it--with really broad brush-strokes--is that the more conservative traditions stick with the lower criticisms (i.e., text criticism, etc.) and the more liberal traditions put more emphasis on the higher criticisms (historical, literary, various flavors of modern and postmoder methods like structuralist feminist, womanist, etc.) A general rule of thumb is that the more liberal the church the "higher" the criticism they're willing to accept. Then we get to those which I call the "extreme criticisms" which no-one accepts except the academics who write them. I'll mention no names... So, liberals are in there after all.

Personally, I think the question of who gets to call is the major issue at the moment in the AC. In America, we're split; the 815 leadership--again, speaking broadly--has one interpretive strategy and the Network folk have another. The question is who gets to call one or the other fair or foul. Right now, the Network/conservative/reasserter side is asserting that the correct interpretation is that upheld by a majority vote at the primates meeting. the 815/liberal/revisionist side disagrees and feels that a national consensus gets to make the decision. Both are looking sideways at the ABC and he's not talking.

Dr Shell,

What the heck is a "haporth"?? And are you suggesting that we just read the big commentaries? What, like Betz on the SoM? I like Luz's Matthew commentary but are you suggesting that we stop writing new ones? I guess I'm unclear as to what you are proposing here.

Derek -

LOL, a 'haporth' is more correctly a ha'p'orth or 'halfpenny-worth'.

What I mean is: The big commentaries are, to date, our best chance of getting a reliable and balanced picture of the interpretative options on any NT passage.

They may, in turn, be replaced by even better and more exhaustive ones. So, no, we shouldnt stop writing commentaries.

Betz illustrates the situation perfectly:
(1)On the one hand, Betz should be one of the first stops for anyone trying to interpret the SoM correctly.
(2) On the other hand, even a big commentary like Betz is woefully incomplete. There is no gospel passage for which a source critical discussion is more important than SoM, and Betz just assumes that the two-source theory is right.

http://www.anzwers.net/hot/realgir/7785442214/ fearedunderclothswatchit