What a blessing, from the Bishops of the Church in Wales.

Their statement is much more in the spirit of the Lord, and true to the historic Anglican tradition, than most of what I have been reading on this issue.

Well done, indeed.

This is very helpful.

"Some people, reading the Scriptures with integrity... [et al]"

Is there any Anglican who would *disagree* with this---that this is an accurate description of the situation within the AC (and the range of opinions "with integrity" to be found therein)?

[I freely confess that I *believe* that most Anglicans who "reach the conclusion that the only proper context for sexual activity is marriage between a man and a woman in life­long union. Homosexual practice of any kind is therefore rejected" *AREN'T* "reading the Scriptures with integrity" (because they consistently speak from a mindset of manifest *prejudice*, not Scripture---at least the ones that *I* have heard, in-person and online). However, I believe the first item in the range of opinion above is POSSIBLE. :-/]

After announcing that the statement is 'very helpful,' J.C. Fisher asserts that the first option is held by Christians who "speak from a mindset of manifest prejudice, not Scripture."

He/she then creates a rhetorical escape hatch by saying, "I believe the first item in the range of opinion above is POSSIBLE."

Do you think that's what the Welsh bishops had in mind?

Many thanks to the Church of Wales, and amen to all its bishops have said.

Doesn't say anything new, so why bother saying it? Just my honest reaction.

This is a document that's very generous of spirit. Good for the Church in Wales!

"Some people, reading the Scriptures with integrity... [et al]"

To which JCF responded: "Is there any Anglican who would *disagree* with this ?"

I'd hope not, but I'm very afraid there *are*. I could be convinced otherwise if Dave, Neil, steven, Dr. Shell, etc... would *ever* admit, while I may be wrong, that I read Scriptures with integrity.

I just don't see this happening - which is quite sad, as I'm willing to give *them* the benefit of the doubt that way (which is in no way saying that I *agree* with their conclusions ;)

Oh well, at least it's nice to know that the Church in Wales could be in communion with the ECUSA after the Big Split.

Finally...serious Anglican leadership! What a refreshing contrast to the likes of Ankinola, Duncan, and Co.

This is a good summary of the state of understanding at present. Archbishop Morgan's recent Autton Lecture was most helpful and positive. http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/archbishop/b0014e.html

But what do the Welsh Bishops propose to do in the light of this? Will they (or do they already) allow people living in comitted same-sex relationships to be ordained, for instance?

Even atheists would read the scriptures "with integrity" according to the arguement used by the Welsh bishop's statement! Although I think that people in the AC hold a range of *views* on homo-sexual sex "with integrity", I have yet to hear any exegesis of Scripture that convincingly supports the view that homosexuality is not intrinsically disordered, or that committed homosexual relationships should (or can) be blessed.

The "pro-gay-sex" positions are always supported *starting* with arguements such as:
> "in the light of a developing understanding of the nature of humanity and sexuality" (which is often reduced to the "homophobia" arguement) OR
> "through [homosexual relationships'] internal mutuality and support, these bring creativity, generosity and love into the lives of those within them" (subtly reminding the ABofC of what he previously wrote I suspect?).

Both then go on to attempt to reinterprete, or deconstruct, the meaning of Scriptural references that *condemn* same-sex sex, or put homosexuality in sin lists etc....

The reader's integrity is with their own presumptions, not with what the writers of Scripture meant ! It is not true that all the positions listed are held with *equivalent* integrity... or the same *respect* of Scripture.

Whichever of the above options is the best one, it can't be the last one which says 'the time has come'. Because if it's good and right now, it will have been good and right before now as well. Therefore the correct time is not now, but rather it will always have been the correct time. If homosexuality is biological and genetic, that is.

The very clause 'the time has come' suggests a more sociological / nurture / environmental view of homosexuality, which I thought was not characteristic of the pro-gay viewpoint.

To read the Scriptures "with integrity," means, to me, reading them with an open mind and open heart, ready to learn and to perceive something new. So, from that perspective, yes, even atheists can read the Scriptures "with integrity," and I have no doubt many do. I also have no doubt that many sincerely believing Christians do not do so. All any of us can do is to follow our own consciences, hoping we are being lead by the Spirit, and not by our own desires or prejudices; and to respect the fact that others can only do the same. We must always remember that much evil has been done in the world by people honestly, sincerely, and after much prayer and consideration, believed they were doing the Will of God. We can only pray that we are not following in their footsteps. We need to recognize our own fallibility -- to accept the fact that the other guy, who holds the opposite view as strongly as we hold our own views -- just MIGHT be the guy who has it right. Humility is in very short supply, indeed.

The Church in Wales is a tiny, dying, denomination with a large number of bishops per faithful (and a hegemony of liberals too, except for one or two). Whatever you revisionist liberals make out of this, it will have almost no impact on the Universal Catholic Church!

"We uphold the traditional Anglican emphasis on Scripture read in the light of reason and tradition."

Sorry kids but this is utterly, utterly false! Scripture IS NOT subject to reason or tradition. It is the reverse, that reason is to be informed by Scripture. When are we going to stop rewriting history to fit our agenda?

David Huff, I wonder what is to be gained by personalising this, as you have above.

I'm not aware of any of those you criticise saying anything remotely like you never read the Bible with integrity. How would they/we know?

I am very willing to concede that many if not most Christians read the Bible with sincerity.

I must equally assert that it is very possible to "read" the Bible wrongly - ie to understand it wrongly.

Ultimately God didn't reveal Himself and His truth in an ambiguous way - it is surely up to us to wrestle with His revelation and, as far as we can, to come to conclusions about what God means by something. But that doesn't mean we are necessarily right of course.

It is this use of the phrase "reading with integrity" that I am genuinely puzzled by.

Whose integrity is it we're talking about?

Are we talking about reading the Scriptures in a way which respects the Scriptures' own meaning, integral to them? In which case, it seems to me a complete nonsense to suggest that all of the different views in the Welsh Bishops' statement are true and valid! How can the Scriptures possibly mean more than more thing and the integrity of the meaning be preserved?

Or are we talking about reading the Scriptures in a way which respects the integrity of the reader?
In which case, fine - but that's not what I want if I want to hear God's voice. My personal integrity has to be subject to Him.

Peter O says there is nothing new in this. As an old and experienced hand in all that has happened in the last few years he means, I suspect, that Wales has no novelty to offer to the worldwide debate – he has seen it all before.

But the people of the Church in Wales have not seen this before.

Our Province has only recently begun to explore its understanding of the different views held by the faithful here. Gently our bishops have pastored us to open our hearts and minds on this matter with each other.

So for us as a family of faith, this is fresh and new. We hope that despite all that happens around us we can continue to hold on to each other and not be pulled apart because this or that Primate can not eat meat with another.

Our bishops have it in their hearts to hold our Church together and I, for one, honor, respect and love them for it

This kind of mutual respect for honest difference of opinion is part of what drew me to Anglicanism in the first place -- I'm glad it hasn't completely disappeared from the Communion -- yet...

"the time has come" does not mean that in earlier time slavery was right or that woman should have been treated as sub-human -- just that patriarchal human society had not yet achieved what God is calling us too -- we're still not there, I suspect.

I'm not an Anglican, but my mum is. Does that count?

I agree with Tom above on his comments on the following statement:

"We uphold the traditional Anglican emphasis on Scripture read in the light of reason and tradition."

This is the root of the problem. This defines a world view. But God invites us to this: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. What he has said, therefore, matters above all, even the idols of Reason and Tradition.

Peter O writes:
> Doesn't say anything new, so why bother saying it? Just my honest reaction.

Well, there's a new generation born every 25yrs or something. And by seeking to understand not just one, but all, shades of opinion, they stand a chance of bringing the unity without need for uniformity that the anglican communion needs. This is wisdom in action - and frankly, I wish certain other leaders could see it the same way.

Neil asks:

> I must equally assert that it is very possible to "read" the Bible wrongly - ie to understand it wrongly.

Wrongly by whose standards? How do you measure them? (OK, I know "test the spirits", but I was looking for matters of interpretation about the rest of the bible here.)

> Ultimately God didn't reveal Himself and His truth in an ambiguous way

Really? The Jews, for all they had the OT to be going on, had no clue that there would be two comings (servant and saviour respectively), and tbh Jesus had his pretty cagey moments when it came to letting on who He was. Have you ever stopped to wonder how "Follow me" became Creeds, Articles and cassocks?

> It is this use of the phrase "reading with integrity" that I am genuinely puzzled by. Whose integrity is it we're talking about?

I suggest the reader's. As long as you have a consistent view in which all bits of scripture you've encountered fit, who am I to doubt it?

What if the phrase " reading with integrity" was replaced with something like "reading with an understanding based on where they are spiritually at, at the moment"?

So... if one asks the Church in Wales what it teaches about a certain issue in human sexuality, the answer is - "make your own mind up"?

Is the difference between conservative and liberal capable of being defined as a dichotomy between people who think there is no such thing as truth, only private opinion: and those who do see a revealed faith and morality in the bible?

It does seem so, and if that is the case, there is little hope for the survival of a broad church Anglicanism, for there is no common ground or meeting point when the stark alternatives are private opinion or a public magisterium.

Stephen invites us to join him in a place where scripture is all and the idols of reason and tradition are dethroned.

It's a nice idea, but such a place cannot exist. Scripture is composed of words and words are only capable of understanding first through reason and then through understanding the context (tradition) in which they have been written. Nor is there any refuge in some mythical notion of the "plain meaning" that the text reveals (with an acceptable minimum of reasoning) before one gets heavy with the reason and tradition stuff.

An example may help. If one takes scripture alone then (as far as I recollect) there is not a verse in the bible to condemn lesbian sex. You either have to argue that Romans 1.26 is not about heterosexual perversions or that the logic of condemning it in one gender implies both. Whichever way you have set up reason as the tool by which you interpret scripture and build well beyond what the text alone can offer as foundation.

David,
You are not being quite fair with me. I did not deny that reason and tradition are jolly useful tools.

God gives reason and uses it with us - "Come now, and let us reason together" (Isa 1:18). It is a gift to be used wisely. Let me use another example as an analogy. Speech is a gift, but we are not to use it in an unconstrained way because used in this way it can do much harm. (See James 3 for this.) It is a gift seen at its best and most beautiful when it is subject to God-given constraints. In the same way, reason too must be subject to God-given instruction. It sits under, and is directed by, the wisdom of God. Then it is seen at its most glorious.

In regard to tradition, God says through Paul, "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle". There is a right tradition as Paul asserts. Put briefly, this is found in Scripture. Later traditions can be of value but only when seen to be agreeable to Scripture. Then they are beautiful.

So I do not deny reason and tradition.

But your comment simply exhibits even more clearly the problem that I was pointing to. You say that the place where "the idols of reason and tradition are dethroned" "cannot exist". In other words, you say that this duo must always, everywhere be on the throne. Thereby, you define your world view. If they are on the throne (and let's be clear - there is only one throne - God is a jealous God), then fear of reason and tradition is the beginning of your wisdom.

The arguments on this issue from the conservative side are set out very fully by Gagnon.

But see where mere reason leads if it is given authority over scripture. "Mythical notions"?

Does Bp Walker believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Will he celebrate Christmas as the birth of a famous rabbi, or of the Messiah? Does he believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus? Does he believe that Jesus lives today and will come again in glory? How much of this, in his view, is simply private interpretation? Or will he say yes to all of these, subject of course to careful qualification along the line of "mythical notions"?

The Church as a whole, the sort of consensus to which Dr Williams recently appealed, over centuries of studying the scriptures, and engaging in theological and christological debate, has come to agreed conclusions which it believes to be firmly founded on scripture. In the same way it maintains - as Jesus himself did - much of the force of the Law concerning the way we live as Christians. Its conclusions are based on a great deal of debate and reasoning, by some of the greatest minds throughout the ages.

But it is not only christology which, under the influence of secular academia, has been pushed by liberal Anglicans and others to the margin marked "private superstition". The morality enjoined by scripture, which has influenced the development of Europe and of the UK, as well as the Judaeo-Christian heirs of western christianity, has also been relegated by consumerist secularism to the box marked "private and irrational", with the connivance of liberal christians.

What is left once the authority of scripture has been categorically denied not only by the state but by church leaders? Once any kind of faith in God or adherence to Christian morality is regarded by church leaders as a matter of private interpretation and choice?

All that is left is an institution, formerly the Church of England (or ECUSA) which is now run for its own sake, consuming the remaining resources while people rightly conclude that there is little point to a religious organisation which no longer has faith in its own scriptures and creeds. Bishops now manage committees and boards, activities requiring no conversion to faith in God. It is evidently good to be a bishop: there are more and more of them.

The celebrated Via Media, an ecumenical dream of the 19th century, has become simply a job-creation scheme for those who are not quite convinced. But that's all right: they have the necessary management skills to keep up the facade behind which there was once a church.

The place which can not exist is christianity without faith, as is becoming shockingly apparent to all but those who have privileged places in ivory towers, from which the emptying churches seemingly can not be viewed.

The defect is not in the bible, but in decaying churches which deny revelation in order to cohabitat with secularity, as the Civil Partnerships Act has cruelly demonstrated.

To Evangelical churches, and to the RC Church and to Orthodoxy, there is plenty of reason in the bible and good reason to accept it as revelation.

But the via media is no longer a bridge between Evangelicals and Catholics, having become a halfway house on the way to unbelief, wherever theological privatisation holds sway within the institutional life of any church.

I'm grateful for Stephen qualifying his earlier comment and accepting that reason and scripture have their place.

I'm also grateful for him then quoting the second half of a phrase I used and attacking it without reference to its context, as this is indicative of the sort of use of text that conservative reflection on scripture often falls into (not that I claim my words have biblical authority!!). Shades of "hang all the law and the prophets".

Alan asks me some direct questions, the feel of which is to suggest I hold "liberal" doctrinal views. Here goes then...

...As it happens I believe in the Virgin Birth in just the same narrowly defined historic sense as the most conservative Christian. So he and I will be celebrating the birth of the incarnate Son of God on Dec 25th. I pray we'll celebrate it joyfully and wholeheartedly, as a wonderful gift of God, affirming the inherent goodness of his creation as well as calling us to a deep abiding personal relationship with him. And not just as one more difficult thing to believe, or a dry doctrinal formula. Often I celebrate Xmas in a maximum security prison, this year it will be with the congregation of a poor inner city parish whose vicar is unwell.

And ditto with the resurrection. I'm an old fashioned empty tomb, physical resurrection bloke. Nothing less would have convinced the disciples, nothing less brings hope to the poor and dispossessed of the earth. Mythologised resurrections might be enough from the viewpoint of a twentieth century university common room but they don't get to the harsh reality of most human existence. So I'll celebrate Easter with equal gusto.

And Ascension Day too, which assures me that the Jesus I meet in my prayers is the same Jesus I meet in scripture.

My assent to the classical doctrines in their classical mode comes with the benefit, not the avoidance or minimalisation of reason and tradition, together with personal experience (the Holy Spirit). It underpins a faith that has as much to say about the boardroom as the bedroom, and that takes seriously the universality of Christ as opposed to the election of a sect.

The alternative to proof-texting and anti-intellectualism is not a mythologised faith but a genuine journey into God where hard questions are treated with the respect they deserve and where faith is earthy and rooted in the challenges of proclaiming the Kingdom in our midst.

There is a vibrant core to the Anglican via media - come on in, the water's lovely!

Thank you, David Walker, and Amen!

I like and appreciate the statement of the Welsh bishops.

I wonder if all the comments poo-pooing them adequately understand the nature of Anglican and ECUSA polity.

I wonder too, if part of the seeming resistance to speak more often and forcefully for what the "Northern" churches stand for and have given the world and the Communion, is sometimes grounded in a sort of post-colonial apprehension.

Alan : I'd suggest there is plenty of blind faith and unreason in the traditional churches,and whilst you may see reason in the Bible, that is largely the product of blind faith.

Oh, here we go with the old whine about our "polity!" It has not ceased to confound me that those who rewrite the Faith under the guise of being prophetic become utterly thick-witted and hide behind the god of "polity" when it comes to cleaning up the mess y'all have made.

Tom,

Polity isn't a whine, it's the way things work in the Communion. It certainly isn't a god! Anglican polity does structure how we come together to worship and pray and discern God's will, though.

Sometimes I wonder if liberals understand Anglican "polity." The fact of the matter is that this "polity" is not working. It's broken, or as Benedict would say, kaput! Perhaps one could even say that it has been our "polity" which has gotten us into this mess. I stand by what I said above and will restate my opinion: if you are going to be "prophetic" about the interpretation of historic doctrine then you also need to be "prophetic" in addressing the problems that arise from those new interpretations. You cannot retreat into an antique "polity" that is centuries old. Think outside the box!

I'm a convert to the Episcopal Church; not a recent convert, but a convert. Among the many things that attracted me to Anglican Christianity was a certain implicit humility in its broad acceptance of conflicting points of view on matters of faith and most other matters. No one, not even the authors of the Holy Scriptures, has a direct line to the Mind of the Almighty (I suspect that the mind of such a hypothetical mortal would probably find such a direct connection unbearable and impossible to sustain). We are left with only our Faith and our wits to find our way through this world to the Great Good Place. What was once so admirable about the Anglican form of Christianity was a kind of mutual pledge amongst its members that we would somehow stay together and support each other even when we disagreed over which fork in the road to take. We did this because we recognized that we are all flawed limited mortals and in this life together whether we liked each other or not.
If the Anglican Communion is to transform itself into some kind of a confessional or scripturalist church like so many others these days, then I wonder what's the point of it?
To me, the Bishop's statement above is an admirable attempt to preserve that openess and humility that is unique to Anglicanism.

Ok - Can I ask the Biblical Literalists to tell me what to do with the 6th commandment.

Am I to believe the Jerusalem Bible's version "Thou shall not kill" or am I to be believe the NRSV or NIV versions "Thou shall not murder".

Which translation I believe has a huge impact, because if I believe the Jerusalem Bible's translation then Capital Punishment, War etc are all against God's Laws, but if I believe either of the other translations, then Capital Punishment and War are ok, only murder is a sin.

My point is - the Bible translation I use, often shows the "theological" interpretation (bias if you want) of the translators, and so has already been informed by tradition and reason.

Charles, you make the classic mistake of assuming that those you are interrogating are literalists, and go on yourself to frame a question which would embarrass a fundamentalist.

The English legal definition of "murder" is extremely complex, and the word carries some of those overtones even in a theological context, which may be why the JB chooses a word with a narrower register of meanings.

But why compare English translations? Why not look at the original text, with the help of several commentaries? That is what biblically-minded Christians do - rather than try to figure it out for themselves.

Bishop David,

I am delighted and thrilled to read your affirmation of faith. Thank you.

Do you think that this can or should be accepted as the standard of faith among Christians? Or (to tease out the discussion) is it just your own "take" on christology, only as valid as the views of the man/woman on the Clapham omnibus?

What I am trying to get at is this: do we still have as Anglicans a sustainable core of shared belief, morality and language, or in our desire to be a broad church have we relegated all authority claims to the domain of the private conscience?

Alan,

You don't think the 39 Articles in the BCP establish a clear and "sustainable core of shared belief and morality" ?

As far as what "biblical-minded Christians are wont to do, I think it is safe to say that there are probably some diversity of thought as to what biblically minded Christians are, what they do, and what/how they read. I'd also think that there are biblically-minded Christians working on several translation teams. You don't?

I think it is quite possible to be biblically-minded and read the bible in English.

In fact, the preface to the First BCP in 1549 suggests,

"And moreover, whereas St.Paul would have such language spoken to the people in the Church, as they might understand and have profit by hearing the same, the Service in the Church of England (these many years) hath been read in Latin to the people, which they understood not; so that they have heard with their ears only; and their hearts, spirit and mind have not been edified thereby."

Tom,

I tend to think of Anglican polity as currently being tugged at, and there certainly are elements in the Communion who would seek to alter it to provide greater clarity for future, or to act in contravention of it. As far as acting "prophetically" towards problems, what is it about current polity that cannot accommodate or adapt to this?

The Welsh statement suggests that it can accommodate it.

I don't know if this is a "liberal" issue or what you mean by the term, I consider it an "Anglican" issue.

Huh: Dave Walker is +Dave Walker---go figure! ;-)

Alan, I'm mystified as to why you would ask +DW the above question: "Do you think that this can or should be accepted as the standard of faith among Christians?"

Why would you turn so quickly from being "delighted and thrilled to read your affirmation of faith" (which I also share, FWIW), to querying +Walker as to whether he would *impose* that faith?

Something I had thought was a charism of Anglicanism---a belief in *freedom*, and trust in its members (and their individual "private conscience")---seems to me to be in danger of being lost, in a flurry of recriminations, inquisitions, and confessions (in both senses of the term, required along w/ stipulated "repentence"). :-(

Lord have mercy!

RMF, I was talking about interpretation and exegesis of scripture, not about the Formularies.

The XXXIX Articles, which are usually bound with the BCP and the Ordinal, are not actually part of the BCP itself. The Articles have given rise to considerable debate over the years as to what they actually mean, but they certainly do not have the same status as holy scripture, whatever the outcome of that separate debate. Subscription to the Articles was abolished in the Church of England many years ago, incidentally.

Of course it is possible (and desirable!) to read English translations of the bible, privately or in public worship, but if someone wants to be more precise about the interpretation of a word, it is necessary to look at what the original text says, not at the versions used in translation.

Alan said - "But why compare English translations? Why not look at the original text, with the help of several commentaries? That is what biblically-minded Christians do - rather than try to figure it out for themselves."

I am not an ancient Hebrew scholar or a classical Greek scholar and nor are most "people in the pew", so reading the original text is not really feasible.

When I read the Bible, I do use several commentaries. But there's the rub you see. The choice of commentaries will again inform my understanding in different ways. Borg and Crossan for instance have vastly different understandings of the Historical Jesus to +Wright.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Scripture supercedes all and then at the same time say that you need to use commentaries to help you understand that Scripture.

Alan asked me: "Do you think that this can or should be accepted as the standard of faith among Christians? Or (to tease out the discussion) is it just your own "take" on christology, only as valid as the views of the man/woman on the Clapham omnibus?

"What I am trying to get at is this: do we still have as Anglicans a sustainable core of shared belief, morality and language, or in our desire to be a broad church have we relegated all authority claims to the domain of the private conscience?"

I think we do have a sustainable core to being Anglicans. And it certainly takes us well beyond the shaky ground of private conscience.

I'd want to extend Alan's wording in a couple of ways. Firstly to add to "belief, morality and language" something about relationship. We are not atomised individuals each relating to some external corpus but pilgrims together. ++John Sentamu alluded to this early in his sermon at York yesterday. Indeed the 100 plus bishops at York represented not just many individual ways of following Jesus but a common and corporate discipleship. Hence the "core" is not something that we simply possess as individuals but which resides within us together.

The second stretch is to try to add a dynamic dimension to the language. The Christian journey is not some kind of Star Trek matter transmission moving us from the state of unbeliever to convert, but a life-long pilgrimmage where we are led by the Spirit deeper into the heart of Christ and the Father.

I accept that people will be on different stages of that journey and as a minister of the gospel I am often more concerned with their direction of travel than with the point they have reached at this moment in time.

When I hear the phrase "standard of faith" I want to hold in my mind the image of the standard carried into battle. It is there to provide a focus for the troops, to lead them forwards and direct their energies. I'm less happy when the language collapses into standards of judgement, being used to determine who is in and who is out.

I'm enjoying being made to think by this debate, and would love to write at much greater length, but my first service is thirty miles away in 45 minutes. If you want more I'll add it another time.

Charles wrote: "My point is - the Bible translation I use, often shows the "theological" interpretation (bias if you want) of the translators, and so has already been informed by tradition and reason."

Well I, for one, wouldn't say "informed" ;=)

And in the light of Alan Marsh's non-answer, I would like to point out that "murder" is by stealth, as is the word used in: Do not steal!

The Commandment says: Do not kill! as the 10 Commandement (each tradition picks and chooses from them, omitting some, even) are written in the 2nd person singular masculine imperative, to the Husband, the Head of the Household.

Do not kill! refers to the Household members, as in today's "honorary" killings in the Mid-East and in Europe.

The Law has yet to be fulfilled!

So it's more specific than "murder", and may at the same time in it's interpretation be much broader ;=)

But it is us making the interpretation. Hopefully leaving the more corrupt "translations" aside...

And in doing so, we are informed by Tradition and Reason - however imperfectly ;=)

The problem with JCF's desire for absolute freedom of belief within the Anglican communion (he will correct me if I have misinterpreted this) is that it makes it impossible for the Church, corporately, to teach anything as "the Christian faith". There will be some who accept the resurrection of Jesus in the full, physical sense (shorthand here, I know - this is a blog) and some who doubt whether he ever existed.

It becomes impossible to say "this is the word of the Lord", or "the Church believes euthanasia to be wrong" if there is no common core of belief, no agreed understanding of scripture, but only the loosest of associations among literally millions of atomised consciences.

The office of bishop in particular becomes fraught with difficulty, if the bishop can not speak as an authoritative representative of the Christian faith: if what he teaches is only his opinion, of no less or greater value than that of anyone who happens to have leafed through a bible.

At a very early stage the Church agreed on a set of texts which were regarded as holy scripture, including a substantial list of books from what we call the Old Testament - they are not optional. It went on to define certain beliefs as being essential to the common life of the Church. During the time of the apostles it settled on a certain ordering of ministers which the Church of England maintained at the Reformation. This common ground is what enabled the Anglican bishops gathered yesterday in York Minster to assemble as a body.

Once the common language is disrupted, as at the tower of Babel, the whole thing breaks up into divided and even opposing fragments. The ecumenical visitors to York Minster seem to have sat apart from the Anglican bishops up in the choir. That unfortunate legacy of the divisions of the Reformation is still with us.

Anglicanism has long allowed a diversity of opinion and interpretation among its laity, allowing us freedom to follow the standard, as Bishop David so helpfully puts it, all at our different stages of spiritual growth and discernment.

But the standard has to be the Cross of Christ, and those who lead the army must be people - bishops - who know the way and loyally follow the King. That is why those who serve as bishops are not free to teach their private opinion, in preference to the common core of belief and corporate discipline. The same is true whether the individual concerned decides to challenge the doctrine of the Trinity, or to adopt a lifestyle which the Church believes to be contrary to his calling.

The statement by the Church in Wales is therefore singularly unhelpful to the current debate. Dr Williams has wisely expressed the need for a consensus among Anglicans as a rule of faith and life. The Church he left behind has opened the way for any individual within its ranks to put private opinion above the standard of faith. Ultimately it will not be possible for its bishops, like those of ECUSA, to sit with those of the Anglican Communion.

Charles, I was once shown a letter of complaint sent to an Archbishop by someone who had attended a public lecture at a local university theology department. The complainant was outraged by the claim that the King James Bible was not the original version of the scriptures, and she wanted the lecturer punished.

If one wants to study the bible as thoroughly and exhaustively as possible, it is essential to learn the original languages in which it was written - at the very least the Greek used in the bible, in which the New Testament is recorded, and into which much of the Old Testament had been translated.

Simply comparing English translations will not make it possible to be satisfied as to which of them is the most accurate. The KJV is much less accurate than modern texts, which draw on both newly discovered manuscripts and the colossal efforts of biblical scholars since it was published.

If you want to influence the academic debate about the meaning of the word translated as "murder" in some translations of the Commandments, you will have to learn the biblical languages. If you want to know what the Church over the centuries understands the word to mean, you will need to study a variety of commentaries and other texts.

If you do not want to go so far in your scholarship, it will be of some interest to you to look at the different translations with the help of commentaries written for English-only readers. It will help to inform your personal knowledge and understanding.

But you will not get very far at all if you wish to caricature Evangelicals as followers of a simplistic approach to biblical interpretation and exegesis; or that it is possible to take an English translation such as the KJV and hold it up as the only model. The very opposite is true.

RMF:
At the risk of sending you and all of the "thoughtful" folks here into fits, effective governance would establish norms of belief to which all would subscribe (zut alors! Yes, who is "in" and who is "out") and it would provided for correction or discipline of those who step outside those boundaries. Effective governance would not put our internal (Communion) or external (ecumenical) relationships at risk.

What passes for polity in our denomination requires decisive leadership and a huge degree of self-control, which have been lacking for the past 40 years or so. This attempt to be all things to all people is immature and is not sustainable over time, it becomes nothing. Our atrophying membership and attendance numbers bear witness to this.

I will also note that I, a lowly, uneducated pew-warmer, will disagree with Bp. Walker and say that there is not a sustainable core of shared belief, morality and language within Anglicanism. We have indeed relegated all authority claims to the domain of the private conscience. We simply cannot have one priest preach Jesus, Son of God, while another preaches Jesus, the nice rabbi, with both remaining ministers in "good standing."

Come come, this notion of a lack of sustainability, lack of this or that, etc, goes round and round itself.

The Canons of the CoE clearly say, what constitutes the faith and worship of the Church, are the various Creeds, the 39 Articles, the Ordinal, and the BCP itself.

And wouldn't you know it, other Anglican churches say this too, with different wording but to the same meaning and effect.

And it has been so for a very long time. (It's called Anglican.)

Alan said "It will help to inform your personal knowledge and understanding."

We agree.

But I think you missed my point - my point was not about the specific text regarding kill vs murder. That was just one example of the problem.

My point was that any true understanding of the Bible requires us to read commentaries and research the original texts, as you obviously agree. But then that requires us to use our God given Reason to inform our understanding.

Too many times, we see quoted (in these forums) the Bible says this, followed by a quote, usually taken out of context - not, MY understanding, after much study and research, of the Biblical text says this.

Also, we of the more liberal catholic persuasion are often "accused" of not being "Biblical Christians", usually by people who only have read one english translation of the Bible translated by biblical scholars with their own preconceived theology.

That is what I have problems with - the assumption that because I espouse one particular view on a subject, which happens to be different from theirs - I am obviously not a "Biblical Christian".

Alan - From this discussion, it is obvious that you are NOT one of these people, and I thank you for the gracious tone of this discussion.

"Come come, this notion of a lack of sustainability, lack of this or that, etc, goes round and round itself."

What kind of answer is this? I think it's a frothy dodge. If you think current polity is sufficient then, please, explain to me why the majority of the primates in the communion have declared themselves to be in impaired communion with ECUSA and the ACCan? Explain to me why Bishop Griswold stepped down from his position as co-chair of ARCIC. Why have our ecumenical partners in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches voiced serious reservations? In my opinion it is precisely because "current Anglican polity" any has failed.

By the way, your comments on polity indicate that you think that it directs our worship and belief. The definition of polity only relates to governance. It has nothing to do with liturgy or theology.

Blast away with your canons. Here in American ours only have effect when they suit the agenda of the moment. But I can assure you that when some self-important priest or bishop gets to feeling prophetic, the canons be damned! The American Church may officially subscribe to the Creeds but, for example, has that had any effect, in any form, on John Spong? Last I saw he's still gets to represent himself as an Episcopal bishop.

There is much more I could say but my time is quite short. I will be quite interested to hear how you believe "Anglican polity" is going to prevent the train wrech that has already occured.

Tom,

I may be a lay "pew-warmer" with you, but I can't imagine why you feel a need for "correction" and "discipline". Let the Spirit work with +Spong and ++Akinola and the whole Body of Christ, and I bet we'll have new insights into the Grace of God that might lead us to furtherence of the Kingdom. American Anglicans, at least, overwhelmingly desire an ability to think, and even preach, in ways that might make us renew our lives of commitment to
Our Lord. God is big enough to be with us in our struggles, and He doesn't need an assistant principal in charge of reforming the miscreants for Him. Watch, this Advent. God knows what you'll see.

Tom,

They are not "my" canons, they are the Canons of the church, and no, in America they are not subject to the whims of any one priest or bishop, nor are they so in the CoE. They are the Canons. If you feel they are not being adhered to in some fashion, well, ok, but to say they don't exist and/or do not contribute clearly and historically to what it is to be Anglican, well, I don't think that is supportable.

As far as "ecumenical partners" goes, that does tend to need to be a two way street to be lasting, though extending the hand doesn't require it.

Ecumenism is one thing, having a Roman litmus test is quite another.

And yes, the Anglican Way does raise interesting questions of polity, which do impact on faith and worship (and vice versa).

The reason this statement is of, at most, emotional value but in the end devoid of serious content is because, while trying to appear neutral in a search for truth, the bishops have inserted in their four possibilities the phrase "with integrity" without further comment.

To do this is to epistemologically prejudge the very issue at hand. It is to assume that, in a revealed religion, all options are nevertheless open and indeed cannot be closed.

After all, if proposition X is true, but someone insists that he has reached the opposite conclusion Y "with integrity", how do you tell him he's wrong?

It brings us right back to questions of authority, which vague appeals to Scripture, Tradition and Reason do not resolve.

I think on reflection that part of the problem here is the loaded meaning attached to the word reason (or "Reason"). I am perfectly happy to say that we should use our intelligence ("Intelligence"?) in seeking to understand scripture.

When the text is read by someone exercising Reason (consciously and deliberately according to the mantra, Scripture, Reason and Tradition) what seems to happen is that the text is interpreted through a modern and therefore anachronistic lens which imposes meanings not present in the original.

And perhaps it is here that the gulf is to be found between conservative and liberal readers of the bible. One comes to the text determined to know what it means and to apply it accordingly, and the other does not view biblical interpretation as an act of faith?

It does not make it easier to reconcile the two, but perhaps we could each allow that the other uses their intelligence in the task? (Rather than "Reason"?)

Good God (and I do mean GOD is GOOD)...more age of reason and no nasty spirited treason is revealed by/at Wales!

I just climbed out of a REAL jungle after spending weeks in the primitive "campo" of Central America (that would be without computer) to find REASON and sanity being restored at OUR church (well, at least the part of OUR church that lives/grows with healthy on-going enlightenment as opposed to oppressive darkness, fear and righteous hate).

Thanks be to God

The problem is that phrase 'revealed religion'

That suggests a lack of ability to change and develop.

Dear Merseymike

The problem is that if God has revealed His will to people, through people, in a particlar context then we have to accept the authority of that revealed will over and above our own assumptions and beliefs.

So it is quite legitimate to ask in what ways something revealed to others should be understood, and if/how applies to me. But it is illegitimate to reject previous revelations as "wrong" unless they agree with my own beliefs and assumptions !

I am still waiting for Dave to define the specific year, in the history of the Church Universal, at which point he believes that no further definition of an understanding of Scripture is permissible.

When he uses a phrase such as, "The problem is that if God has revealed His will to people, through people, in a particular context then we have to accept the authority of that revealed will over and above our own assumptions and beliefs," he must then tell us at which point any further understanding of Scripture is not to be permitted.

The Church has most assuredly changed during the past two millennia, and it will continue to change over time.

Dave acts as if we are at a point in time in which no further definition is possible, and that is why he must define his personal revelation which has itself defined the year beyond which no change could be possible.

Dear Dave!

What is being rejected - and rightly so - are interpretation.

Interpretations who's claims to be Scripture, Tradition and Reason are percieved to be false.

And that it the question.

Are the Neo-Platonist interpretations of 2nd Millennium European Academia true or false?

Gerard wrote: "I am still waiting for Dave to define the specific year, in the history of the Church Universal, at which point he believes that no further definition of an understanding of Scripture is permissible."

Dear Gerard, The point in history at which the primary meaning of a Scripture was fixed was the date of origin / compilation / editing - depending on what sort of Scripture you are talking about. Since the primary meaning of a Scripture is what it was ORIGINALLY intended by the author(s) to be ! What it means FOR US depends on our circumstances relative to those existing at the time of origin. Our circumstances change over time, therefore so does the application of Scripture. I object to attempts to define (or de-define) what Scripture originally meant by projecting back current day assumptions and philosophies onto writers 2000+ years ago !

Dear Göran, as we have discussed in Another Place, I see no value in categorision - other than to organise understanding of a complex situation. It is not possible to argue that something is false, or true, because it is "neo-Platonist" - or neo-Görian for that matter !

Good googly-moogly: Dave, that's the same line of bull the (U.S.) neocons are trying to feed us re the Constitution ("the primary meaning of a Scripture is what it was ORIGINALLY intended by the author(s) to be").

Who says they intended it to be "Scripture" at all?

Who says we can ever KNOW, for certain, what their (not to mention their redactors) intent was in the first place?

HERMENEUTICAL DEAD END. :-(

As God has "no hands but ours" neither does God have interpreters but ourselves, either (Yes: in dialogue w/ interpretations of the past---as we INTERPRET those!---in Holy Tradition).

It's one thing that you're living in Fantasy Land, Dave---what *I* can't understand is WHY, when it's such a moribund fantasy???

As God is ALIVE, so is God's Word! Scripture and Tradition are ALIVE, in our interpreting consciences . . . NOW. NOW. NOW. NOW. Always NOW!!! :-D (As we always understand MORE than yesterday, we always understand LESS than tomorrow!)

"Our circumstances change over time, therefore so does the application of Scripture." - Dave

Thank you for your candor; it seems you can accept the concept of change.

However, scholars have reached different conclusions over "what...was originally intended" since the early days of the Church. In turn, the Church, sometimes accepting a different position, has changed throughout history and will continue to change.

Those who don't like the changes often branch off to form new denominations, and that is what will likely happen with the Anglican Communion.

My belief on who is branching off, obviously, differs from yours, and there seems no point in trying to persuade you otherwise, given your comments on TA.

JCF -

It is neither necessarily true that we always understand more than yesterday, nor that we always understand less than tomorrow. The reason it is not true is that every time someone dies, they take a wealth of knowledge with them, so it is theoretically possible for the total of knowledge - or, more likely, the depth of knowledge on various given topics - to decrease. To say nothing of wrong turnings and false trails in the pursuit of knowledge.