There is an irony that this is the first thread to be started after the "Responding to Domestic Abuse" thread. My concern with both dynamics is the question of obedience and submission.

Some of the recent articles I have seen about it being okay to bless food, highways, and buildings; but not human beings points to the hypocrisy that could evolve. But it will be okay, because it is the church's "high authority" that justifies what is holy and what is not. Next step, making decisions on who is suitable to be burnt at the stake? And if we don't have the honesty to do it ourselves, we will pray earnestly for God to come and do our dirty work for us? The Accusser in full stride on who and what is worthy and who and what should be suppressed and destroyed.

These steps could easily lead to a church determined to protect its reputation at all costs; relying on disempowering outside scrutiny which would institutionalize a carte blanche for the predators.

a nice bit of back pedalling...

My other contemplations since is does "two tiered" worthiness really solve the problems of sin and its consequence? And does it protect the interests of both parties?

Going back to the male-female model. Did blaming Eve and making her subservient stop males and females from sinning? Did males in their "superior" position treat women with more respect? Did the churches care about the violation of women, or dismiss it as their lot because "they deserved it".

When we look at other apartheid systems, do the second class citizens get treated with more respect or do they get disciplined into submission and silence?

What would it say about the Anglican Communion if we were to condone the institutionalisation of another form of apartheid structure?

Wrote Cheryl: "Some of the recent articles I have seen about it being okay to bless food, highways, and buildings; but not human beings points to the hypocrisy that could evolve."

It wasn't too long ago that the Church blessed bombs and weapons of mass destruction. Many years ago I even met the chaplain who blessed the first atomic bombs which, in 1945, hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Church has a lot to answer for on Judgment Day, although many 'happy warrior' evangelicals are still in denial, fixated, as they are today, on 'unworthy' gays and lesbians.

One of the interesting things that all this demonstrates is that there isn't really a monolithic Global South block & what agreement does exist is held together by more than homophobia (although, goodness knows, that plays a role) -- there is certainly some post-colonialism (& "payback" for "whitey") & the trauma of moving so quickly from pre-modern to modern to post-modern cultural outlooks (at least according to some contemporary thinkers) & (quit frankly) a genuine incomprehension on the part of many areas missionized by the Church Missionary Society about how diverse the Anglican Communion truly has been.

But regardless of how things play out in the WWAC, there is a reality in TEC that we simply have to deal with, whether we like it or not.

Many of us have been confirmed or ordained by gay bishops. They were all in the closet.

Increasingly, gay Episcopalians (like the rest of the people in the USA) are not going to put up with the hypocrisy of remaining in the closet (ever read what Jesus says about hypocrites?). So The Episcopal Church has to choose -- are we going to say:
1. We are going to be hypocrites -- get back in the closet!
2. You have to leave the Church (wreaking havoc on a rich tradition of music & liturgy)!
3. We are going to be honest about who you are & your contributions to the life & ministry of the Church.

For some of us that is an easy choice.

Beautiful posting Prior.

I sometimes wonder if there isn't "reverse" racism. I remember some months ago the liberals being challenged as armchair theologians and that we should come to Nigeria and do it "tough" like they have to. Personally, I found it laughable because it assumed that if you had enough food in your tummy that you were healthy and not being abused. As the earth reveals her slain, we find that abuse and trauma is not restricted to only those living at the brink of starvation.

Desecration of women does not change with the amount of affluence, merely the forms of abuse that are perpetrated. And where the law illegalises one form of scrutiny, predators find other ways of ensuring their narcisstic supply. The shame is that the churches have aided and abetted this for centuries, and not just against women.

So much for the gentleness that Jesus promised the Daughter of Zion.

The Church in Africa has come of age and needs to be self-reliant. African Churches must “not be unwilling to ‘listen’ and learn to understand better the phenomenon of homosexual attraction”, which they acknowledge to be in their own culture. But they reiterate that they are not prepared to “suspend the unchangeable standard of God as part of this conversation”.

This is definately a step in the right direction--surely ? Or is it just church-double speak, like Richard Chartres' letter ? And 'Issues' from whose authorisation of same-sex relationships for lay people, the bishops are now apparently backtracking .

No wonder the bishops alone, take themselves at all seriously.

I am sorry to say that there is more wishful thinking going on here.

1) It is not Africa v the rest or even the global south v the rest.....why would the ABC be ditching the liberals at every step if it were so simple;

2)You going to come up with some spurious reason (like "reverse racism" used against the African theologians) to explain the stance of Jensen, Venables, Wright, Scott-Joynt Duncan, Iker, Schofield et many others?? (clue: the thing all your opponents have in common is not their colour but their bibles)

3) Because "conservatives" have left or have not joined ECUSA in the last few decades, it is a largely liberal organisation but not representative of Western or even American Christianity....it is just 0.7 million liberals (and shrinking) who happen to be in the US;

4)The Bishop of London's statement is of more consequence than some people here seem to want to think..... he has said he is sticking to the Biblical and church teaching....did you not see his use of the word "demeaning" to describe the arbitrary let-out-clause for laity I guess some of you would call "pastorally-sensitive" and good ??

Meanwhile, according the the Anglican Communion News Service, posting on 3 October, the Church of Ceylon, Sri Lanka's Anglican Church, has ordained its first women priests. I am amazed at how, in the midst of decades of controversy, yet another part of the Anglican Communion has quietly embraced the Holy Spirit's calling to women to serve as priests. My ministries professor in seminary once told me that entering the institution of the church, through ordination, would mean having to live with waiting. It would mean a commitment to patience, for the church moves "exceeding slow". I am impatient with the long wait for justice of my LGBT sisters and brothers, but there, in my impatience, the extra-provincial Church of Ceylon, under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, bears yet another sign of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Thanks be to God.
Lois Keen

Lois - are you sure it is the Holy Spirit leading or just that you want to see changes /innovations with which you agree?

There is no real support for the idea that Holy Spirit is going to lead people into contradicting the scriptures he inspired in the first place.

TEC's line that doing what TEC wants to do is following the Holy Spirit convinces nobody - that is, nobody outside the tiny band of liberals in the Anglican Communion

"There is no real support for the idea that Holy Spirit is going to lead people into contradicting the scriptures he inspired in the first place."

Hmmm. So the Jewish dietary laws that Christians no longer follow must not have been inspired by the HS?

Hmmm. All in the Bible that was used to justify slavery, similarly not really of the HS?

Hmmmm. Same for the biblical 'justification' for banning cross racial marriage?

Or is it that the HS is still at work, in a still small voice, sometimes a feminine one?

Cynthia - thanks for your response but these do not disprove what I say because ......dietary laws are changed in the Bible itself, because the Bible is revolutionary in liberating slaves like Onesimus etc etc

Just because some people have abused the Bible to do harm to others does not justify ignoring the Bible now.....

we have to make sure we are not just like the people who used to Bible to justify doing what they wanted to do anyway.

NP

Thank you for continuing to post, your honesty in expressing your reasons is appreciated.

There is an implication in your comments that the bible and holy spirit somehow belong to one group and not the others.

When I read the bible, particularly the OT, God despises those who claim God's approval but ignore injustice - not just to God's chosen ones but also to the outcasts and aliens. It is particularly annoying because it slurs God's name as being indifferent or approving of injustice.

There is a grouping that is very secure in their flattering affirmation of each others' biblical interpretations, and they will go on to make a communion that is exclusive and suitable for themselves.

But, with God as my witness, such souls should never be allowed to run any society and whenever they do, we should not be surprised to see repression and disrespect for Creation. Such souls hate, and like the Accusser jump at every opportunity to point the fingers at others and tell them they are going to go to hell (as one notable did just after the 2004 SE Asian Tsunami).

They do not need the love of women or God, because their own egos are all the affirmation they need to condone whatever whims come their way. When we witness their attempting to destroy any outside forms of accountability that would protect or sustain the vulnerable, we know they do not come from God, because they only love themselves and their reputations; not the rest of Creation.

The sad thing is this is not only an Anglican disease; but when we look at history we can see evidence in the other denominations, faiths and philosophical streams. The lessons about the sociopathic Pharisees have a universalism that can be applied as much today as in Jesus' time.

NP's comments on a "tiny/shrinking band of liberals in the Anglican Communion" is telling.

Most persons, when they come to a "liberal" or "liberating" perspective (compared to the so-called "traditional" pespectives on the Bible---probably meaning, simply the LOUDEST expressed!), decide to leave Christianity altogether.(*) [Or at least the AC: behold, MerseyMike! :-)]

Do those who have left, because they could not countenance a gay-bashing religion, not COUNT at all? When we look at a country like the UK, is it only to be seen in terms of "gay-affirming practicing Anglicans" vs. "gay-repudiating practicing Anglicans"?

NP, not only do I believe that the Holy Spirit has been at work in TEC---I believe She has been at work in the secular world, too! [Indeed, it is the FREEDOM that the secular, pluralist world has provided, which has empowered liberal Christians to follow the Holy Spirit MORE faithfully than ever before! Praise Christ! :-D]

If we *must* look at the numbers (I still don't believe we should), then let's look at ALL the numbers, of ALL the Imago Dei?

(*) Granted, that is not the only reason that people leave Christianity: some, to silence their consciences (vis-a-vis unbridled money-making, for example), not to follow them.

A very good response, JC Fisher (5.10.06; 6:50 pm). I especially liked the statement: "Not only do I believe that the Holy Spirit has been at work in TEC---I believe She has been at work in the secular world, too!"

We all need to witness to the power of the Holy Spirit, raising our level of consciousness and awareness of the many wrongs we have committed against people, while using Holy Scripture as a blazing sword to punish and discriminate against many faithful Christian people.

The RC bishops of Austria in 1999/2000 publicly apologized for abusing gays in the past, recognizing that many saints venerated by the Church had been persons of homosexual orientation (cf. Archdiocese of Salzburg).

Hey NP--

When do you celebrate the Sabbath, as you are clearly commanded to do in the moral law of the OT? Saturday or Sunday? You show me where the Bible says in black and white the Sabbath commandment is no longer binding on Christians, who may instead simply celebrate Sundays instead of Sundays and Sabbaths or merely Sabbaths. Hmm--can't find it? Oh--wait--you mean to say when it comes to that commandment, which certainly has a plain sense if any commandment does, disobedience is a live option? Somehow the clear call to obedience and Bible based belief can be trumped by nonbiblical inventions? Hmm, interesting.

I do hope that NP steers clear of black pudding and the like, given that the Acts injunction against same is never rescinded in Scripture:-)

This is a lovely commentary about hypocrisy http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/10/tony-campolo-duplicity-on-right.html I liked the concluding paragraph: "...the Religious Right can’t have it both ways. They can’t say that righteousness must never be compromised, and then add “except in certain situations — like torturing our enemies in times of war.”"

Again recall God's words to Jeremiah @ 5:1 "If you can find but one person who deals honestly and seeks the truth, I will forgive this city." It is not a call to find perfection or the soul without sin (that is the ongoing debate with the Accusser who is frequently rebuked for failing to see the fire within). It is a call for honesty and the truth, which includes admitting one's own fallabilities and limitations.

I still remember praying to God to veer Katrina as it was barrelling towards New Orleans and it had become clear they had not evacuated the poor and the vulnerable. My prayers pivotted around witnessing the prayers of one Baptist child to God to help her team overcome a recent setback. The child had the humility to realise the problems were more than they could handle on their own, and they needed God's help to get past the obstacle before them. They were not perfect or infallible, and they were loved for their humility and honesty in admitting their inadquacies. Wish that more "grown up" men would do the same.

Hello Cheryl

No, there is no implication from me that the Holy Spirit belongs to one group.

My point is that the Holy Spirit does not contradict himself - that is clear from everything Jesus says about him and his work, in John for example.

So, the idea that TEC is being led by the Holy Spirit in dumping what he has taught on certain issues does not work.

Thanks for this JC (F) and CC

Richard Chartres' letter is shockingly hypocritical. This is why most parishoners (citizebs) have given up on ever finding in the C ofE a credible moral and spiritual message or home.

He is trying to back-track from Issues and the authorization it gave to lay same-sex couples. Some people have been basing their lives on this for decades now. You can't suddenly back track without loss of all credibility and integrity.

Most importantly, you can not treat people like that. This is real 'domestic abuse.'

NP,
I've pointed out some of the ways the Church has compromised the Gospel in the last 1700 years, and you seem unable to perceive these things. The fact that many of the people who have left the Church, at least in my experience, have left because of these very compromises that make everything else we say hypocritical in their eyes, and that this hypocrisy is a block to the spread of the Gospel seems lost on you. That conservative Evangelical Churches are growing means little. Fear is a good motivator, as is the smug reassurance that God affirms middle class values. Remember, the Arians were far more numerous than the Catholic Christians for a very long time, but they were quite wrong.
The last 1700 years of Church history have not been a testament to the power of the Gospel, but have been a litany of murder, conquest, oppression, powerlust, and generally unChristian behaviour. Every generation has produced its St. Francises, and they witness to the truth, but as a societal institution, the Church long ago abandoned Her moral credibility. Our arguments here are meaningless to the majority of those around us who are quite capable of seeing very clearly the hypocrisy you would deny. I don't see much point in going back there, so I'll leave you to your myth of the Holy Pure Church. I'll ask this instead: do you view the Gospel as conservative or liberal or something else?

Oh Todd, have you become the Anglican SDA-ist? Well, be my guest, it will do you no harm. But you need to be subtler doctor than that! The NT already shows a fresh consideration of food laws and Sabbath observation in the light of Christ's coming (see Mark 7:19; Matt. 12:8; Colossians 2:16). And, assuming your question is a sincere one, have a look at 'From Sabbath to Lord's Day' by Wilfrid Stott.
(And I LOVE pork and shellfish!)

Todd, my mistake: I meant the book 'From Sabbath to Lord's Day' (1982), edited by D. A. Carson and including exegetical and historical essays by Dick France, Andrew Lincoln and Richard Bauckham. Here's a summary:
http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/library/revsabbathlordsday.htm
It interacts and differs with 'This is the Day', by Wilfrid Stott and Roger Beckwith.
Interestingly, Bauchkam claims that sabbatarianism was a medieval development, not from the patristic or NT church.

I won't bother answering points re the Sabbath and black pudding as they are of no consequence and the answers should be well known

Ford -thanks for your reply.
I can agree with you that there have been lots of abuses of the gospel and lots of harm done to many groups / nations. As to your question, the gospel is not liberal or conservative - it is factual. What I care about is that the facts of the gospel (including appropriate lifetyle response) are not distorted so people are not misled into false security or hope.

Authoritative interpretation is what matters. For example, some people want to call the Holy Spirity "she" but Jesus called him "he" so I will follow Jesus and accept his authority.

On other issues, should I listen to the Bible or modern society? Should I listen to St Paul and the OT or Gene Robinson?

The Holy Spirit does encourage dialogue and debate, the wellspring of the prophets inevitably leads to debate and transformation. Mother Theresa reverred and touted as a model for decades stood up to the heirarchy of her church to chart the course that became her destiny.

Do you really wish to ascribe a gender to the Holy Spirit? The inference of a gender brings with it the inference of an identity, a personality, a consciousness. That inference then raises questions of consent. Is the Holy Spirit merely some divine energy source that Jesus allows others to draw on at will? Or is it a unique consciousness that has opinions and feelings about when and how its energy is used? If it is the latter, there then becomes questions of consent, questions of prosititution and pimping, questions of consent and rape, questions of what really is the gender of the Holy Spirit and what exactly is the relationship of the Holy Spirit to God and Jesus?

So you see, even to discuss the Holy Spirit in full honesty automatically leads to the possiblity of contradictions.

A practical case study from a real world example: a senior leader said during a sermon in early 2005 that Spirit does not talk to people and anyone who says Spirit does is either insane, a liar, or an agent for the "evil one". It's a bit hard for someone who denies that Spirit talks to people to then claim they have exclusive access to the Holy Spirit. Spirit's response would be the same as Jesus', which in essence would be: "Since you did not acknowledge me, I do not acknowledge you." and I would suggest that she would add "and since your heirarchy has aided and abetted you in your position, they also are not acknowledged". Repentance takes on a new meaning if you are now raping Spirit, don't you think? But perhaps not, if she is feminine because all women "deserve" to be raped, and a woman can never be raped because she always wants to taste the forbidden fruit, just ask any rapist, they'll tell you the truth.

Cheryl,
I'm not sure about your consent argument. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God. The Spirit is not just something Jesus sends, She is the third Person of the Trinity, and, as God, wills what the Son wills, or the Father. If God wills, there can be no question of God consenting, and if God does not consent, there can be no forcing.

And, NP, I'm not sure about Aramaic, but I believe Spirit is feminine in Greek. I don't read Greek, but this would require that the Spirit be called "She" in Greek, so whatever pronoun Jesus actually used, it is reported in the Gospels, in Greek, as the feminine pronoun. This is assignment of grammatical gender, and, for me at least, just shows how limited we humans are in understanding God. God is beyond gender, but in some languages, at least, we are required by the language to assign two genders to God. To me it shows the meaninglessness of trying to understand God too closely in human terms. That then is a counterpoint to the fact that we can know God as human in Jesus.

As to the Gospel, I think it's pretty radical. Jesus certainly has, for His day, a radical reinterpretation of what was then considered holy behaviour. I wonder what I would have thought of Him, had I been a Jew in His day. I think, actually, I'd have been appalled at Him, and figured that dirty Gallillean was nuts, calling me a whited sepulchre.

Despite that, I think you should listen to the Spirit, speaking through the Church. Gene Robinson is only one man, the Spirit speaks through the whole Church, and She isn't always quick. The Bible is one part of the Tradition handed to us, and we should interpret it in the traditional manner, by seeking, as a Church, the guidance of the Spirit. For you to decide it is up to you to choose between following the teachings of two different parts of the Tradition is not orthodox.

but Jesus called him "he" so I will follow Jesus and accept his authority.

to pneuma. Not much choice other than 'it' Pity we don't have a bit more Aramaic around, tho' I could look at the Peshitta if you really wanted to find out whether Jesus obeys the rules of grammar in the Syriac as well.

I do think that's a pretty poor argument.... And actually offensive, implying that those who do not agree with you on a point of grammar are unfaithful. Or perhaps you think the Bible appeared as an NIV direct from heaven ;-)

Thanks NP. However, you will find that simple Biblically based reason and common-sense don't carry much weight around here. So, keep up the good work, but don't expect to make any headway.

Steven

Cheryl-
We need to distinguish between apartheid and accurate differentiation.
There is no group or body in the world for which everyone is eligible for membership without fulfilling any obligation. The Church, however, already comes about the closest to this 'ideal' (if such it is), by debarring only one category of ppl: the unrepentant.
A group or body which automatically includes everybody has no identity.

"3) Because "conservatives" have left or have not joined ECUSA in the last few decades, it is a largely liberal organisation but not representative of Western or even American Christianity....it is just 0.7 million liberals (and shrinking) who happen to be in the US;"

And yet, here in the famously religious USA, the fastest growing denominational choice, especially among the young, is "none". The growing (and hardening) evangelical denominations are creating a growing reaction (and revulsion) to religion entirely. I've always said that the fastest and most effective way to kill off the vibrant religious life of the USA would be the establishment of a state church (de jure or de facto; it doesn't matter); and yet, there are calls for increasingly intrusive regulatory legislation that would amount to precisely that. This provokes a growing resentment at intrusion into areas long assumed (in this country) to belong properly in the home and the individual conscience. If some get their wish, and we see clergy getting stipends out of tax revenues, and taking over public education, then we may become as secular as Scandinavia.

I second Prior Aelred's splendid comments above; the cat's out of the bag, and he ain't going back in. The Church has to find a way to live with its LGBT members or find someone else to play the organ, direct the choir, design the vestements, and do those "icky" urban ministries among prisoners and homeless youth that respectable suburban straight folk don't usually sign up to do.

I also second JC Fisher's comments above. I seriously doubt that the Holy Spirit feels constrained by denominational or sectarian considerations. God created Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists in God's image just as much as Christians; and I suspect has no qualms about speaking through them or using them for God's purposes.

Gee NP,

So triumphant your easy understanding of the gospel. So easy your "lifestyle" label on those born that way. So much the "big lie" your use of statistics (liberals in the church are a shrinking population). So many assumptions and so little real faith and love. Shame.

I am by no stretch a scholar or theologian. I am not well versed in the policies of the church. I am simply and American and an Episcopalian and I wish to express the opinion of many of my brothers and sister in ECUSA to send a message to the Global South Primates....Who asked for your input into our problems or gave you the right to call for anything that effects us?

With aids, genocide, lack of basic services and political unrest running rampant in your own countries, I would think that you have enough to be concerned about without further denigrating a country that you have insulted while at the same time begging for our financial and technical support. This appears somewhat like telling Mom how bad her cooking is after eating dinner.

Let the learned primates put their efforts into mending their own houses before coming to ours and telling us what we should do.

Ford

Your comments that Spirit has an identity (and is possibly feminine) were encouraging. The comments about Jesus referring to Spirit as a He could also refer to the nomenclature of the time. There is also an assumption that the angels fully briefed Jesus on the full nature of the Trinity, or that God kept some things hidden (the latter is my guess) e.g. Isaiah 44:6-9, 45:20-25, 46:8-16, 48:1-11, Jeremiah 31:15-25, which includes: "The LORD will create a new thing on earth — a woman will surround a man"

The issue is that some people think they have the right to invoke Spirit in the same way they invoke Jesus' name. We quote from the bible, we hold priestly office, we are therefore holy and can use their names. We can design policies to aid and abett known predators and pedophiles in our churchly hierarchies because is would be unholy to criticise the "body of Christ".

And that is where I would disagree about Christopher Shell's comment that the body of Chris only includes the repentant. The body of Christ also includes those who think they are above being reproached for their sins, or discount the seriousness of their own sins, and elevate the enormity of others'. Thus the body of Christ is full of sinners (show me a soul who claims never to have sinned and I will show you a liar).

It is immoral for one group of sinners to invoke Spirit or Jesus or Gods' names to justify the repression of others, whilst they actively collude to hide their own sins and thus aid and abet further criminal actions.

Gee, Byron - so judgemental! (to use your style)
I note you have no evidence to prove your assertion that "liberal" churches in the US and all over the enlightened "West" are not shrinking. You can say it is a lie to point out the decliine but the numbers are not on your side. Other "liberals" on this site are honest about the decline of "liberalism" in Christianity even if they see others reasons for it.

Some people seem determined to make the Holy Spirit female or nothing .... all you brilliant grammarians better get in touch with the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV translation boards because they are misleading hundreds of millions of people if you have much of a point.

Steven says: "... you will find that simple Biblically based reason and common-sense don't carry much weight around here. So, keep up the good work, but don't expect to make any headway." Thanks Steven - I know that but I do not want to give up on people thinking on Thinking Anglicans. Thankfully, "simple Biblically based reason" does attract many thousands of Christians to Anglican churches here in London.....and many hundreds of non-Christian people too are joining every year. This is not surprising - it is the outworking of John 15 - the words of the carpenter and the fishermen were simple but they are true so they still have power....if we abide in Him and his words abide in us.

NP

There are some who deny that Spirit could be female, and deny that God contains any feminine traits. I don't think that is what your posting was meant to infer?

And at the risk of being cheeky, I was daydreaming on the weekend that the existence of homosexuality and GLBTs might be coming out of souls refusal to acknowledge that God contains the feminine. If we were to take the Jewish model of reconciliation back to the original Adam and Eve... Jesus would stand in for Adam, and Jesus' little helper (Holy Spirit) should be Eve. But some souls don't want the feminine, so Eve has become Steve (Or maybe Eve is simply confused and ponders whether she should really be Steve?) This idea makes me laugh, because homophobic misogynists would then be creating the very nightmare they fear by denying the legitimacy of the feminine. It is so poetic that it would be just like God to do it just for the pleasure of rebuking those who take Creation for granted and reject God's children.

all you brilliant grammarians better get in touch with the NIV,

Though it's off-topic, I can't see a lot of ppoint in arguing with NIV &NKJV translators who so manifestly espouse completely unjustifiable translations on doctrinal grounds (eg Isa 7:14)! As for the rest, well Acts 11:15 uses 'it' not 'he' which is grammatically correct, of course. But being not over well versed in Scripture, I would appreciate some 'chapter and verse' references from NRSV where the HS is explicitly male — serious enquiry, btw, since I'd be interested in chasing same. I would, though, remind NP of some metaphorical language (eg in Prov 1.20, 7.4 8.1 8.11) where 'wisdom' is given a female persona....

"Thanks NP. However, you will find that simple Biblically based reason and common-sense don't carry much weight around here. So, keep up the good work, but don't expect to make any headway.

Steven"

Nice little snipe there, Steven, but inaccurate. You can't read the Bible literally in English, since it wasn't written in English. Jesus is not reported as referring to the Spirit as "He" since the original report was written in Greek, and the word is not masculine in that language. Our English translations are actually translations into English of reports made in another language of things that were said in a thrid language. That's part of the reason why orthodox Christianity requires Biblical interpretation be done by the Spirit guiding the Church as a whole, and not the individual Christian. Now if you want to "reassert" the Reformation era innovation that individuals can interpret Scripture on their own, that's fine, but it is an unorthodox innovation, and not the Catholic faith.

What happened to the concept of revelation, of God unlocking the scrolls, of God annointing souls to do prophetic works? When did God die?

Well, Cheryl, I think it happened when the Creator of all that is became a middle class heterosexual white male, thereby divesting Himself of His transcendant nature. Note that this was not the Incarnation, when God the Second Person of the Trinity became human to rescue us from the bondage our willfulness had gotten us into. He remained Transcendant then. No, it was sometime later than that. Perhaps He's only dead for those who see their own image in Him.

Hello Cheryl

No - I do not deny that God has feminine characteristics as he himself says he would like to gather his people as a hen with chicks....I just want to stick to the Biblical authority for points.

I am grateful for your question because it is alarming to see "liberals" on this site gang up on people with whom they disagree, making all sorts of assumptions and showing a lot of prejudice. Glad you are not like that because I am not the stereotype of a "homophobic misogynist" that some seem to think.

We had the sermon on the mount Sunday night in church - the call is clear: "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." We fail but the standard is really that high and we must be honest about that.....or we will be leading people into false hope

NP,
What about Bibles in languages where they use the feminine pronoun to refer to the spirit, because the word for Spirit in that language has feminine gender? Are they misleading people? This is my point, the masculine gender in English is just as misleading as the feminine gender in other languages because God transcends gender. This is not a new concept. The idea of the otherness of God and our inability to comprehend Him with our finite human faculties was a theme in the controversies of the early Church.

NP, people who disagree with you aren't ganging up on you. As for prejudiced assumptions, I am still having trouble with the number of conservatives on this and other boards who, because I challenge them on their bigotted, inaccurate, and, at times, just plain slanderous attitudes towards gay people, assume that I believe pretty much the nonsense coming out of people like John Spong. People who assume that, because I take seriously the Church's admonition that we not persecute gay people, I must be in favour of gay marriage and am "preaching a new Gospel". I've even been called Gnostic. Honestly, the persecution complex, while present in both camps, seems to me a lot stronger among the right, I have my ideas as to why. You yourself seem to put the world into "Conservative" and "Liberal" camps, as though those are the only two options, and, since I don't often agree with you, I must be a "liberal" with all that that entails. So, who's making assumptions?

Ford - part of the Anglican mess is people spending endless years in committees splitting hairs and ignoring elephants in the room.

Don Carson's excellent commentary on John did not lead me to believe that Jesus meant to say "she" in John 14 - that professor knows his Greek and Hebrew too!

Talking of "conservatives" and "liberals" is useful shorthand and, I think, well understood.

I would call you a "liberal" - that is "liberal" in your attitude to scripture - if your views indicate such a stance. I have no problem being called "conservative" and I do not understand that to mean homophobe (at least it should not mean that!)

Conservative shouldn't mean homophobe, any more than Liberal means faithless. Otherwise good Christians seem either to read Scripture to find passages that support their own particular beliefs or try to explain away those passages that do not. Both sides are guilty of this.

As to my being liberal when it comes to Scripture, I'm kind of taken aback by that. My attitude towards Scripture is that, of all the books purporting to be Divinely inspired, the Spirit led the Church to discern which ones actually were, and those we call the New Testament. It is therefor the Church, guided by the Spirit, which must discern the meaning of those texts. We are to enter the mind of Scripture, so to speak. The Spirit will lead us to understandings of the spirit of Scripture that seem contradictory. Note the "us". The Spirit doesn't lead me into an understanding of the truth, but the Church as a whole. The veneration of images is a case in point. It would seem to violate "thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image", yet the Spirit long ago led the Church to the realization that a proper understanding of the Incarnation requires religious imagery. The Orthodox still follow that teaching. Sadly, we do not, and I think we have been led astray in our understanding of the Incarnation because of it. Is the Spirit leading us into something new in the issue of sexuality? I have no idea, which is why I neither support nor reject SSB. I will wait till the Spirit leads us through this particularly bumpy patch. Of course, I don't know how that's going to happen, since both sides are far more interested in yelling at each other and pushing their own agendas than in listening to the Spirit. I can't see that this is a particularly "liberal" attitude, nor a modern innovation, so why am I liberal?

What a lovely daydream, Cheryl.

I think we need more dreaming here--and more humour.

Also, I find myself wondering what are people's hobbies and pastimes, here ? I wish we could see each other more in the round. Often where theology would divide, interests or things in common or character triats would bring folks together.

E.g. At my church 2 retired and recently widowed men sit together. And one gives the other a lift in his car. One is an atheist (and has been a member of this congregation for 50 years!) and the other runs the prayer fellowship, and has been coming for about 40 years ! Their theologies don't divide them. Therir humanity brings them together. That's just one example.

Who knows, NP & I may have more in common than our funny bones !

laurence - I am sure we would get on very well!!

we don't have to agree or be part of the same church in order to that....I think the tensions are caused by those trying to force us all to stay in the same club and pretend we all agree.

once we are free to disagree and get on with life, things will be much simpler and more normal.

Laurence

One of the things that frightens some souls is when they find out that someone they have gotten along with for years is gay. It is also very hard to deny the humanity of that person at that point (unless of course they have tried to molest you). But that applies to heterosexual and other relationship conventions doesn't it?

I don't think that it is appropriate that we share too much private stuff on this forum. I know my personal information has been used against me, and I chose to do that so the only person who was hurt was myself and not others. I have similarly allowed many personal relationships to fade as I did not want them being attacked to get back at me. I choose lonliness rather than putting others at risk. There is a grace from God and a self-sufficiency from a neglected and abused youth that enables me to do this and stay relatively sane. Most souls can't and shouldn't try. God ordains some souls to break yokes so that other souls don't have to wear them.

Thanks Cheryl,for your thoughtfulness

"I think the tensions are caused by those trying to force us all to stay in the same club and pretend we all agree."

Not surprisingly, NP, I disagree. I think the tensions are caused because we think it is more important that we be right than that we bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. Our need to be right is more important than the requirement that we love one another. Frankly, we have all forgotten the Gospel while pretending to stand up for it.

Ford - "conservatives" are not worried about being right as much as they are very concerned that certain teaching is wrong and misleading people with very serious consequences.....that is, unless one wants to rewrite or excise inconvenient verses in the Bible.

Thanks for proving my point. "Conservatives" aren't worried about being right, just about proving others to be wrong. Don't you know that there are people for whom Evangelicalism is wrong and misleading people with serious consequences? Each side feels this way about the other. Each side has rewritten or excised inconvenient verses in the Bible. The fact is that "conservatives" are "reasserting" the old Imperial model of the Church that compromised with the world so long ago we have forgotten that it even happened. I'm not saying that makes it right, merely that all sides need to have the humility to admit that we have compromised our message for 1700 years and we now need to repent of that and get back to the business of living the Gospel. We won't have any credibility otherwise.

If you think that the majority of the population is going to end up in Evangelical Christian churches, think again. Most of the people I know wouldn't be caught dead in a Christian Church, and for the kinds of hypocrisy I have been hammering away at here. I'm not saying we should "change the Gospel" so the world will like us, merely that we should acknowledge that they have a point when they refer to the hypocrisy of organised Christianity, then repent of it and get on with living the Gospel the way we're supposed to. We can't do that unless we are willing to admit it. Are you?

Ford - the majority of the population is not going to go to any church. But, as you say, this does not mean we should change the gospel.

What hypocrisy do you mean?
The sort which says, "When the Bible says don't do X, you can choose to ignore it if you like and it really does not matter"?

I do not doubt that you know some people who hate the apparent hard line taken in evangelical churches but there are large numbers of new Christians in London every year in the conservative and charismatic evangelical Anglican churches.....so we are going to stick to the Bible because because doing so continues to bear fruit.

The sort which says, "When the Bible says don't do X, you can choose to ignore it if you like and it really does not matter"?

Yes, exactly. Now, you've been very good at pointing out how liberals do that. Advent's coming up, a time of self-examination. Might I suggest you spend those four weeks examining how Evangelicalism is also guilty?

Ford - I bet I am more critical of us evangelicals than you are....but two wrongs do not make a right, I am sure you will agree.

Of course not. Out of curiosity, in what way do think Evangelicals have compromised the Gospel to the world?

One obvious way is that we evos can be too soft on the sin of greed -

we are sinners too - the difference is that when faced with the Biblical judgement, we do not try to say "greed is good" -

(I know the "prosperity gospel" lot almost do say that but that is heresy and away from the bible)

NP,
No, but many argue quite strongly that usury isn't a sin. You yourself have said it was a weak argument. Many would argue that it is no sin for a soldier to kill an enemy in wartime, despite it having been considered otherwise by many in the distant past (before we sold out to the world). You need to look more critically than just "We're too good to greedy people."