There are three types of Anglican Christians. Those who believe consensus about sexuality is necessary before the 2008 Lambeth Conference. Those who believe that consensus about sexuality is necessary but that it won't come until after the 2008 Lambeth Conference (or perhaps after 2018, if there even will be a 2018 conference). Those who believe that consensus about sexuality is unnecessary.

I fall somewhere between position two and position three. I feel no great need to reach consensus quickly. Any Anglican Communion worth having can live with these differences. I do think we need a much quicker consensus on civil equality and protections against violence and against being silenced. The Nigerian support for anti-gay legislation is unacceptable and is grounds for breaking communion.

The comments of Peter Akinola of course constitute an effort to blackmail the Communion into going along wiht his way of seeing things.

“...as a result of the fellowship, praying together, studying the word of God together,” the bishops at Lambeth come to a “consensus of opinion, which we now commend to the provinces for further actions.” Peter Akinola

His view of Lambeth Conference and its authority sounds modest and realistic. Perhaps he is mellowing ? !

Commend away Your Graces ! Commend away !.....

As many of you across the pond know, +Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh released a copy of a letter presented to the primates of the Global South in Falls Church Virginia requesting primatial oversight 1 1/2 days ago. This request was released along with a press release from the diocese. Although this document was released voluntarily, its release was compelled by court order and due to litigants by January 31. To view the document: http://www.pgh.anglican.org/news/local/primatesdocument012907
Although the Diocese provided a press release in June when it requested APO, that release stressed the theological concerns that the Diocese had. This request delivered to the Global South primates has little to do with theology. This is a document about governance, and property. It is clear that the Diocese wishes to remove itself from the authority of the Presiding Bishop and the disciplinary procedures of The Episcopal Church and to hold property until an alternative church of its approval can be established in the US. It seeks APO until that can happen. Essentially, the Diocese has decided it does not wish to be managed by the elected CEO of the American church, and wishes to be managed by an alternative appointed off-shore CEO.

If +Duncan should be successful in Tanzania the implications are overwhelming for any primate. "If a diocese doesn't like me as CEO or does not want to submit to the discipline of our province, it can request temporary help from others until it can establish a church in my province it likes better, declare that church the true one,and, in the case of Pittsburgh, take all the church property with it."

If ++Williams received the same document "requesting APO" that was given to the Global South primates, he should have seen this coming and wondered: "Am I next?" If he received a very different one, and I suspect he did, he should feel very ill-used.

And based on recent history, it may well be a successful effort.

What do you mean Peter Akinola is blackmailing the communion? He is just simply stating what the position of the Church is and always has been since time immemorial. I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart.

I believe ACNS missed one of the new Primates in its list of those who are new since Dromantine. My research indicates that Joel V. Mal, the Moderator of North India was elected in October 2005. So that makes 12 new Primates (and Abp. Sentamu's presence means that 13 of the 39 attendees are new since Dromantine).

From his other writing, Bill Carroll who argues here that there is no need to reach concensus about sexuality in the Communion, also believes that candidates who reject women's ordination should not become priests or bishops in TEC.
Does this mean that where the progressives do not have the numbers (as in the communion) there should be room for a range of views, but where progressives are in the majority (as in TEC)their views should be mandatory?

Obadiahslope,
Presuming you have reported Bill's views faithfully -- a presumption I proceed on with some trepidation -- what you suggest is a clear Non Sequitur.

First, some conservatives support women's ordination along with progressives -- a fact you seem to ignore, but one disconfirming your inference.

Second, WO is just one issue inter alia. To suggest that support for WO be a necessary condition for assent to episcopal election is not at all equivalent to making support for all progressive causes a necessary condition for consent.

Alas, the perils of hyperbole!

Is the Akinola interview a serious indication that he is prepared to pick up his toys and head off to play in his own sand-pit if he fails to get his way in Tanzania and, by extension, at Lambeth?

"What do you mean Peter Akinola is blackmailing the communion? He is just simply stating what the position of the Church is and always has been since time immemorial. I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart."

Not so easy -- the consensus has clearly broken down because of (a) the witness of gays, lesbians and their families; (b) the end of a patriarchal society in which women and gays were kept down; (c) a deeper awareness of the scope of human rights; (d) huge advances in the human and biological sciences.

In that light we reread the Bible and discover that it too can be read as a charter of human rights.

Similar rereadings of Scripture have occurred in connection with abolition of slavery, torture, capital punishment, women's rights, religious tolerance and so on.

"I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart."

It takes two to tear.

You seem to be of the opinion that expressing a new doctrine is somehow forbidden to Christians. Do you find such a position in Scripture? I don't.

When you say to the Communion, either you accept my definition of orthodoxy or I will tear the Communion apart, that's blackmail.

Athos,

Actually it is a most modern view to single out gays and lesbians for special discrimination in the Church. Although the Church has had less than a stellar record with respect to minorities and women, there have been times of considerable tolerance and moderation. If anything, TEC's view of a loving and inclusive Jesus is closer to the original Gospel message than the venom emanating from other quarters. On another topic, I've noticed that progressive blogs seem to be quite open to ranting from all quarters, but if you cruise on over to Stand Firm and similar blogs, you'll rarely see a progressive voice posting. Either progressives are being lazy or the "orthodox" are practicing censorship. Your guess as to which is more likely. In any case, thank you TA and Father Jake for including all voices. It is appreciated and noticed.

Obadiahslope,

You rightly point to an unresolved tension in my thinking on these questions. I don't think its a contradiction, but I'm not sure how I will resolve it either. Let me make a distinction.

There is a difference between a church, such as the Episcopal Church or the Church of England or the Church of Nigeria and a communion of churches, such as the Anglican Communion. Both are bodies that claim to be expressions of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church without exhausting that sacred mystery.

Since I don't view my relationship with other Anglicans as anything more than a particularly strong ecumenical tie, I don't see why we can't contain differences about women's ordination. I am in ecumencial conversation with Roman Catholics and Baptists who don't believe in it too. At the same time, there is a firm consensus within the Episcopal Church, which is an autocephalous and autonomous Church, that called and qualified women should be ordained. We are at a point now where the failure to uphold that doctrinal standard means that one can't take the vows in good conscience.

As you well know, I believe strongly in liberty of conscience. I have an equally strong view of the right of churches (not communions of churches) to make binding doctrinal decisions for what their clergy may teach or do. Dissent is possible, even among the clergy. Simply not recognizing the teaching is not a real possibility.

I suppose that from where you sit this looks like venue shopping. Just as it looks like venue shopping to me, when U.S. conservatives appeal to the Anglican Communion to reverse a legitimate decision of the General Convention, which it had every right to make.

My position on these questions is changing and in tension. I freely admit that. It is easier for contrary teachings to exist in two different provinces (i.e. churches) than in the same one. It also depends on what the teaching in question is. The teaching against women's ordination seems to presuppose either (1) that they are not fully human or (2) that they have not received the gift of the Holy Spirit. What else would make them unfit subjects for Holy Orders?

What is so entirely awful and creepy about having educated, gifted, intellegent, and maturely spiritual women help me listen to and follow God by following Jesus of Nazareth? I just keep forgetting.

Athos wrote: He is just simply stating what the position of the Church is and always has been since time immemorial."

1966 is hardly "time immemorial", unless one's memory is very short.

also: "I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart."

You can read that again, sonny.

"I wish folk would just be honest about this..."

Y'know, Athos, there's a part of me that would LOVE to give you everything you ask for above (and I could even throw in a cackling "Mwahahahah!" at the end ;-/)

...but I have to be faithful, above all, to the *Truth* (as Jesus is "the Way . . . and the Life"), so I just can't give you the satisfaction you seek. Sorry.

*****

BillC, that's a wonderfully useful typology---and kerygma: thanks! :-)

*****

Prayers for all the Primates--- (and even the *pretend* Primate, +Duncan)

Scotist,
I guess Bill can answer for himself, but I am refering to his recent postings at "Jake". I appreciate your trepidation - I attempt to take care when describing the opinions of others, but it is good to be reminded.

As I am a conservative who supports women's ordination I am aware of that possibility!
It seems I was not clear enough. I believe there is a tension between saying there is no need for consensus in the communion (on sexuality) while agreeing with the PB of TEC that the period of reception on WO (in TEC) is over.

Athos gives an honest account of the facts of the situation.

The fabric of the communion was knowingly and deliberately torn by TEC in 2003 despite many around the world and in the US begging for restraint and warning clearly of the consequences for the AC......we are now living with those consequences.

I think I would be happy if we could just reach consensus on retiring the "tearing the fabric of the Communion" metaphor. All those in favor please shed a tear.

Sheila says "I think I would be happy if we could just reach consensus on retiring the "tearing the fabric of the Communion" metaphor. All those in favor please shed a tear."

I'm in. Can we also retire "walking apart".

here's my tear for one, sheila

laurence

NP: "The fabric of the communion was knowingly and deliberately torn by TEC in 2003 despite many around the world and in the US begging for restraint and warning clearly of the consequences for the AC."

TEC/ECUSA knowingly and deliberately elected a sinner as a bishop - just like every bishop before and since. His 'way of life' may be unacceptable to many members of the Communion - but so is the way of life of many bishops who support and have supported repressive governments and legislation (such as ECUSA's early refusal to get involved in the civil rights struggle). Anglicanism has always been a compromise, ever since the Elizabethan settlement: why do some want to remove the compromise and insist on a confessional form that Anglicanism has never taken?

Father Joseph writes:

"Similar rereadings of Scripture have occurred in connection with abolition of slavery, torture, capital punishment, women's rights, religious tolerance and so on.."

But he forgets that it was never the position of the whole church universal from time immemorial to encourage slavery, or torture, or capital punishment, or to deny women their rights ect. But it has been the position of the Church Universal since time immermorial to limit sexual activity to one man and one women in the covenant of marriage. So you are not comapring like with like. I suspect that Fr Joseph first genuflects towards the Charter for Human Rights and then reads the Scriptures and the Tradition in order to adapt them rather than first bowing to Scripture and the Tradition and letting them adapt the Charter for Human Rights. It is here that we have the clash bewteen two incompatible visons.

While we're about it, I passionately wish to retire 'Catholic' when misused, as a synonym for ROMAN Catholic, by many who should know better.

(The Catholic Church is important to my spirituality --and I don't mean the RC denomination -- do you ?)

'Unum Catholicam..'

(as the BCP Latin text puts it..)

"I wish folk would just be honest about this and those who seek a change accept the fact that they are reading scripture and the tradition in a way that it has never been read before and that by introducing new doctrines they (and they alone) are responsible for tearing the communion apart."

In fact, it is the neocons and biblical literalists who are reading Scripture in a novel way. Biblical literalism and inerrancy are inventions of the late 19th and early 20th century. See Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God," an excellent history of the rise of fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These are all relatively recent developments within these faiths, and seem to generate similar idologies.

Athos reminded us
But it has been the position of the Church Universal since time immermorial to limit sexual activity to one man and one women in the covenant of marriage.

And, of course, to prohibit divorce! But it was also the "the position of the Church Universal since time immermorial" to prohibit the charging of interest, was it not, until Someone Changed The Rules.

If authority existed in the late mediaeval to wreak violence on centuries of Christian tradition, what's different about this one? I'm genuinely puzzled why the gay issue raises so many hackles when the interest one (which causes such suffering world-wide) goes past with (at best) a 'Well, the world's moved on' and, at worst, a 'Don't talk about that, it's irrelevant'.

Cynthia

I do not think yo can honestly say that the traditionalist interpretaion of Scripture re the gay issue is a product of the 18th and 19th centuries!! Church teaching on this goes back to the earliest times. Please lets be honest in this debate and stop obfuscating the issue. I am getting the impression that you are afraid that you theological arguments are so weak that you keep on hiding behind pseudo-intellectual fig leaves.

“The Nigerian support for anti-gay legislation is unacceptable and is grounds for breaking communion.”--Bill Carroll

Right on, Fr. Bill!

Cybthia,
There is a mythology among the more extreme fundamentalists that God allowed the Church to die after the Apostolic Age and did not revive it until after the Reformation, I am not sure when exactly. I've never heard Anglican Evangelicals openly subscribe to this, but it sometimes seems to be assumed. It exists in milder form in the belief, which I HAVE heard Anglican Evangelicals express, that the Reformation was a return to the Christianity of the Apostolic Age. Now, given that post Reformation Protestantism for the most part bears little resemblance to anything that went before, it is hard to see how such an attitude could be supported without the "God let His Church die" theory. It also requires us to consider the Bible as a how-to book for playing Church.

We all like to consider ourselves faithful to the tradition as we see it. It only becomes a problem when we can't acknowledge that others are doing the same thing, they just perceive the tradition differently, and we all fall into that from time to time. Yet, expecting the modern Church to be like that of the New Testament, especially since we really can't tell what the NT Church looked like, seems to me to be like asking all adults to behave like fetuses based on an understanding of fetal behaviour gleaned by observing pregnant women from the other side of the street.

Richard M .....because the gospel is not about compromise eg Ac4:12 and many, many other verses....there would have been no need for a cross if compromise with sin was possible.

Sure - every bishop is an ordained sinner but there is a difference between that and justifying a sin, calling it good, holy asnd blessed......that is not telling the truth about the clear and consistent message we have (without authority for the innovation)

We do not worship Anglicanism, pragmatism, history, settlements, resolutions, democratic votes, constitutions......and compromise (fudge) is not something which is always and everywhere good.....appeasement has got us into this mess but now we must return to the roots of the faith as we can see (in London) that this way produces strong, growing churches full of all sorts of people - it is great to see and we want more of that good fruit.

Cynthia: "it is the neocons and biblical literalists who are reading Scripture in a novel way"

- so if the conservative viwe is "novel", are you seriously suggesting that Paul, Peter, James and all the early church would be supporting TEC's actions in 2003??

Seriously?

I thought Bill Carroll's first post quite sound & his reply to obadiahslope perfectly adequate. I think that it is possible for persons opposed to the ordination of women to have a place in The Episcopal Church, although I agree that it is a challenge.

Bishop Montgomery of Chicago was opposed to the ordination of women, but he recognized that his belief was not that of The Episcopal Church & he allowed his suffragan, Bishop Primo, to ordain women.

A sometime rector of my hometown parish was opposed to the ordination of women. Before taking up the post he was interviewed by the diocese -- they did not ask that he change his position, but they pointed out that women were full participants at every level in the diocese & asked if he would be able to work with women as equals on various committees & the like. He assured them he could & served for almost a decade with no problems of which I am aware.

So it is a challenge, but it is possible. Note the difference between the position of Bishop Montgomery and, e.g., Bishop Iker.

Richard M: re Anglicanism as compromise. The Elizabethan settlement is hardly relevant, not being concerned with sex! Unless you are trying to argue that on the basis that Anglicanism made a compromise then (in one particular phase of its history) it is fated to accept compromise over any and every subsequent matter. I don't really see why that follows. Anglicanism has always been confessional. If confesses the faith revealed in Scripture, set forth in the catholic creeds, and witnessed to in the historic formularies. I would like to know what possible form 'non-confessional' Christianity could possibly take: it sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Cynthia: Inerrancy is indeed a modern formulation but biblical *authority* (not at all the same as literalism) is not exactly new! Someone, I recall, quite often used the formula "It is written..." in order to establish what was true about God. The pluralist reductionism of Armstrong's account is historically and theologically undefended and indefensible and she agglomerates radically different phenomena into the same categories in order to prove her case.

“It is devilish and satanic. It comes directly from the pit of hell. It is an idea sponsored by Satan himself and being executed by his followers and adherents who have infiltrated the church.” Anglican Church of Nigeria (as earlier reported by the New York Times)

Wow, that is in response to the consecration of Bishop VG Robinson at TEC...interestingly, VG Robinsons response to this vileness of Nigerian Anglican Church spewing and the Akinolan Anglican "takeover caper" at CANA is to "love them anyway."

Who are the healthy Christians and who are the emotionally/spiritually "disturbed" and LOUD and "greedy" manipulators in this Anglican Communion "exchange" do you think?

Insanity reigns at The Global South and the Akinolan "hate crusade" has now broadened to include ALL progressive human beings at TEC and Anglican Communion...crimes of hate are also now next "preached" and therefore encouraged against fellow LGBT Anglican Christians, Changing Attitudes Nigeria, their families and friends (by Akinola endorsed pending anti-Human Rights legislation against LGBT people and their freedom of "assembly")...all this twisted thinking from Nigeria while they simultaneously try to export gross and discriminating "selective" Scriptural "interpretations" to the U.S.A.

The Church of Nigeria apparently endorses and indulges superstitous madness, the tormenting and persecuting of fellow Anglicans and "get rich quick" schemes similar to those solicited on the internet from Nigeria each and every day.

It's time for us to STOP the insanity and Bishop Lee, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and others have said "no more!"

"... it was never the position of the whole church universal from time immemorial to encourage slavery, or torture, or capital punishment, or to deny women their rights ect."

Wasn't it???

Not that I am terribly old, but I do happen to remember the teaching of “times immemorial” – for I do think that the unanimous teaching a thousand years (from the mid 900s to 1966) of Byzantine and European Academia qualifies for such an epithet, although now happily forgotten.

It was not anti-gay, it was anti-heterosex.

Chastity for all, Abstinence for those that could manage it, Mandatory Celibacy for the ordained (whether they did in fact manage it or not).

Marriage was a lesser celibacy for those week in the flesh – Oh, they have done it 3 times!

Masturbation was the big horror for Platonizing intellectuals well into the (medically defining) 20th century. When marrow did not flow form the Spine, things started to fall apart.

O Tempora, o Mores!

The 1909 Catholic Encyclopaedia couldn’t pronounce the word, in spite of the unified Eastern and Western teaching of a Millennium, the 1966 one did – with reference to 1 Cor 6:9 (malakós).

That year however, the English language Jerusalem Bible (based on the not yet overtly homosexualized 1956 Bible de Jérusalem of the French Dominicans) decided that the same malakós of 1 Cor 6:9 no longer referred to heterosexual Masturbation (as it had done since the 900s in both East and West, changing the meaning of the word malakós in Modern Greek for both men and women), but to the new (1890) Social Minority: catamite, homosexual: passive gay man.

Homosexual, no longer heterosexual. Sexual Orientation as Identity, not “Act” of the many. Sinner not Sin.

(Truth everlasting is that the word means neither ;=)

Dear Athos

Unfortunately, it has been the position of the church from time immemorial to both condone and encourage capital punishment (or else what happened to the heretics?) and to restrict the rights of women (or did the churches, without being recorded, have a secret history of campaigning for women's suffrage, for example?) Only in recent years has its position changed. The same can therefore be said of homosexuality: readings of scripture change, and have done since Apostolic/Patriarchal times.

Athos' claim that "it was never the position of the whole church universal . . . to encourage slavery, or torture, or capital punishment, or to deny women their rights" . . . but "it has been the position of the Church Universal . . . to limit sexual activity to one man and one women in the covenant of marriage" reflects the remarkable human capacity to rewrite history to fit the needs of the present moment.

The history of the Church is littered with slave-owning bishops, torture and execution as antedotes to "heresy," and the confinement of women to convents if they refused to enter marriages of subservience to their husbands.

None of this is written into the historic creeds, but then heterosexual marriage isn't either.

"But he forgets that it was never the position of the whole church universal from time immemorial to encourage slavery, or torture, or capital punishment, or to deny women their rights ect."

Actually, Athos, I'm not even sure THIS is true (just depends at what *moment in time* the "from time immemorial" is being looked at).

"But it has been the position of the Church Universal since time immermorial to limit sexual activity to one man and one women in the covenant of marriage."

Well, they did such a ROTTEN job of "limiting" that even IF true, the point is probably moot!

...but in fact, it's NOT true. Leaving aside the "1 + 1" equation (which took some time to emerge as binding on EVERY Christian, including those upper-class males who traditionally saw themselves as being exceptional in LOTS of ways, including polygamy), it's quite OBVIOUS that the "man + woman" marital formula was ASSUMED, NOT ESTABLISHED, to the exclusion of a same-sex alternative.

Assumptions, made by and for an overwhelming majority (heterosexuals---though of course that understanding of sexual orientation doesn't come until after centuries of Christian practice), do NOT an unquestionable capital 'T' Tradition make, Athos. [Does the joke about "When you assume, you make an *ss out of yo(u) and me" cross the Pond? ;-)]

Cynthia wrote
idologies

A typo, but a happy one, suggesting as it does the idolatry of text which can underpin ConsEv Christianity.

"I think I would be happy if we could just reach consensus on retiring the "tearing the fabric of the Communion" metaphor. All those in favor please shed a tear."

Oh please God, yes.

So who is reading the Bible in a novel way? A useful resource for examining how the Bible was read by early Anglicans is Ashley Null's "Biblical Authority in the Thirty Nine Articles" which can be found here: ucu.ac.ug/gsi/downloads/Null.pdf

Sean Doherty --
I believe your early termination of the anonymous quotation is rather telling, IIRC, it goes something like , "It is written, but I say unto you..."

Ford Elms --
Many of the reformers searched for the "true church" among the heretics -- not only Waldensians, but even Albigenisans were included in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs." Of course, ignorance of history & Scriptural obscurantism are essential components of Conservative Evangelicalism.

Again, Athos and NP, it is easy to say that "such and such has been the teaching of the Church since time immemorial" or that "orthodox" churches are "strong and growing." These make useful memes, but where is the evidence? We have little from earliest times with respect to the former issue. There is evidence of the acceptance of same-sex unions in both the eastern and western Churches (Boswell). Different Churches in different locations had surprisingly diverse approaches to sexuality and family. Concerning the latter issue, a useful fact is that in the past year of record, TEC actually grew while the "orthodox" Southern Baptists declined. My point is that repeated memes lacking factual basis continue to be spouted and it is extremely important for all of us to not fall under their spell. Take that ye purveyors of propaganda!

'Richard M: re Anglicanism as compromise. The Elizabethan settlement is hardly relevant, not being concerned with sex! ' Sean Docherty

There would have been no ' Elizabethan Settlement' and no separate anglican church, but for the (somewhat rampant ) sexaulity of Henry V111.....

"are you seriously suggesting that Paul, Peter, James and all the early church would be supporting TEC's actions in 2003?? Seriously?"

:-0

Y'know, when I see a question like this, I'm always left gob-smacked.

Yes, NP. Yes. Yes. Yes. A *Million* times YES!!! Alleluia! :-D

[Whereas GC '06 had B033, which would, at minimum, have left the "cloud of witnesses" glumly rolling their eyes: "How long, Lord, will those fools below delay YOUR justice on Earth?"]

How, NP, can you think we DON'T have faith in our Lord Jesus---that we in TEC follow where *he* leads, and NOT the sinful world (including, sadly, the AC) which says "Ignore the Gospel (and ignore the logs in our eyes), and bend to the Ick Factor!"

The Gospel, NP. We in TEC follow the Gospel: our consciences won't allow otherwise.

{sigh}

Lord have mercy!

Athos is right - the scriptures clearly say and mean something much closer to the position of the AC (aknowledged in certain Lambeth resolutions for example)

We never see a persuasive case from scripture showing the "liberal" position is and always has been what was intended, good, right and holy - good arguments have a basis and are not just emotive. I know liberals cannot make such a case so have to resort to talking about rights or psychology etc etc but this does not lower the bar on what is required to convince most of the AC that what is called not good is actually blessed.

Ford Elms wrote: “from the other side of the street.”

That one was gloriously wicked!

(wasn’t there a Wall cutting off the view as well?)

NP wrote: “that is not telling the truth about the clear and consistent message we have”

Extremely muddled, I would say (You cannot oppress anyone you haven’t confused first, as Mrs Roosevelt rightly observed), also much, much later than you think: 1966 in print, the understanding having been around for somewhat longer…

But nothing clear and consistent, if one is not prepared to leave Christianity and the Bible altogether, crossing over into atheist Indo European Philosophy.

Which of course pre-dates Christianity (and even the Bible) by a number of years ;=)

NP wrote: “…are you seriously suggesting that Paul, Peter, James and all the early church would be supporting TEC's actions in 2003??”

Paul definitely – the real Paul, mind you, not the 2nd century pseudo epigraphic variety of Pastorals fame.

And certainly not pseudo epigraphic “Peter” or “James” (2nd Peter” and “Jude” are the same scripture, you know – the heathen original of which is preserved ;=), both deeply steeped in the 2nd century Alexandrian mixis of Indian with Greek philosophic Schools, propagating precisely the anti-Cosmic (contra God’s Good Creation), re-subordination Karma/Mocksha Works-oriented “gospel”, that is once again being forced upon us all (from America this time ;=)

Goran - you somehow think you know "the real Paul" and this real Paul thinks the opposite to what we have recorded as St Paul's teaching.......you either have 2000 yr old documents which back your view that need publishing (!!!) or you are imagining things.

"are you seriously suggesting that Paul, Peter, James and all the early church would be supporting TEC's actions in 2003?? Seriously?"

To respond to this and several other commments on my posting and how we read the Bible.

It was not about what is in the Bible, but in how Christians read the Bible.

The notions of inerrency and verbal inspiration [I think I've got the term right - meaning every single word is accurate about history, morality, science] are not "how the Bible has always been read." Armstrong [and others - this is not exactly news] shows in her book that this novel way of reading Scripture dates from the late 19th/early 20th century, with the RC Church's attacks on modernity and the invention, in America, of fundamentalism.

The Church Fathers understood that the Bible was not to be read literally, and devised the fourfold method of reading.

To take a small example, I do not expect anyone who posts to this list believes that the universe was created in 7 days of 24 hours, or that the sun indeed did stand still, or that, by implication, the sun revolves around the earth. Or do you?

Read Armstrong's book and you might learn something.

NP claims, "We never see a persuasive case from scripture showing the "liberal" position is and always has been what was intended, good, right and holy - good arguments have a basis and are not just emotive. I know liberals cannot make such a case."

"Persuasiveness" is in the eye of the beholder; no one can be persuaded against his/her will. For example, I have never been persuaded by an argument for raising Leviticus 18:22 to the level of eternally applicable divine edict that does not also raise to a similar status Leviticus 19:27 or any of the hundreds of similar laws, edicts, and prohibitions that are all claimed to be the Word of God by the author of Leviticus. Almost all of which we blithely disregard every day and think nothing of it.

I am, however, persuaded by an argument that says that in Leviticus we have Israel's understanding of the Word God had for His people at a particular moment in Israel's history, and that as faithful people we are to interpret the Word God has for us today, in light of the ancient understanding represented by Leviticus and also in light of more recent understandings such as that represented (for example, but not exclusively) by Jesus' teachings in the Gospels, as well as the history of our experience as a people seek to understand God's Word for us today as we share a life together in the Risen Christ.

On the other hand, I appreciate the power of a biblical text to speak to us in what feels like a direct and unmediated way. I personally have always found Leviticus 19:34 to be especially compelling.

Cynthia: Armstrong is quite right about inerrancy being a late concept (although she is too readily dismissive of theologians who thought *similar* things before then e.g. Augustine of all people!). But inerrancy is hardly the only form of understanding biblical authority! One needn't be an inerrantist, that is, to think that the Bible is right in teaching that marriage is the only place you should have sex.

Prior Aelred: well indeed "but I say to you" is in some cases - but not in others!! And where he does add that, he does it to intensify and radicalise the demand of the OT rather than set it aside. Other instances where Jesus simply cites Scripture to end the debate include his temptations, the divorce questions, upholding of the resurrection etc.

Yes, Cynthia you have hit the nail on the head. Four-fold, not simpliste.

Also Jewish communities and academies down the ages have had wonderful ways of reading and engaging the Bible. With similar creativity and flexible scope. Also with the symbolism of numerology coming into play.

I get a reflection on the Shabbat Torah portion,& other readings, by email, each Friday afternoon ( before sun down, of course) and it it very enjoyable and enlightening to read, and reflect on.
I also love the way the Jewish story-tellers and mystics engage Scripture so lucidly, delightfully --- & surprisngly !
best
laurence

"The Church Fathers understood that the Bible was not to be read literally, and devised the fourfold method of reading."

Ooops. I meant to write that they knew the Bible was not always to be taken literally - thus 4 approaches, some more useful for a given passage than others.

It is this flixibility and freedom that allowed Julian of Norwich to call Jesus our mother, e.g.

OK -- I give up -- the only important things our Lord ever said were his comments on abortion & gay marriage! :(