It is unfortunate that our church has reached a point where the litmus test of “orthodoxy” is one’s attitude on sexual orientation. My understanding and belief in the historic creeds is traditional and I believe that Holy Scripture is authoritative. Yet because I do not accept the narrow and repressive hermeneutic of the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, he implies that I am unfaithful and have no place in life of the Communion.

I simply cannot agree that our Communion has room for only one interpretation of Holy Scripture. It is authoritative and on that there should be no argument. But how shall we read it? Will it be just another reference book used to validate previously formed opinion, as I fear the Archbishop would have us do, or do we read it with open hearts and minds, prayerfully optimistic that God will speak to us in new ways?

I honor and cherish Holy Scripture, which is why I will not let one person limit the infinite varity of experiences of God reveals through it.

A reiteration of his well-known position, just before proclaiming his own schismatic Church sometime this autumn. If he goes ahead, there will be branches not only in the decadent US and Canada, but (as was hinted last month) also in England and perhaps Scotland. Denominations have often been named for their founders: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Muggletonians. The Akinolite Church is upon us.

Too bad he cannot bother to correctly name TEC. That's rude.

About the missing footnotes:

Examination of the source code suggest that they may possibly be intended to go as follows:
footnote 2 adjacent to footnote 1
footnotes 3,4,5 adjacent to the heading “Scorned Opportunities”.

But I would welcome further opinions, correction, or even authoritative advice.

Presumably the key to this is

class=MsoEndnoteReference

that leads to a note, and does not in some cases. One comes before "With about seven weeks to go" but is out on its own. And there are many without connection. With the href= there is nothing different from using my NoteTab to wipe out many notes - I first regularised the paragraphs to see them, striped the code and then reinserted the code version with paras regularised again.

The code is an appalling mess. Best to take what is provided, I'd say, just cleaned up.

This is very anorakish!

Anyway, it is just another in a long line of documents presumably to justify what is coming. It'll be a "we gave you the opportunity to" according to the list he provides.

They have been only on this journey for ten long years. That puts their journey starting at 1997, ten long years after the South Africans coming out of apartheid suddenly found themselves "unworthy" and an alternative communion developed in their midst.

Sounds a bit to me like a drug addict finding that the pimpers's offerings aren't as satifying as they first expected.

One should remember that the grooming towards dependence and addiction can take many decades and the pimps can be very sophisticated in hiding that their "salvation" is short fleeting, does not lead to satisfaction and merely creates unfulfillable desires.

My suggestion is rather than targeting the pimps' scapegoats, they go back to and look at what the pimps really are. Spoilt burnt out men seeking to destroy any messages of hope lest their egos be deflated.

Cynthia: the name "The Episcopal Church" is pretty ambiguous in an international (and ecumenical!) context; one needs some way of distinguishing it from all the other episcopal churches.

Mike - I think you are right in a sense: one cannot predetermine what Scripture says but must come to it with openness that one may have misunderstood it. But I don't think Peter Akinola has the monopoly on reading Scripture to back-up his pre-formed opinion! The litmus test we must all answer is not "what do you think about gay sex" but "if someone could convince you your opinion on gay sex were unscriptural, would you change your mind?" I think the issue is that not everyone would answer yes to this question.

I am sure that many of you have already seen the article on the Sudanese-American priest in today's New York Times. I found the whole thing inspiring, but was particularly struck by the comments by the Sudanese that nobody in the Episcopal Church was forcing them to change their conservative ideas about sexuality.

That was pretty consistent with my experience. My parish in Los Angeles has a very large African community, and there's no doubt that they are pretty conservative on many issues. Yet they coexist with a largely liberal staff, including one openly gay priest, and a fair number of gays and lesbians in the congregation. It's not completely without tensions, I suppose, but if we can do it as a parish, how come it can't work in the communion as a whole?

I would answer no, Sean.

It is quite clear that narrow minded evangelicals have a clear agenda to unchurch others who cannot sign up to their travesty of the truth. They have never been treated like this by their liberal or catholic brothers and sisters. This debate will not only be about gay sex, but will soon move on to objectionable doctrines such as substitutionary atonement etc. Sadly not only the ABC but even naive folk like the Bishop of London indulge these bigots.

John Bassett on Sunday, 19 August 2007 at 3:05pm BST

It was an inspiring piece in the NYT (especially since it was a positive piece about the Diocese of Western Michigan -- which is where our monastery is located) & your point is extremely good -- the entire Anglican Communion used to be that way -- we didn't have to agree about everything to pray together -- the Bishop of Durham says that is now unacceptable, as do the primates of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya & the Southern Cone. It is their decision (& their move).

I suggested to Bishop Tutu that the issue was not sex but a reaction to colonialism. His reply was that the money for the fight was coming from conservative Americans. American culture wars on wider front?

Why do I feel like I am listening to the neoconservatives make a case for why they have to invade Iraq and root out all the WMDs? But who will be the moderate Colin Powell, that the evidence is incontrovertible and make the case before the AC that it must be down to preserve peace? Sigh. I think the reasserters while only bring destruction and find that there were no WMDs at all, just Christians a justification for what their leaders wanted to do all along.

Analysis of the text and comparison with Archbishop Akinola’s interview with the interview in The Guardian, Lagos, published 30 July 2007 suggests that, like most of the publications from Abuja, this was written for the Archbishop by his conservative American secessionist friends. It is dishonest. It misrepresents church history and the recent history of the Anglican Communion.

The representation of the responses to the Lambeth Conference 2008 as tepid is conservative spin. There is considerable enthusiasm to meet next year, especially among many of the Global South bishops. This is much to the annoyance of the leading GS Primates. The Archbishop’s letter is part of the GS strategy to counter this embarrassing reality.

The letter presents the leaders of the Global South, a network which includes the Church of Nigeria, this invulnerable church of 20million members (and counting) as the victims, ignored, demonized, and marginalized.

Advocates of the full inclusion of LGBT people in the church can equally claim that the record shows that we, who also hold to the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” have shown remarkable forbearance while continuing to be subjected to the prejudice against us which was first articulated in the Kuala Lumpur Statement and manifest in the plenary debate on Lambeth 1.10 in 1998.

We haven’t cried constantly for patience, listening and understanding. We have been patiently and sometimes impatiently waiting for the Primates and bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour Lambeth 1.10 in its entirety. We have been waiting for them to start listening to our experience in every Province of the Communion. Instead, many bishops have ignored the entirety of Lambeth 1.10 and used it selectively and dishonestly. Abusive as it is towards LGBT people, its negative stance towards us, with a small window of hope, hasn’t been abusive enough for the conservatives.

The report from the Church of Nigeria published on the Anglican Communion web site makes no mention of the listening process. Instead it reports Archbishop Akinola’s attitude to LGBT people:

“Thus it is clear from the passages considered that the Old Testament regards homosexuality as an atrocious and unnatural act. The Mosaic Law is against it and stipulates capital punishment for the offender. It is classified among the most offensive crimes like idolatry involving the sacrifice of children, having intercourse with animals, or marrying a woman and her mother.”

No matter what Akinola or other realignment preachers preach, the facts are coming, make no doubt.

And the new facts will not be much consistent in their frameworks and details with what most dominant legacy views typically read directly from scripture, traditionally.

The answer to the question blogged by Sean D. about scripture - brimming with an implicit, closed view of scripture as revelation authority - just neatly demonstrates how easily we may sidestep the empirical point by framing our questions to avoid it:

The going legacy view of how awful and dangerous queer folks definitely are, repeated via most con-evo scripture readings, is simply flat earth stuff. Period.

Yet. We seem to have amnesia, and feel no shock to find that oral sex fails to cause hurricanes and crop blight. Even con-evo-realignment believers can take that one in their stride now, apparently by roundly forgetting that anything else but the modern facts about oral sex (at least among exclusively straight conservative married people) was ever an article of true fear and true belief.

Sadly, believers still cling to many backwards folk beliefs about sex. Often these are pretty much folk toilet training notions of sex, sometimes all gussied up in high legacy theologies and scripture proof texts about sex, dirt, heresy, and celibacy.

TEC, Canada, … plus quite a few other Anglicans …. are now well on the empirical path, admitting that we are yet again finding what we found when the Ptolemaic Cosmology was slowly and rather agonizingly overturned: We cannot read modern facts, especially when it comes to our shifted and changing understandings of just how competent queer folks actually are - and have been all along as part of human and animal nature - plainly and simplistically right out of our scriptures.

Those who persist in trying to do so only make their particular sorts of con-evo realignment theology a commitment to a sort of closed-minded apostolic ancestor worship. Even science has yet to get right down to the detailed factual story of just exactly how being straight and being not straight tick, so stay tuned.

Meanwhile, generosity invites us all to open our hearts/minds by treating queer folks pretty much just as we would treat them, if only they had been straight. Scripture only hinders us if we must remain consistent with it by mistreating queer folks, especially by trash talking them on all occasions.

Again we find a reference to that bizarre event at Dromantine, where the pumped-up primatial predators decided that they should sieze authority by proclaiming who should and who should not participate in the Anglican Consultative Council.

And now, having acceded to this wholly illegitimate demand by attending but not voting, the Americans and Canadians stand condemned by this little man for having "influence."

Well, so be it. If we in North America can exercise such damning "influence" while submitting to the ultra vires demands of the heirarchs, then I am confident that, at the end of the day, our "influence" will trump his braggadacious bullying.

Agony. Such an interesting word to be used in this instance by a person who directly incites the infliction of agony by unjust laws in a lethally brutal legal system against, say, friends who might want to meet together for a bit of a shindig in Bauchi.

He wears such nice clothes, does the Archbishop Akinola. I do hope they don't chafe none because of starch. Such pains for the gospel. Amen.

Archbishop Akinola has helpfully summarised his "most agonising journey" and attached all relevant documents from the last decade.

We are also hearing about the agonising journeys being experienced by LGBT people in Nigeria, Uganda and Zimbabwe, where they are routinely persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and murdered. Closer to home we hear the disturbing news that two-thirds of gay teenagers are subjected to homophobic bullying at school, (Independent, Stonewall).

How difficult it is to stand up to these injustices, and avoid unintentionally inciting them, when you have to assert Biblical morality for the sake of the "faith once delivered". An agonisingly difficult moral dilemma for all bishops of our global family of Anglican churches.

An aside: I have heard that +Abuja and other GS bishops from across the globe - despite being on the brink of forming a new church - nevertheless retain some of their privileges in England. Not least the use of St. Luke's Hospital for the Clergy. I wonder if they plan to remain in full communion with this perk?

"Cynthia: the name "The Episcopal Church" is pretty ambiguous in an international (and ecumenical!) context; one needs some way of distinguishing it from all the other episcopal churches."

That's disingenuous, given the context. How many other Episcopal churches have encountered the wrath of ++Akinola lately? If it were not ++Akinola, or if the subject were something like whether it is appropriate to use grape juice rather than wine at the Eucharist, well I suppose you might have a case.

But given the writer and the topic, I suspect your real choices are [1] real ignorance or [2] calculated insult disguised as ignorance.

And besides, ++Akinola has the deposed TEC priest Minns as a bishop to advise him, so I would vote for #2.

It is the kind of petty insult that was [maybe still is] common among American racists who used to refer to "Martin Lucifer King."

Agonizing is watching +Akinola try to rework greed, fear/hate-mongering and scapegoating into honorable Christian teachings...bad NEWS, and dangerous actions toward others where Good News and love ought be. This man is off on a obsessive tangent that will take years for the Nigerian Church to recover from spiritually and financially.

A question for all of you -- a quite genuine question.

As far as I can tell, Archbishop Akinola is putting forward the deadline of September 30th as the deadline for the Episcopal Church (the American one) to comply with the demands made of them in the Global South's "Road to Lambeth."

However, September 30th is in fact the deadline for the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to reply to the Dar es Salaam Primates' Communique.

Here is the point: These two documents demand very different things of the American Church, and I don't see any clear connection between them. So I would like to ask: why is the deadline for one being represented as a deadline for the other? It seems as though something like a shell game is going on here.

A Most Agonizing Case of False Witness and Selective Memory

Fr. Jakes got the FULL recap on +Akinola's antics:

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/08/most-agonizing-case-of-false-witness.html

Thank you Prior Aelred for sharing Archbishop Tutu's statement "that the money for the fight was coming from conservative Americans". Concerning the "American culture wars on wider front?" question, Jim Naughton's excellently-researched, eye-opening "Following the Money" has been linked from this site several times - one more time won't hurt - it's a central document to proving that right-wing American money, particularly support from Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., is a central factor in the escalating "Global South" shenanigans.

http://www.edow.org/follow/part1.html

Only the first half of Jim Naughton's "Following the Money" is at the link that I just posted, Both parts are here:

http://www.edow.org/follow/

Cynthia
Has Martyn Minns been formally deposed by Bp Lee? I don't think so. In fact I wrote to Patrick Getlein about this point and he referred me to the 2 October 06 letter (on Virginia diocesan website) as evidence to the contrary.

I am interested why this document is considered to be ghost written.

"The Road to Lambeth" is an internal, Global South, document, Charlotte. As such, not only is it not binding on the Anglican Communion as a whole, but it has no standing whatever within the Communion. In fact, the preamble to the report on "Global South Anglican", the GS's official web-page, terms it a "draft report", stating that it "was commissioned by the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) in February 2006; it was received with gratitude by the CAPA Primates on 19 September 2006 and commended for study and response to the churches of the provinces in Africa."

Evidently, therefore, "Road to Lambeth" has no formal standing within the Global South and has only been "commended for study and response to the churches of the provinces of Africa". Recent experience suggests that this ought perhaps to read "the churches of some provinces of Africa".

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa/

Hi Drdanfee - yes, my view is a "closed view of scripture as revelation authority". That is merely to describe my view accurately rather than provide grounds to criticise it! Why should I feel any sense of shame about that when it is and always has been the mainstream account of Scripture? That's not even a particularly theological claim, but a purely historical one! So for at least you and Pluralist, the question is indeed that of the authority of Scripture.

Cynthia: I really don't see how the term "TECUSA" can be a calculated insult... it's like Ronseal, it does what it says on the tin. Personally I find the name "TEC" itself insulting since it is patently not THE episcopal church (there are a few other Anglican churches, to say nothing of Rome, Lutheranism etc etc).

Leonardo

The Father Jake link is excellent.

Prior.

Thanks for sharing that Tutu considered that the (1988?) plays were a reaction against colonialism.

One of the beauties of the church plantings done or promised in the US, Canada, Scotland... is that we now know it is not a question of colonialism. It has been fun to contemplate the driving dynamics that have sent some souls into such a spin.

Many souls' dreams of "success" in this world are underpinned by some pretty nasty desires e.g. striving for success so they can make others jealous or suffer. Then there is the desire for security where they seek to be "untouchable" because they have the power to harm those that would hurt them; but because this need is underpinned by fear, there is the fear that the dangerous ones might not recognise that they are too powerful to be touched, so you have to do a preemptive strike to remind them that you are not meant to be touched.

Of course, if you have gangs of souls inflicting violence to demonstrate your power, you have to keep them fed and happy, or they might stop fighting or turn against you. So women and children are fair game for raping and plundering, but don't touch the heterosexual males (heaven forbid that they might have to suffer what they impose upon others)!

We are not seeing souls reacting against colonialism. What we are seeing are souls who are terrified of what would happen if tyranny was to end.

How can they keep themselves safe if the biblical teachings of isolated high mounds of complacent priests becomes recognised as the worst perversion of theology? How can they keep themselves safe if they aren't allowed to intimidate and desecrate to prove how "powerful" they are? How can they save themselves if God intends to save everything in the universe, including GLBTs, women, children, non-Christians, non-humans, or metaphysical consciousnesses?

Everything in this universe is of God, from God and for God. If they are that frightened by God’s breadth and depth, God can give them a nice little heaven where they are not confronted with the rest of Creation.

In the meantime, Creation belongs to God and we were given a job to care for it and all its inhabitants. We are going to stop abusing and stop being abused.

My understanding on Bishop Minns is that as Nigerian Bishop he is no longer under the jurisdication of Bishop Lee. (In other words, he was removed from +Lee's jurisdiction by his consecration.) Also, of course, as a Bishop he may not function as a bishop in another jurisdiction without the permission of the Ordinary both by Canon and by ancient custom (the faith once given to the saints?). So he is no longer a priest of +Lee's to be disposed but a renegade bishop invading the jurisdiction of another. But that is just my understanding and i may be wrong.

While it is obvious that TEC does not wish to walk with their sisters and brothers in the GS, it is still not self-evident why Bp. Katherine and 815 continue to execute their scorched earth policy of litigation against American churches that wish to be faithful to the historic position of the church as stated in 1998 Lambeth. Sure, TEC, walk your new path, but must you insist that others follow your heterodox ways? So much for tolerance.

Reading above, it would seem as if a nasty chap in Nigeria is making lots of demands for no good reason......

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think ++Akinola is simply saying:

1) one province's rejection of certain agreed AC positions and teaching is not sufficient to change the mind of the Communion on a theological issue;

2) it is not acceptable for one province to try to force the AC to change its position or accept a contradictory position through unilateral actons;

3) it is not acceptable to fudge the issues any longer....not with integrity anyway;

As I have said before, ++Akinola, +Duncan and many others have been very tolerant in the AC for decades.....but TEC caused a major conflict in the AC in 2003 by its unilateral actions, rejecting not only the pleas of the Primates but also agreed positions.......but now ++Akinola et al are accused of not caring for unity if they will not accept TEC's actions!!!

If you try to be impartial, can you see that maybe TEC has gone about things the wrong way and that is why they have not been rewarded in TWR / Tanzania etc?

I don't think the ABC can allow this precedent of unilateral by provinces actions forcing changes in AC positions or other provinces will follow in doing whatever they want and forcing the AC to accept their views...in the name of "unity"!

The right way to do things...in case anyone cares, is to persuade the Communion that its policy / statements / positions are wrong and then get a wide consensus for change....this is what people who care for unity would do.

"it is and always has been the mainstream account of Scripture"

I'f you are claiming that traditionally Christians have looked solely to Scripture as the authority in matters of faith, I believe you are wrong. The Church has traditionally seen the Church as the final authority, with Scripture playing a big role in informing Her decisions. There's a big difference betweeen that and claiming Scripture has all authority.

Somehow some lines got missing in the released document. They have been reinserted and include;

We now confront the seriousness of their actions as the year for the Lambeth Conference draws near. Sadly, this Conference is no longer designed as an opportunity for serious theological engagement and heartfelt reconciliation but we are told will be a time of prayer, fellowship and communion. These are commendable activities, but this very Communion, however, has been broken by the actions of the American and Canadian churches. The consequence is most serious because, even if only one province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity. The convener’s status as an instrument or focus of unity also becomes highly questionable. Repentance and reversal by these provinces may yet save our Communion. Failure to recognize the gravity of this moment will have a devastating impact.

Scorned Opportunities

Following the 1997 warning, the 1998 Lambeth Conference issued Resolution 1.10 that affirmed the teaching of the Holy Scriptures with regard to faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union and declared that homosexual practice was incompatible with Biblical teaching. At their meeting in Porto, Portugal, in March 2000 the Primates reaffirmed the supremacy of Scripture as the “decisive authority in the life of our Communion.” [ ] [ ]

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA responded in July 2000 by approving Resolution D039 acknowledging relationships other than marriage “in the Body of Christ and in this Church” and that those “who disagree with the traditional teaching of the Church on human sexuality, will act in contradiction to that position!” The Convention only narrowly avoided directing the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to begin preparation of official rites for the blessing of “these relationships … other than marriage.” [ ]

I've already answered the question on scriture - it was no. In other words, I take it seriously, and do not ignore it, and indeed go to the effort of understanding it critically (in who constructed it, where is its sources, who was it written for), but I am not a slave to it at all.

So it I had an action and reported on it, I would refer to scripture, but then say why I (if it was so) did not follow what it seemed to say in a direct sense.

"We have made enormous efforts since 1997 in seeking to avoid this crisis"

Scheming and plotting do indeed require enormous effort, as, apparently, does thundering from on high the repeated line "I'm right and you are wrong." What other enormous effort have they made?

"The leadership of... (TECUSA)... and (ACoC) seem .... the Bible is no longer authoritative ..."

This is simply false witness. That entire paragraph is an exercise in propaganda, as is as much of the article I could manage to read time and my temper restricting menon that score. The racism born of anti-Imperialism is also not hard to see. Dear God!

Slightly, but not wholly off topic. Today's update of "Anglicans Online" lists a 'not in communion" outfit called the "Anglican Catholic Communion U.S.A.". The church's web page gives its primate, the Most Reverend Gregory Francisco, DD, Ph D, the subordinate title of "Assisting bishop for the diocese of Katakwa, Anglican Church of Kenya".

http://www.theaccusa.org/

Katakwa is indeed a diocese of the Church of Kenya. Is this therefore another, "under the radar", episcopal incursion into the USA?

"the actions of the American and Canadian churches."

With regard to the recent actions of the Anglican Church of Canada, and especially the results of the last General Synod, I am curious as to what the Canadian Church has done that is so heinous. We will not bless same sex unions. Any gay bishop we might have, and I don't know of one, is securely locked in the closet. What is it we have done that is so wrong?

"We have made enormous efforts since 1997 in seeking to avoid this crisis"

- they have not left the AC and they have spent 4 years trying to get a solution with the ABC.......they may not have suddenly decided the bible is wrong and VGR is acceptable but it is true that they have been working hard to repair the "tear in the fabric of the communion"

"Failure to recognize the gravity of this moment will have a devastating impact." Tunde

Tunde,

Once again you attept to speak for the Holy Spirit and the whole of The Anglican Communion.

Nobody likes to be threatened, Tunde.

Meanwhile, +Akinola accepts "outside" *inspiration* for off-the-wall falsehoods ("Hooligan children of LGBT people" and other such absurdities) as he simultaneously attempts to persecute LGBT Christians/Anglicans at home in Nigeria and "poach" on TEC property in Virginia and Colorado.

These grandstanding "dramatics" are not very Christian or very "loving" nor very inspiring when viewed by more emotionally/spiritually "centered" human beings/Anglicans.

+Akinolas tiremsome THREATS and REAL actions of fear/hate-mongering are a very sad indication of the "state of Anglican/Nigerian Church" affairs.

"The consequence is most serious because, even if only one province chooses not to attend, the Lambeth Conference effectively ceases to be an Instrument of Unity."

Oh, what a very merry prankster is M'Lord Bishop, ++Peter o'Abuja!

Apparently, getting his wish for TEC(USA) and ACoC(anada) to be excluded, would *not* cause Lambeth to "effectively cease to be an Instrument of Unity," nor did their voluntarily excluding themselves from voting at the ACC (in fact, he'd have preferred they have been *in*voluntarily kept even from attending/participating at all) cause *that* Instrument to 'effectively cease to be" such . . . and yet, if it is *his* province that absents itself, well then, there goes another Instrument of Unity down the drain.

Nope, no contradiction or hypocrisy *there* . . .

Yes indeed, a very merry prankster is he!

I stand corrected about Mr. Minns' relationship to Diocese of VA and TEC.

"Repentance and reversal by these provinces may yet save our Communion. Failure to recognize the gravity of this moment will have a devastating impact."

We have comlied with the request to express regret for the pain we have caused. We cannot engage in "reversal." The resolution on same sex unions simply observed that they are blessed in some parts of TEC. How can you 'reverse' an accurate observation? Bp. Robinson is a bishop, duly and legally elected and consecrated. There are no canonical reasons to remove him.

Same old same old.

Set an imnpossible demand and then act all surprised and angry and put-upon when it is not complied with.

This is becoming tiresome.

Interesting offshoot, The Anglican Catholic Communion USA (ACCUSA)as there seem to be a lot of Churches accusaing others at te moment. Incidentally, this little one, via Kenya, rejects the filoque clause (bit says it doesn't matter too much) and, in a rather un-Anglican fashion, recognises seven sacraments rather than two. I'm sure people can't wait to sign up.

"This is becoming tiresome." says Cynthia

I AGREE.....give the AC a fait accompli and when people do not roll over and accept it, blame them.....and completely forget about the fact they are responding to an unacceptable action....this is tiresome.

Unilateral actions in a "communion", against an agreed position, cannot work - or everyone just starts doing whatever they want with no consideration of those in "communion" with them.....we have to persuade each other and then act together (i.e. the opposite of what TEC did in 2003).....we should not present fait accomplis and then complain if they are not accepted....indeed Cynthia, this is becoming tiresome.

Ford said:
"The Church has traditionally seen the Church as the final authority"

That's the catholic legacy view and not historical Anglicanism as espoused in the 39 Articles. Neither Hooker nor Cranmer would agree with that statement. Scripture has the authority God has given it - namely authority on what Scripture addresses. It does not have total authority because God has not given it total authority, as seen by the fact that it does not cover everything. But that Scripture does cover, we must yield to. The church and reason are only given places of authority outside the areas Scripture covers.

Remember, Jesus has been given all authority. He in turn gave authority to the apostles, who wrote the NT. Their writing is under the authority of Jesus and comes to us through the ages fairly directly. On the other hand, apostolic succession (the basis the Catholic Church claims for its authority) has proven far less reliable as seen by heretics and false teaching.

Ford,
What have we Canadians done wrong?
Some of our "offenses":

We are actively and seriously engaged in the listening process
We are discussing same-sex blessings at General Synod (even though it failed to pass)
We acknowledge the homosexual members in the pews
We acknowledge that we have gay and lesbian clergy
Some bishops have denounced or banned Essentials as divisive
We haven't criticized the Americans

We are simply not pure and holy enough for +Abuja to associate with. Nothing short of defrocking +Michael Ingham, reversing course in New Westminster, purging all the LGBT clergy (or at least those who aren't tucked away in the closet), and ending all this talk about same-sex blessings will satisfy these bullies.

So, I'm being censored, eh? TA is, then, as I suspected: not a venue for the free exchange of ideas, but a propaganda machine for TEC's heterodox faith. Thus I suppose I am left with no alternative other than to bid you adieu and say 'God bless you'. I would that your anger and dissension were turned into holiness and shalom for your own sake as well as for the sake of the church and the world.

Slightly, but not wholly off topic. Today's update of "Anglicans Online" lists a 'not in communion" outfit called the "Anglican Catholic Communion U.S.A.". The church's web page gives its primate, the Most Reverend Gregory Francisco, DD, Ph D, the subordinate title of "Assisting bishop for the diocese of Katakwa, Anglican Church of Kenya".

http://www.theaccusa.org/

I thoroughly enjoyed this web site.
Thank you

"2) it is not acceptable for one province to try to force the AC to change its position or accept a contradictory position through unilateral actons -- NP"

This is simply not true. May I be blunt? It is a lie. TEC has never tried to force the AC or anyone to change its "Position". Whatever that "position" might be. I didn't know the AC had "positions." (of course it doesn't).

What is happening, though, is that other churches dominated by fundamentalists are attempting to dictate to TEC. That is unacceptable. Lay people have a say in TEC, you know. We actually get to, like, vote.

Phylmom,

Actually NP's statement is not a lie.

From Gene Robinson's recent Times interview:
" I understand that a bishop is understood to be ordained for the whole church, although that's true for the priesthood as well. One is a priest of the church and provided they are a priest of good standing, they can exercise their ministry anywhere in the world. "

We are dependent on each other as Christians and as Anglicans. If the whole Robinson is a bishop for the whole church, then I would argue the church has the right to react when some one who does not live up to the Biblical or traditional standards of the office is consecrated.

Furthermore, the Anglican Communion certainly has positions. The creeds, the various Books of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, dozens of Lambeth Conference resolutions along with reams of conference, commission and pastoral letters all establish various positions on a wide range of issues. You may not agree with most of them, but you can't simply wish 500 years of Anglican theological tradition away - and an additional 1500 years of catholic theology before that.

Some here claim Scripture should be interpreted by the whole church. I agree. Archbishop Peter Akinola's comments - and similar expressions voiced by others - is what that interpretation process looks like.

Some here claim Scripture should be interpreted by the whole church. I agree. Archbishop Peter Akinola's comments - and similar expressions voiced by others - is what that interpretation process looks like.

Posted by: Chris on Monday, 20 August 2007 at 8:57pm BST

It's no use dressing up your anti-gay sentiment in Churchy-sounding rhetoric. I am not taken in, and I am (no longer) alone....

"I'm being censored, eh?"

Joe, I have often posted things that didn't make it to TA. Such things were either too long or perhaps too ...forceful. It wasn't censorship. Grow up! Yes, we have no oppression, we have no oppression today!

"apostolic succession has proven far less reliable as seen by heretics and false teaching."

Really? Now how be it that there are Mennonites, Hutterites, Baptists (of various flavours), Pentecostals, and on and on, all following Scripture as the final authority, yet all disagreeing on some point or other? Sorry, but I don't see this as any more reliable. Your view is the, to borrow your terminology, Reformation legacy view. I think there is a great difference between "Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation" and your position. But we used to be able to disagree, being Anglicans.

Interesting offshoot, The Anglican Catholic Communion USA (ACCUSA)as there seem to be a lot of Churches accusaing others at te moment. Incidentally, this little one, via Kenya, rejects the filoque clause (bit says it doesn't matter too much) and, in a rather un-Anglican fashion, recognises seven sacraments rather than two. I'm sure people can't wait to sign up.

Posted by: Pluralist on Monday, 20 August 2007 at 5:26pm BST

It is very tempting Pluralist (and great fun)-- who could resist a Church that allows a choice of the / 'a' Roman rite, a 'BCP 1979 'rite (whatever that may be) and a 'Kenya rite' PLUS pro the ordination of (people who happen to be ) women; and (somewhat unconvincingly) anti-gay.

If I weren't a gay post-anglican quaker with unitarian / nonitarian tendencies I'd be there like a shot. (We have nothing this camp in the RSoF !)

Joe, if there are regular posters to this site who have not, from time to time, submitted observations that have been judged inappropriate for publication, I am certainly not among their number. Just pick yourself up, dust yourself off ........

In Luke 4, we see Jesus start his public ministry where "on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down.

There reactions of the witnesses started with bemusement to which Jesus gave numerous examples of how prophets who are not accepted in their hometown are instead sent to unlikely outcastes. Luke 4:28 "All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this." They attempted to incite a lynch mob to murder him, but he walked right on through. Of course, we all know after three years of controversy, they did succeed in getting Jesus crucified after much vilification. But their "success" was their dramatic and irreversible failure.

The Pharisees and Sadducees of the time would have rejected Jesus boldness and ministry because:

1) Jesus' rejection of certain agreed positions and teaching is not sufficient to change the mind of the Communion on a theological issue;

2) it is not acceptable for Jesus to try to force the Communion to change its position or accept a contradictory position through unilateral actions;

3) it is not acceptable to fudge the issues any longer....not with integrity anyway;

We are all invited to become Christ like, to challenge the rulers and authorities where they become complicit with complacency, corruption and cruelty. This is a prophetic tradition that existed thousands of years before Jesus and was honored and reaffirmed by Jesus. Yet we are witnessing the wailing and gnashing of teeth as souls attempts to stop souls moving in Holy Spirit are being brought into the light of day, along with the methodology by which they deny acknowledging the gifts spirit or Christ consciousness in souls whose very existence is living proof of the fallacies in their selfish puritanical theology.

Cheryl wrote: "They have been only on this journey for ten long years. That puts their journey starting at 1997, ten long years after the South Africans coming out of apartheid suddenly found themselves "unworthy" and an alternative communion developed in their midst."

Gays have been on a 2000 years journey, oppressed and mystified by false teaching, and now they claim the natural right to marry. The recent years for gays have been years of joyful struggle and growth, not agony. If Akinola is in agony perhaps he is experience the death-agony of the millenia old homophobic regime he clings to?

Then there is Canon Mark Harris:

Ratcheting-up Noise

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/08/ratcheting-up-noise-forty-days-etc.html

_If I weren't a gay post-anglican quaker with unitarian / nonitarian tendencies I'd be there like a shot. (We have nothing this camp in the RSoF !)_

I might be your anti-matter, as in heterosexual post-Unitarian Anglican with quaker/ nonitarian tendencies.

We can fight indefinitely. Or we can begin to discuss how such disparate views can be held in one community. Something is happening to our Communion and it is not clearly the fault of anyone. All sides have in their ranks people of good faith and rabid zealots blinded by dogma. The question before the Communion now is, can we be one body? Blaming each for causing the rift is missing the obvious; we are many distinct groups in one house. To remain one house we will need to find a grounding commonality. I resist the idea that this commonality would be the basic truth of the Communion. Rather this commonality would merely be that by which we claim to be organized as one. I would hope that each group would hold that what makes them unique is what is most important to their witness. I imagine that we are all weary of the limiting drag this whole struggle imposes. No one can act in faith. We are all limited by the disagreement of each others opinions.

This is the only work that needs to be done now:

1) To honestly decide if we want to remain in communion with the entire communion.
2) If no, then decide which parts we want to associate with and build connections, and decide best how to peacefully disassociate ourselves from the rest. (This will have an untidy outcome.)
3) If yes, then see if this unity can be articulated in some common purpose.
4) If we can, then we create new patterns of organization to accommodate our diverse spiritual cultures.
5) However, we may have to realize that we cannot articulate any tangible commonality. In which case we will need to organize in peace the particulars of our dissolution.

We need to stop arguing issues.

In order to accomplish this unity we need to realize that each group does not just need the right of belief but of space to develop community around convictions. The way we organize ourselves around sexuality has a significant affect on how our communities function. That is one reason this is such a divisive issue. We are in a turf war right now. Who of us really wants to remain one body? Are we willing to do the work to see if that is possible?

Ford Elms,

The "legacy" bit is a crack on drdanfee.

The theological differences between evangelical Baptists and Anglicans are actually quite small. Most of the differences revolve around organization (episcopal vs. congregational) and the use of liturgy. However, some Baptists are discovering the liturgy and coming to understand its role in worship.

Nevertheless, denominational splintering does not erode the reliability of Scripture; it further undercuts the reliability of the church as interpreter. The church can not come to agreement on interpretation and this sits contrary to what the Spirit would have us do. I can take a finely tuned F1 race car and turn a horrific lap. The problem isn't the car its the driver.

My view is exactly sola scriptura. I am not adding anything to salvation that Scripture does not lay out. I am also not claiming that Scripture covers everything. But I will assert that nothing the church can support can violate what is in Scripture.

L Roberts,

I must have missed something in my own post - what did I say that was "anti-gay?" Did I say I supported the Archbishop's comments?

If simply disagreeing with your agenda and engaging in the debate is "anti-gay", then you must have an incredibly strong moral argument. Too bad no one has produced said argument, but instead resort to name calling.

Cheryl - the big problem with what you have written is that the Lord also said "I have not come to abolish the law" and you cannot find one bit of evidence in the bible to support a claim that He rejected the moral teaching of Judaism (which is the basis for our moral teaching in the New Testament)

Where do you see the Lord saying that he was against the morality of Judaism??

Ford: I think yor position is an eminently respectable (Roman Catholic) one. But what 'church' do you mean? A) Roman Catholic (who are not very sympathetic to revising the church's teaching on sexuality, B) The Anglican Communion (ditto) C) the church catholic i.e. through history and worldwide (ditto) or D) the tiny fragment of the church which is 'the' episcopal church? Believing that the church must interpret Scripture is one thing, but that doesn't license anyone in their 'small corner' to believe and do what they like - they are still part of and thus subject to The Church (TM).

Dear NP,

In the Bible there is no such distinction Civil, Moral, Ceremonial.

It was invented by ABC Cranmer pleading Henry VIII's divorce from Queen Catharine.

Moreover, the Churches that didn't have this quaint little problem of having to divorce Henry from his Queen have never heard of it...

Sean is dead right....which is why it is so ironic when TEC people want to call +Duncan et al "schismatic"......TEC's "schismatics" are very ordinary in their beliefs in most of worldwide and American Christianity when it comes to the presenting issues......maybe, just maybe, it is TEC(USA) being schismatic??

Goran...why do you think you advance the argument by mentioning irrelevant details???

You may occupy yourself with word games....but pls do not kid yourself that you are doing anything useful.

The reason we see people like ++Akinola losing patience after 4 years of time wasting since TEC defied the AC re VGR is that we have had no substantial arguments to change the mind of the communion.....and we are tired of the word games (and are certainly not fooled by them)

We are on the brink of the AC collapsing.....the Tanzania Communique deadline is weeks away, the ABC is getting ready to try and persuade the TEC-HOB to give an acceptable response to the AC and maybe prevent schism....and you want to talk about Henry?

_If I weren't a gay post-anglican quaker with unitarian / nonitarian tendencies I'd be there like a shot. (We have nothing this camp in the RSoF !) L Roberts

I might be your anti-matter, as in heterosexual post-Unitarian Anglican with quaker/ nonitarian tendencies.

Posted by: Pluralist on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 2:43am BST

You must be Pluralist !
Smiling broadly

L Roberts,

I must have missed something in my own post - what did I say that was "anti-gay?" Did I say I supported the Archbishop's comments?

If simply disagreeing with your agenda and engaging in the debate is "anti-gay", then you must have an incredibly strong moral argument. Too bad no one has produced said argument, but instead resort to name calling.

Posted by: Chris on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 6:14am BST

I find your witty repost(s) almost irresistible.
It must be the way you tell 'em !

my thanks

Sean is dead right....which is why it is so ironic when TEC people want to call +Duncan et al "schismatic"......TEC's "schismatics" are very ordinary in their beliefs in most of worldwide and American Christianity when it comes to the presenting issues......maybe, just maybe, it is TEC(USA) being schismatic??

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 21 August

Not so. I think you'll find us lgbt people in all the church of all times and places - including bishops and other ministers....

lgbt folk brightening things up very often with a bit hilarity and sparkle --ever been to say, All Saitns, Margaret Street or a gay pride flotilla ?

And of course, apart from the choreography, often at the forefront of pastoral listening and care; and spirituality ....

.... and sometimes throwing great parties ...

NP, we have covered the question of legalism that ignores reforms or intent before. E.g. my posting of 3 July 2007 http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002481.html#comments or 1 August http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002540.html#comments These earlier postings referred to Isaiah 43:25-28, Jeremiah 8:7-12, Hosea 2:21 to 4:13, Jeremiah 2:7-8, Habbakkuk 1:4

When one reads the gospel, we see that Jesus repeatedly foretold that it was the chief priests and teachers of the law who were going to betray him e.g. Matthew 16:21, 20:18-19, 26:57 and 27:41-42; Mark Mark 7:1-7, 10:33-34, 11:18, 11:27-33, 14:1-2, 14:43, 14:53, 15:1-9; Luke 6:7-11, 9-22, 11:46-54, 19:47-48, 20:19,22:1-2, 22:66 to 23:2, 23:10. Mark 8:31-33 is interesting because Jesus spoke plainly of these matters and when Peter sought to stop him. Jesus reply? “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Many of Jesus’ direct rebukes to the teachers of the law were about nullifying the law to line their own pockets e.g. Matthew 21:12-16 or Luke 20:46-47, Matthew 15:1-9 where Jesus alludes to Isaiah 29:13-16

The words of Jesus in 23:15-22 ring so true for today as well e.g. “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. “Woe to you, blind guides!... Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?...” As does Matthew 12:38-39 where a wicked generation demands a miraculous sign but none is given but the sign of the prophet Jonah; which is the repentance of the masses and existing churches, not the formation of a new church.

... see pt 2

Pt 2

Today you might ask by what authority we act. We would respond as Jesus did in Luke 11:27-33, or adapt Luke 5:30-32 where when priests and teachers of the law complain that we sit with GLBTs and ‘sinners’?” We answer as Jesus would “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners...”

Even Paul understood there are limits to legalism e.g. Hebrews 10 where he comments that the law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming. It can never make perfect those who draw near to worship. Thus Jesus came to put aside the first the need for endless sacrifices for once and all time. It enables a reconciliation with God because “Their sins and lawless acts God will remember no more.” Since we have been blessed to we hold unswervingly to hope, for he who promised is faithful. We spur one another on toward love and good deeds and do not give up meeting together, but rather encourage one another.

I note that you referred to Matthew 5:17, and I think Jesus own words just three short sentences later put that into a nice context. “…unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Because “…if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it… Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom … because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!” (James 2:9-13)

The distinction between the types of "precept of the law" certainly didn't original with Cramner. Here is Thomas Aquinas:

"We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; "ceremonial" precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and "judicial" precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men."

Though I know of none before St. Thomas who use this particular terminology, the whole biblical and ecclesiastical tradition, from the prophets onward, recognizes the distinction between these various kinds of laws and their relative importance.

"The theological differences between evangelical Baptists and Anglicans are actually quite small."

Certainly no larger than the differences between chalk and cheese! The nature of the sacraments, infant baptism, the nature of public worship, TULIP, etc. Not all that small, actually. Just because some Baptists feel at home in some of our wilder Evo churches and some Romans feel at home with some of our high tat anglo-catholic goings on doesn't make us theologically close.

"the reliability of Scripture; it further undercuts the reliability of the church as interpreter."

Looking at the situation, I would think that it undercuts the reliability of using the Bible as the sole authority. The whole issue of things "ncessary to salvation" is an odd one to me. I would side with the ORthodox, what is necessary to salvation is the Christian faith, and it's not fully embodied in Scripture.

"what 'church' do you mean?"

Ah, there's the rub. On the one hand, it is of course the Church Universal, but that Church hasn't been united since First Nicea. So, are we not to decide anything? No. We could take the idea that the Church is all Christians everywhere, with which I do not agree, but it's no help anyway, given our divisions. So, we can only, sadly, define the Church as "us" respecting the fact that "us" is actually only a small part of us. "We" therefor seek to know where God is guiding us, always humbled by the fact that He could very well be leading others in different directions. The current sarcastic Nigerian attitude to culture is a case in point. Why do we not seem to consider that, given the huge cultural differences between American and Nigerian society, God is leading them in a different direction on an issue that is not actually crucial to our salvation? Perhaps God is trying to sort out the mess we have made by going against His wishes and allying ourselves with the state all those centuries ago, which necessarily led us to grossly compromise out principles for the sake of social benefit for our more powerful leaders, and, unfortunately, the sin of sacrificing the lives of gay people in Nigeria is one of the many prices we have had to pay for that.

"the whole biblical and ecclesiastical tradition"

Aquinas isn't Biblical, which leaves us with an ecclesiastical "tradition" that was very concerned, and grew moreso as the centuries went by, with preserving its place of power in the Empire, and helping the Imperial authorities control hoi polloi. To do this, there was a good bit of Scripture that had to be explained away. This Ritual/moral distinction is one of the ways this was done, along with declaring the Empire an icon of the Kingdom of God, and a whole lot more. Sorry, but if one defends things like this instead of acknowledging them for what they are, one really has no business accusing modern day people of compromising the Gospel for the approval of the world. Such behaviour is hardly new.

And NP, how is a 500 year old disobedience of Scripture irrelevant to you when the crux of your hatred of TEC is their "disobedience" of Scripture? How is Church acquiescence to murder irrelevant to someone who trumpets obedience to the word of the Law? How can you say that 500 year old sin is acceptable when modern sin isn't? I'm not saying modern sin is justified by old sin, but that if we are going to condemn modern sin we at least have to acknowledge our own past sins, no? Hardly irrelevant.

Cheryl - sorry, but legalism is not the same as wanting to be obedient to God and we are called to do that.....and you still have not come up with verses to prove that the Lord said that the AC should accept as a bishop someone like VGR who will not accept Lambeth 1.10 (the agreed teaching of the Anglican church, not me, please note Cheryl) You can search the whole bible, Cheryl, but as Rowan Williams says, there is zero in terms of positive comment on what TEC wants us to accept...and many "clobber passages" (as Ford calls them)

Ford - the problem I have is that The Spirit inspired the word...but now there is a very small number of people (many with vested interests) who claim the same Spirit is leading them to contradict his word as most of us in the last 2000 years and now understand it.....and we are told in the AC that we must accept this small minority as leaders even though most of us are not persuaded by their new "revenlations"?

Even more tellingly, many of those in the US who agree with the majority in the AC (i.e. accept the teaching of their church).....are being dragged through the civil courts.....maybe the spirit they are listening to in TEC HOB meetings also encourages litigation in the church now, Ford?

What we all need is for the AC to come to an agreed position and stick to it....I am happy for a vote to be taken at Lambeth 08 if all commit to stick to it this time....without a clear view of where we standed, we will fall as a house divided.

Goran said:
"In the Bible there is no such distinction Civil, Moral, Ceremonial.

It was invented by ABC Cranmer pleading Henry VIII's divorce from Queen Catharine."

and

"Moreover, the Churches that didn't have this quaint little problem of having to divorce Henry from his Queen have never heard of it..."

Are you sure about that?

From the wikipedia:

The Formula of Concord distinguished three uses, or purposes, in the Law in Article VI. It states: "[T]he Law was given to men for three reasons. . ."

1. That "thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]"
2. That "men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins"
3. That "after they are regenerate. . .they might. . .have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life"[7]

We may summarize the three uses as follows:

1. To restrain external evil (civil use) or (curb).
2. To show us our sin (pedagogical, theological, or elenchtical {convicting} use) or (mirror).
3. To show us God's character and will as a rule and guide to holy living, empowered by the Gospel alone (didactic use) or (rule).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel#The_Book_of_Concord

“Joe, if there are regular posters to this site who have not, from time to time, submitted observations that have been judged inappropriate for publication, I am certainly not among their number. Just pick yourself up, dust yourself off ........” Lapinbizarre

That’s right, Joe. We’ve all experienced this at one time or another; conservatives are not being “picked on” at Thinking Anglicans.

Ford, that should have read the differences between evangelical Baptists and evangelical Anglicans are fairly small. Yes, areas such as liturgy, creeds, worship and infant baptism create differences, but many central topics such as Christian anthropology and sanctification are fairly close. Limited vs. universal justification is still a miss.

Once again, I'm not claiming Scripture as the sole authority. Salvation is fully embodied in Scripture (John 3:15, the "Roman road", etc.). We have no liberty to add requirements to salvation (such as church membership or indulgences) or to remove requirements (such as repentance of sin or watered down Christology). Sanctification, discipleship, the church, worship, how we treat other people and many other issues are not fully embodied in Scripture, but we are given first principles. Primary authority and sole authority are different animals.

Funny note on TULIP - some have tried to dodge the acrostic by using "particular justification" instead of "limited justification." I guess TUPIP is the new model.

I repeat:
All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand!

"All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand!"

Posted by: Scott Henthorn

I do! I do! I do!

"Primary authority and sole authority are different animals."

Our argument is thus over the definition of "primary auhority".

"liturgy, creeds, worship and infant baptism create differences"

Huge ones, actually, since our understanding of these things is directly linked to our approach to such things as "Christian anthropology and sanctification". I may be maximizing the differences, but you are minimizing them.

"We have no liberty to add....or to remove requirements (such as repentance of sin or watered down Christology)."

But who is doing this? That "reassessors" do not believe in repentance, for example, is untrue. They just think that the things for which we should repent are in some cases different. "Reasserters", for instance, are rabid about sexual sin, but will jump through incredible hoops not merely to ignore economic sin, or war, or a number of other things, but even to justify them.

And, Scott, my hand is waaaaay up!

"the same Spirit is leading them to contradict his word "

And this would be new in that......?

No,

I don't really want to stay living under one roof.

Every week in the UK two women die as the result of violence from their partners. I don't want to be under the same roof as people who make alternative provision for those who say women are not fit to teach men, or are not valid matter for priestly ordination - it encourages violent men to think they can beat women.

I have no figures for violence against gay people, but I know it is widespread in the UK. I don't want to be under the same roof as the Global South, who give crediblity to this behaviour.

My hand stays firmly down.

Let them go thier own way.

Scott Henthorn,

Sure! Why worry about doctrine?

There are, apparantly, to be no binding votes at lambeth 2008, therefore no agreed position there, therefore nothing to stick to there. Not everyone believes that all that is in scripture, as selectively read over the ages, is binding, nor does everyone believe that all that the Church decides and changes its mind about is binding, and if we stayed as one then the one will be broad, and messy and pointing in different directions at once. As has ever been since it was both Reformed and Catholic, and when Reformed carried all kinds of meaning, as indeed Catholic came to do.

This is why Akinola and company are getting ready to walk and show signs of impatience, because the opurity they want will never be delivered, so much so that if they do not walk they will look somewhat deflated and marginalised. Let those who want to walk, walk, and everyone else can carry on.

All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand!

Posted by: Scott Henthorn on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 3:39pm BST

OR wave ! ;-)

"All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand!"

Count me in!

This might raise a few laughs, given previous comments:

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=59606

"Aquinas isn't Biblical, which leaves us with an ecclesiastical "tradition" that was very concerned, and grew moreso as the centuries went by, with preserving its place of power in the Empire, and helping the Imperial authorities control hoi polloi. To do this, there was a good bit of Scripture that had to be explained away. This Ritual/moral distinction is one of the ways this was done, along with declaring the Empire an icon of the Kingdom of God"

So when Amos says, "I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon....But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream,"

..or when Jesus says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."

...they are not distinguishing the relative weight of the ceremonial and moral obligations of the law, but shilling for the Empire.

Chris asked: "Are you sure about that?"

Quite. To us the Law is the 10 Commandments, only.

What you are referring to is what we call "the laws of men".

But we never call them God's law, we don't even call them Mose's law. Only Calvinist do.

Chris's Wiki entrance is Pietist (references to LL Laestadius and Missouri Synod). Not Lutheran.

To: Pluralist
Re: the web link

ROTFL (and you're definitely going to Hell. But that's OK, it seems we'll all be there; except, of course for the Donatists and the and the Pelegians. Only God knows where they'll be.)

Rick Allen wote: "Though I know of none before St. Thomas who use this particular terminology [moral, ceremonial, legal], the whole biblical and ecclesiastical tradition, from the prophets onward, recognizes the distinction between these various kinds of laws and their relative importance."

O no, they don't.

Simply because such distinction did not exist (and the paragraphs in Leviticus stand in glorious juxtapostition: a melée ;=)

Like most abstract concepts "moral" is scholastic; 12th century.

Before that moral was concrete; life, way of life, cf Plutarch's Moralia, a collection of lifes; personal histories of more or less actual characters, such as Persian King Sardanapalos (even more lascivious that a woman - of course he never existed outside Neo Platonist wet dreams ;=)

Rick,
Please! The quote from Amos is about mindless religiosity that gets in the way, which is something that could just as easliy be laid at the feet of the legalists. Same with what Jesus said. They both speak of justice and righteousness being more important than mindless religiosity. Very applicable to those who demand obedience to Law above compassion and mercy, I'd say. Slavish obedience to ritual isn't the only way mindless religiosity is expressed. Interesting that the "moral" things you identify deal with the very justice issues NP claims are at best a minor part of the Gospel.

"We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law... "

Nor do we have Dr Thomas' "natural" law (very un-natural to us ;=)

Scott, I'm there too, but it seems that makes three or four of us. What we need is for Peter Akinola and company to join with us for Christ's sake.

Hmm. The book of Enoch is missing. The books of Susanna, Judas, or Mary...

Jesus was silent about homosexuals, even though they would have existed at his time?

There were zero passages retained in the Christian bible that offers loopholes to affirm homosexuals and souls refuse to apply the precedents that relate to eunuchs.

Who were the editors who chose what should remain in the written tradition? Duh! Homophobes.

Now we know why God sent me. Now we know why souls deny they have received correspondence and delete evidence.

The Hindus have a concept of Kali - both the mother of all things and the destroyer. The angel of death does not appear just at the moment of death, it can also appear when souls are at a crossroads, where they can choose between one route that leads inevitably to death or another that offers hope and a sustainable future for both that soul and their descendants.

It is God's way of asking "Are you really sure that you want to take the route towards extinction? We can make you extinct if that is what you really want, but you don't have to go that way if you don't want to."

God existed before this planet or humanity was formed and God will continue after this planet and its occupants have gone.

Gaia has shown she wants to continue to live, there are other souls demonstrating that they also want to live. They now have to choose between theologians who will give them a future and theologians who would rather die than show graciousness.

We can not change souls who cling to hate. But we can demonstrate that their theology is premised on hate, judgement and vengeance. We can offer an alternative.

The teachers of the law hated Jesus because he showed an alternative was possible. They repeatedly contrived to stop his messages of love, forgiveness, mercy, compassion and inclusiveness.

If the bible has been silent, then the bible needs to be expanded. It would merely be fulfilling a prophetic vision told to me in the 2000, so I am not surprised that we have come to this point. Just as I was given a prophetic vision when I was 19 that I would live to see the start of the 1000 years of peace after the book of Revelation was fulfilled.

Before this thread goes away completely, I'd like to endorse what Scott Henthorn posted (Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 2:45am BST). I've never seen it put better.

But there's just one catch. We can only remain together if we are willing to do so. It takes an act of will, not an act of intellectual assent, to maintain charity among sisters and brothers.

If we were only willing "to remain [in] one house [and]... find a grounding commonality" -- not a set of opinions, but a way of organizing ourselves under one roof with our many disparate opinions -- not "the basic truth of the Communion" but "merely ... that by which we claim to be organized as one" -- then we could avoid a schism.

If we will that, despite our divergent views, we will continue to occupy a common space, to live under one roof, then we will go on doing so in one Communion. (And if we are not willing to do so, then the Communion will split.)

Liddon, I'm with you. My hand stays down. Frankly, I don't care if I'm in Communion with them. Their views are anathema to me.

If we want to stay as on body, how will we provide real space for each ethic to mature in community?

Can this be done in an Episcopal organization?

DrRags,
their views are an anathema to me too, but I have no choice but to want to stay in Communion with them - it's what Christ is asking us to do. We're not just to feel cosy with those we agree with, but we are all one body.

Hi Ford

I liked Rick's posting. The term shilling confused me, but I presumed he was talking about the priests spouting either moral, written or legal teachings whilst they had sold themselves out to cruel leaders.

Rick, if that's not what you meant, I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

Zechariah 7:9-14 continues God's rebuke of cruel priests. It includes “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’ “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets... “ ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the LORD Almighty. ‘I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where they were strangers. The land was left so desolate behind them that no one could come or go. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’ ”

Scott

It would be lovely to stay under the one broad tent, but not if that is at the expense of condoning and advocating the mistreatment of either our own members, our neighbours or Creation itself.

My hope is to remind souls of God's vision for a pluralistic peace free of tyranny, accusations, greed or corruption. The beauty of this debate is there will be communion formed that has as its cornerstone an understanding that everything of this universe is for God, of God and from God; and thus everything should be treated with respect as it contains a holy spark. A communion where we seek to bring out the best in ourselves and each other, where we relish the diversity and breadth of gifts God has bestowed not only on our Communion members but on humanity and Creation as a whole.

Erika,

Feeling cosy isn't the point. Global South is telling us to break communion with the USA and Canada. As far as I'm concerned, I'll stay in communion with anyone in the AC, but if the GS bishops want to make different rules then let them go off and do their own thing. I'll feel much more comfortable without them. And, if they stay, then let them listen to Changing Attitude and let them learn. We mustn't dance to their tune. We have an obligation to women and to gay people that we must not ignore.

Liddon,
As someone living in a loving same gender relationship and active in Changing Attitude I couldn't agree with you more about listening to what we have to say.

I had read Scott's question to mean who is willing to be in communion with everyone instead of walking away. If I had to chose, I'd certainly not go anywhere with the GS, although I would still believe that they are refusing to be in communion with me, while I am still in communion with them.

Why do we not seem to consider that, given the huge cultural differences between American and Nigerian society, God is leading them in a different direction on an issue that is not actually crucial to our salvation? -Ford Elms on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 at 12:13pm

Ford states the reason why many Christians do not see the danger of rewriting the Holy Scriptures to suit human desires. The end result is removal of need for salvation. May not be very visible now, but that is the direction which we find difficult to believe God who sent His Son to deliver us from the power of our sins will lead anyone.

All who want to stay living under one roof raise your hand! – Scott H.

Count me in IF Jesus Christ remains honored under the roof!

"They both speak of justice and righteousness being more important than mindless religiosity."

Indeed they do. And Jesus speaks specifically about all these things being "matters of the law"--he only notes that some are "weighier" than others.

I don't disagree about the denouncing of "mindless religiousity." I would only ask, What is 'mindless religiousity' if not the the taking of those good and salutory religious observances, laid down for Jesus in the Torah, and for us by the scriptures and the Church, and making them outweigh our obligations to love God and our neighbor? With regard to the tithing of mint and dill and cummin, Jesus doesn't denounce them; he specifically says they should not be neglected. But he says they should have less weight. And the mandate to give one set of laws less weight than another implies the distinction between the two. That's all that I was saying, that the distinction between the weight of ceremonial and moral laws didn't begin with Cramner, or the scholastics, or the Fathers, or even with Jesus.

It is an important thread running through the whole bible, and is a matter of balance, "weight," not of abolition of one or the other. Jesus asks, "Was the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath?" He questions the inhuman extremes of Sabbath observance--but he doesn't seek to abolish it.

Hi Cheryl-

You mention some things which are missing from the Bible:

(1) 1 Enoch is indeed a work contemporary with the very latest parts of the Old Testament. There are also other later books of Enoch, not that any of these (or 1 Enoch) are by Enoch.

What is the idea? That every Jewish writing before a certain date belongs in sacred scripture? If so, many questions arise. Why only Jewish writings? When is the cut-off date? Why aren't the Jews allowed to produce any inferior-quality writings? (Not that 1 Enoch is one of these.)

(2) Daniel is the latest book of the OT and Susanna is a later addition to Daniel. Susanna was therefore written after the chronological cut-off point for inclusion in the OT. (Having said that, the 1st century canon could potentially have included books of this late date: just, none were voted in.)

(3) No books either by or attributed to either Judas or Mary were written in (or all that near to) the period of the New Testament writings, ie 1st century AD. I will rephrase that. There are no surviving writings by either Mary or Judas, and I have no idea whether either of them could write. But I would be well capable of writing something on a parchment today in the names of either or both. Would you then press for my humble efforts to be included in the New Testament simply because of the pseudonymous name they were written in?

The serious question is: So what if something is pseudonymously attributed to an earlier figure? What authority does that give it?

Goran,

Missouri Synod would most certainly consider themselves Lutheran.

Actually, Goran, even if you don't think LCMS is Lutheran, their doctrine belies your claim that the only reason anyone we have the idea of the three uses of the law was to justify a royal divorce.

All who want to stay loyal to agreed AC positions and if necesasry agree to work to change positions in an orderly way within the communion (i.e. not just going ahead with unilateral decisions and telling people they have to live with the change!), please raise your hand!

(not many hands raised around here because, sadly, so many are wedded more to a single agenda than to AC unity or the aim of the AC as a properly functioning communion with mutual responsibiltiy.....but most of the AC would agree would raise their hands to my call.....which is why we are getting a covenant in the AC - bring it on!)

I can't see how the Road to lambeth and its proposals, which would essentially say there is no place in the church for anyone who doesn't take the conservative line on gay relationships, can be something which can be united around.

If that is their bottom line position, then yes, they will probably end up breaking away.

So this is spiritual warfare to some. I am trying to come to a different approach or at least a clearer understanding of how we stand with each other. My intuition is at least partly confirmed that for many of us for reasons of moral logic it is not possible to remain in one house. This needs to be admitted. It needs to be understood as the result of our differences and not the singular nastiness of one side. I have been chided for seeing things so simplistically and yet it is clear that progressives are equally capable of a dualism. So let the debate resume?

Cheryl,

For all your Scripture quoting you summarize things according to teaching I don’t understand as Biblical,

To help my understanding can you provide a text for the following:

1) pluralistic peace free of tyranny
2) everything should be treated with respect as it contains a holy spark

Some speak as if only progressives believe in justice. The characterization of conservatives as ferret faced legalists who care nothing for human suffering, and perhaps even enjoy it, betrays an all to human weakness for bigotry. We (and any who agree with this are part of our We) We too have righteous indignation against injustice. Do progressives really think they invented the mission to the poor? We are not enamored with the revolutionary spirit of Eros. We are not complacent before it victims. How many slaughtered unborn? How many dead by the spread of disease through sexual immorality? How many innocent dead because of the sin of there parents, or spouses? Aids and other STDs are spread by sin not by wont of condoms. Take a moment to understand what we think is happening in a pregnancy termination and our indignation is perfectly logical.

Justice and Righteousness are inseparable in Scripture. Righteous without Justice is empty. Justice without righteousness is doomed to the fate of all political theories. God insists on both. For this reason I believe it is important that we make the effort to hear what each is saying. Are conservatives sometimes blind legalists? Without a doubt. Do progressives propose a victimless morality?

I find the eperience of reading some of the posts here, from people who call themselves 'conservative' and 'orthodox' amd 'Biblical' very disheartening.

They seem often to be characterized by a defensiveness, a nastiness and a narrow-mindedness that belies faith (to my mind).

Whether there is to be 'one house' or not, we have but one world, and we must all share local, and national communities -- and this one world.

Rick Allen wrote: “... or when Jesus says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."
...they are not distinguishing the relative weight of the ceremonial and moral obligations of the law....”

Not at all. But it does seem to me He gives them precious little weight. Hardly worth mentioning…

Chris asked: "Are you sure about that?"
Quite. To us the Law is the 10 Commandments, only.
What you are referring to is what we call "the laws of men", we never call them God's law, we don't even call them Mose's law. Only Calvinist do.

Chris's Wiki entrance is Pietist (references to LL Laestadius and Missouri Synod). Not Lutheran.

"We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law... "
Nor do we have Dr Thomas' "natural" law (very un-natural to us ;=)

In fact we’re a 1st Millennium church, we never really “Roman” (= Gregorian), not even Lutheran. We were rather Dr Martin’s Ideal, the 1st Millennium, that anything else. And the 1593 Confessio fídei of the Church of Sweden does not incorporate the Books of Concord of the German churches, only the 3 Ancient Creeds, the unchanged 1530 Confessio Augustana (in a changed translation) and the decisions of the Council itself (Upsala möte). With us, parts only, of the Books of Concord are an e x p l a n a t i o n to the Confessio augustana (Regency of Carl XI, 1664).

Chris wrote: “Missouri Synod would most certainly consider themselves Lutheran.”

Look at their teaching.

Chris wrote: “Actually, Goran, even if you don't think LCMS is Lutheran, their doctrine belies your claim that the only reason anyone we have the idea of the three uses of the law was to justify a royal divorce.”

Precisely; so not Lutheran. A 19th to 20th century Protestant sect amongst others in America. If this is influenced by ABC Cranmer, so be it.

(Pietist readings of the Book of Concord often are quaint, such as the denial that John 6 is about the Eucharist ;=)

I must say that I’m rather shocked to see so many grave in-readings. How can anyone imagine that the 3 “uses of the law” viewed from within, of Luther’s theological great-grand-sons of the 1580 Book of Concord, is the same as the most superficial division into 3 from without of ABC Cranmer; Civil, Moral and Ceremonial?

???????

And yeah, Henry VIII an “irrelevant detail”?!? And you claim to be an Anglican, NP (and moreover, that there is nothing wrong with your comprehension ;=)

More +Akinola/Church of Nigeria AGONY and justifications:

"What Rot! Nigeria Justifying CANA!"

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-rot-nigeria-justifying-cana.html

By Canon Mark Harris

L Roberts

If you mean me I think we have all grown to hear from each other a spirit that may not be there. I am really trying to find common ground, trying to listen. Pointing out the sins of myself and of those I broadly agree with. There is plenty of ”defensiveness, a nastiness and a narrow-mindedness that belies faith” to go around.

All,
That is why I am pushing the question on what basis can we be one community. To assume that one side is nasty and the other patient by nature but pushed to the limit is to not really have our ears open to what all are saying. Right now we are fighting for territory. That is, I think, at least some of AB Akinola and other’s motive. Act now before it is too late. There is some Biblical basis for this kind of action. I do not think we have exhausted our possibilities yet before division. But I am not sure at what level of our communion that there is any real attempt at reconciliation; any real commitment to allowing for actual differences on the ground. It is difficult imagine that someone who considers the liberation of homosexuality from all prohibition ever being silent before any who say that homosexuality is sin, and visa versa. Without the ability to say this is our spiritual culture and that is yours, each with contradictory forms, can we remain one communion? We are fighting because as of yet we are one group. If we cannot imagine a way to end the fight we cannot but become two or more groups. If this is inevitable, and I do not think this is certain yet, we should work towards a way to dissolve our unity with some decency.

As Christians, we struggle with biblical texts, and our very commitment to the struggle is the sign of our faithfulness to this book, the Bible. Christians can learn from Jews how the commitment to wrestle, even angrily, with the texts manifests faithfulness.

Why is it that we take Romans 1 more seriously than Titus 2 ("Wives should be submissive to their husbands")? What about Jesus' judgment that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? My sad conclusion: if a given group is powerful enough, then we ignore the passages that criticize them. Homosexuals still represent a marginalized group in our society and our church, so we take literally the passages that condemn them!

Hi Scott

Good questions. The kind I like, it gives me an excuse to troll through the bible again.

Question 1: pluralistic peace free of tyranny

Isaiah 2:2-4 is an excellent vision "In the last days the mountain of the LORD'S temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nationS will stream to it. Many peopleS will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nationS and will settle disputes for many peopleS. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."

Micah 4 repeats Isaiah's vision and clarifies further with "Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree,and no one will make them afraid, for the LORD Almighty has spoken. All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever."

See also Isaiah 11:10, 43:8-14, 61:9, 25 which includes God "will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peopleS, the sheet that covers all nationS", 29:22-26 which includes "“See, I will beckon to the Gentiles, I will lift up my banner to the peoples..." Isaiah 55 which includes "...a witness to the peopleS, a leader and commander of the peopleS... You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace..." Isaiah 60 which includes "...You will drink the milk of nationS and be nursed at royal breasts... I will make peace your governor and righteousness your ruler. No longer will violence be heard in your land, nor ruin or destruction within your borders, but you will call your walls Salvation and your gates Praise."

Daniel 7:13-14, Zephaniah 3:9-20, Romans 15:11-12, Zechariah 8:18-23 which includes "...love truth and peace... many peopleS and powerful nationS will come..." Habbakuk 2:10 is a succinct rebuke "You have plotted the ruin of many peopleS, shaming your own house..."

Scott Henthorn raises interesting points.

One group has found an issue on which it can make its move to have a purer Church. Having found an absence of alternative passages on the gay issue, using this rather than any other issue of the same sort of absence, it is extending the logic of this as far as it can go - the argument is actually about new reformation, that is to say with the environment of secularisation and pluralism you have a different approach of the Christian faith.

Some think the Christian faith can negotiate with the secular/ pluralist in tension with them (modernist liberals), others that the faith works within them (postmodernist liberals and radicals), others that it must resist and defend from the plural/ secular (traditionalists of old denominational subtypes) and others that it must resist by attack (conversionists, the likes of Akinola and so on). This is why the homosexuality issue quickly becomes a broader issue about doctrines.

At present most of the liberals can get on with most of the radicals, as they are both under attack, and most of the traditionalists can get on with most of the conversationists, as they see overlaps regarding doctrine. The people in the dividing areas are Open Evangelicals.

At present this phase emphasises division. Reconciliation comes for example at an equivalent time of the Methodists in 1932. In other words, when the old arguments for division have played out and something else becomes a new basis for division. So, beyond some getting cold feet, who add to those who genuinely would imagine they can redefine the centre (and cannot - like the Open Evangelicals), the whole thrust now is towards division.

Goran,

I think your chronolgy is faulty. The Book of Concord was written in 1577 - roughly three centuries prior to the formation of the LCMS.

' It is difficult imagine that someone who considers the liberation of homosexuality from all prohibition ever being silent before any who say that homosexuality is sin, and visa versa.'

This is not an (intellectual) discussion between equals.

For the first vital two decades of my life I was criminalised by the UK law; and for all of my life up to a few yeares ago I lived in the virulent anti-gay atmosphere.

I was only able to have my relationship of over thirty years validated in a civil (Registry Office) ceremony August 2006; and only had a spiritual ceremony in a christian place of worship, last Saturday.

So we are not equal(s) in this 'discussion'.

People....read what ++Akinola says....I think some have demonised him so much that they do not even bother to see what he says before attacking.

Rowan Williams has a clear choice....
a) let TEC get away with ignoring the pleas of the Primates, TWR and Lambeth 1.10 (i.e. institute a way of doing things which is all about rights and stuff the view of the communion);
or
b) people who want to stick to agreed communion positions.

I think you see in the ABC in the last few years a man who realises that his job is more than pushing one rights-based ageenda....and a man who believes in church unity as well as order. This is why he so disappointed some "liberals" with the Tanzania Communique and why he is about to do so again in TEC in September......his ACTIONS to date are all about AC unity and show a lot of sympathy for those like ++Akinola who did not "tear the fabric of the communion" through unilateral actions in the way that TEC did.

Some will bleat on..."but they cross boundaries" - yes, they do because, even though you want no response, there are still some people in the AC who believe in confronting false teaching....because the bible does not say "live with false teaching" or "make false teachers your leaders and have lots of warm chats together" or "do not judge teaching, accept all views and ordain even those who contradict church teaching" (not sure all here even know this!)

Anyway....pls read ++Akinola's words without prejudice. He is not unreasonable

As a retired (but active) priest of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa/New Zealand, I have been watching the 'Global South' Network web-site now for some time, and have come to the opinion that it's content is subversive and obstructive of the work of the Gospel.

Archibshop Akinola's latest statement reeks of a fundamentalist judgementalism of the very roots of the Church which gave him the freedom to speak and promote the Gospel imperatives of love and justice. In his diatribe against those people of homosexual orientation who happen to be faithful members of the world-wide Anglican Communion, the bishop is betraying the cause for which the Church exists - to preach the love of God, and to love one's neighbour as one's-self.

It seems to me that the power struggle that is presently going on in our Communion is one which needs tolerance and patience - 2 virtues which seem to be missing from the agenda of the Global South. If Akinola were to hear (and do something about) the cries of the homosexuals in his own country who are being brutally treated by the authorities - with his implicit backing - then perhaps the rest of the world might begin to believe in his protestations that he has the mind of Christ, especially in his attitude towards some of the most marginalised of his own society.

The political posturings of any cleric in the service of their own ambition only show the rest of the world how shallow is their claim to share the passion and the humility of the Christ they profess to serve.

Perhaps the Anglican Church of the future, if it is to survive, needs to curb the power of those of its prelates who seek to pursue a relentless pogrom of moral superiority (shades of the Inquisition) at the expense of the rest of us who are struggling with human issues of vital importance - sexuality, women's place in the Church, etc., all impinging on our place in the Kingdom of God.

The wrath of Jesus was mainly pitted against those who thought themselves beyond judgement because of their own moral superiority (see the Pharisee and the Publican). God save us from the revival of Pharisaism in the modern Church! Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners - and I guess that includes everyone?

My job as a priest, is not to condemn people to Hell but to show them a pathway to Heaven.

Cheryl,

I would Think these verses do not support a pluralist view

Isaiah 2:2-4 Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.”

This is not a vision of people coming and sharing their ideas. They are coming to receive teaching from the God of Jacob.

Spot on Pluralist. I knew we could agree on something.

My thinking is that I have come from a small sect. And in that sect have witnessed sub-secting over minutia. I am committed to my views and feel they are hard won. I want a place to develop them in community with others of roughly like mind. I am not sure at what point God considers us out side of His house. He sure has been patient with me through my changes.

The issue around sexuality has focused on homosexuality. As such it becomes a very personal and justice issue. From my thinking the Gay movement and the disposition that fosters it are ways of dealing with the human condition. Much of the teaching in this subculture is counter to the broad (and specific) teaching of Scripture. Therefore though convincing and even helpful on some level they are not congruous with the best good that God has given us. Part f my thinking is if there are those who want to graft this teaching onto the churches teaching let them have a go, come back in 50 years and let’s see how things worked out. These things cannot be judged normatively; they are ultimately empirical questions. I believe that the Scriptures provide sexual prohibitions to guide us closer to God. The empirical ‘study’ was already done in the nations of Canaan, Egypt, etc. We do not need to repeat it. At least I do not want to repeat them in the community I work out my salvation in. I do not think this an unreasonable request given the nature and history of our community and its documents. I want to practice traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethics because, like other traditional teachings I think they are wise in their simplification of our contition.

But if there ore those in our communion who consider this a justice issue on par with denying people food and water, and those who consider this a sin that any connection with a community that condones such practice corrupts us by implication, we cannot live in peace with different social structures built on differing sexual moralities.

This is not a vision of people coming and sharing their ideas. They are coming to receive teaching from the God of Jacob.

Question 2: everything should be treated with respect as it contains a holy spark

This question also tightly interweaves with the first one. It a much harder to answer it really requires a book “Finding God In The Singing River” by Mark I. Wallace is a good place to start. The first draft was 1358 words, so I’ve had to do some major culling. If you want more, let me know, I’ve barely scratched the surface.

We are called to treat ourselves as holy sparks and ambassadors for God e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:19 or Isaiah 52:11 and to create in kind communities that are to be holy in the midst of other peoples e.g. Jeremiah 7:4-7. There are promises that when the world is in order, God’s graciousness flows to ourselves, our neighbors, even plants and animals e.g Isaiah 11:5-10, 30,48:17-22 or 65:17-25. Even the rocks cry out for joy, the mountains tremble and the Universe sings in accordance with God’s Will e.g Isaiah 40:25-26 or 45:11-12.

Isaiah 54 is one of the most powerful and relevant passages for this time and it includes “… shout for joy… “Do not be afraid; you will not suffer shame…. For your Maker is your husband… he is called the God of all the earth. The LORD will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit—a wife who married young, only to be rejected,” says your God… with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you,”… “To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again. Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,”… All your sons will be taught by the LORD, and great will be your children’s peace. In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear. Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you. If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing; whoever attacks you will surrender to you… no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you.”

This is not a road map ("Archbishop Akinola believes I'm on the road to destruction")

By Canon Mark Harris

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/08/list-is-not-road-map.html

Chris,

I hope that I am not turfing doctrine because I want to engage my opponents as humans, and yet as siblings. My point is that I have no desire to concede my footing. I want to hold and live in my faith without all this dissimulation. How? I do not know yet. I think we can be civil and human without compromise. I think this is what it is to be Christian; ever kindly committed to the truths about Jesus Christ.

I am aware of the sin that can come from a misuse of my convictions. I believe I see some wrong action for good reasons on ‘the other side’. I know I see the same on my and our part. Time will allow fruit to bear. We cannot see our side as above reproach or serious reform. If we had it so right, if we had really followed what we know was right, would we be in this mess?

"It is difficult imagine that someone who considers the liberation of homosexuality from all prohibition ever being silent before any who say that homosexuality is sin, and visa versa"

But Scott, isn't the interesting question WHY we have suddenly decided that sexuality is the test of Christian orthodoxy?

I have far more weighty issues with people who don't believe in infant baptism, yet I barely know what most of my Christian friends think about this, and it certainly doesn't stop me from being in communion with them.

Bit of an aside:
"What about Jesus' judgment that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?"

I vaguely remember reading that this is a mistranslation, and that the camel through they eye of a needle image is actually something completely different, something that makes much more sense.
Can anyone confirm this?

RE Missouri Synod: Pietism (which is what turns Calvinism into Evangelicalism) most certainly teaches that "the Time of Grace" may end. Any time now. You’ll find it on the first page of the Comment issued 13/8 from the Pietist Missouri Synod on the decisions of the Lutherans re the presenting issue:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=12394

ends with this:

“Transforming lives through Christ's love ... in time ... for eternity ...” John 3:16-17

As you see, the reference is to John 3:16-17, which however says:

16 For so God loved tòn kósmon the world, that He gave his Son mono-genä the only-begotten, that all ó pisteúån who trust into him, wouldn’t perish but have Life everlasting (aiånion = timely), 17 (nor) did God send the Son to the World to judge the World, but to deliver the World therewith.

The Missouri Synod is Pietist not Lutheran, “in time” here refers to the Pietist idea that “the time of Grace” may end and the person thrown into the burning lakes…

Not John 3:16 but a perversion of Christianity.

What is constantly amazing, is the proclaiming of a very American late Modern mixis of this and that, high and low, as Tradition, to have been held by the Church from year 1.

Bits and odd pieces from East and West and several disparate traditions: PSA, Inerrantism, Fundamentals, pre- post- Trib, a Legalism the Pharisees (the Persian inspired = the followers of Ezra) would have been ashamed of…

This late Modern Smörgåsbord would have been un-recognizable to most Christians down the Ages ;=)

Scott
"I want to practice traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethics because, like other traditional teachings I think they are wise in their simplification of our contition."

How nice for you!
But I'm not an immoral woman with loose morals who doesn't give a stuff about Jesus' teachings. I'm not an abomination or worse than an animal.
I'm a normal woman who happens to deeply love another human being.

So if your "traditional" Christian sexual ethics cannot accommodate that, then I trust that Christ is quite happy for us to incorporate modern science and new realities in our experience of him. I'm sorry, but I won't deny myself love, companionship, trust and faithfulness.

As you're clearly not gay it's simple for you to "practice" straight sexual ethics.
I shall continue to "practice" love.

Erika asked,
"isn't the interesting question WHY we have suddenly decided that sexuality is the test of Christian orthodoxy?"

Because this is the issue of the day. Consider the Nicene Creed. Why does it spend so many words on Jesus and His nature and far less space on God the Father or the Holy Spirit? The issue of the day was the nature of Christ and the Creed addresses that.

The issue of today is sexuality and the church is addressing this.

Goran,

This isn't about your views on the LCMS. You claimed three uses of the Law was a justification for Henry's divorce. Yet the Book of Concord, a Lutheran document, also espouses three uses. Your assertion would seem to fail.

Camels and the eye of a needle. One viewpoint...
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/parables/Stu_Not%5CWa-Mk10_23-31.htm

Well, no, Chris. In the UK, the issue of the day is certainly not 'sexuality'.

You may not have noticed, but protests about the recent changes nearly all came from churches - but have actually bedded in largley without controversy.

Society in the UK has accepted people of gay or lesbian sexual orientation, and these issues no longer carry a great deal of controversy. So, how do you work out that these are 'the issues of the day'? To conservative christians who want to create a space for them to remain homophobic, yes.

Chris,
so who decides what the issue of today is?

I find it hard to equate the importance of the essense of God and the nature of Christ with something as banal as what 2 loving people do in bed. And there are many many more Christians who would say that how we fight poverty is a much more pressing issue.
And yet, Akinola is on record as saying that poverty is not an issue for Christians.

It strikes me the agenda setters are not those who have the most important questions, but those who shout loudest.
But I suspect it's just easier to be pure and righteous vis-a-vis a perceived sin you're not tempted to commit. And the sacrifice for what Scott happily calls a wise simplification of our condition has to be borne only by those the righteous don't like anyway. How neat! When the only simplification at work here is the cruel reduction of our loves to "sex".

Scott; I think there is no reason to remain united, and that there needs to be a global split.

But the forces which want to hold as much together as possible are strong.

I can't see the Akinolite position as being one which will unite, though, given that the CofE certainly doesn't take the same position on gay issues, for example.

Erika asks Why have we suddenly decided that sexuality is the barometer for Christian orthodoxy.

At amy given date, the barometer for orthodoxy remains the same, but different issues are topical. Anything will become a barometer if it has hitherto been accepted orthodoxy and comes to be challenged.

The present case is an insteresting one, though, in that it is the only case known to me where it is put about that the Church's position should be the very reverse of NT teaching.

In the case of slavery, something that was tolerated but not approved, sometimes explicitly opposed (Rev 18) comes to be universally opposed by Christians. This can be argued to be a shift of a few degrees. In the case of homosexual practice, something which was opposed comes to be accepted. This, to mix metaphors, is a 180 degree quantum leap. Are there any other examples of this happening?

Ref. camel and needle's eye:

This means what it says, but is couched in typically colourful Jewish style. It is often called a hyperbole (exaggeration) but it could also be that the colourful style is a means of Jesus highlighting the point that the rich man's entrance to the kingdom is essentially impossible. Support for the idea that Jesus used hyperbole can be found a little earlier, at the end of Mark 9: 'If your hand sins against you, cut it off.'. Support for the idea that Jesus and the early church did not see money (as opposed to unshared possessions) as an unmitigated evil can be found throughout the NT.

The trendy ploy used to be to cite a supposed gate to Jerusalem which was nicknamed the needle's eye, thus considerably reducing the degree of difficulty of entrance: after all, the camels all squeezed in eventually. This interpretation was generally put forward by rich people; the reason for this escapes me.

"At amy given date, the barometer for orthodoxy remains the same, but different issues are topical."

The barometer seems to be who is doing the talking. Some don't accept any council after 2 Ephesus, for instance. Those who accept it and those who don't both claim to be "orthodox". The Nestorians reject all councils after 1 Ephesus, call themselves "orthodox", yet are heterodox in the eyes of others, who they would call heterodox in return. It's not what the particular issue is, but that each side then defines orthodoxy as "what we believe".

"it is the only case known to me where it is put about that the Church's position should be the very reverse of NT teaching."

Well, I suppose the Second Commandment is OT, not NT, yet the Seventh Ecumenial Council, followed by those who call themselves "Orthodox" not only allows for, but requires the veneration of images. There is what many would call "fudge" to justify this. The fallibility of councils is not the point. They saw presenting issues in their day, and whatever side they fell on, they called themselves 'orthodox'. 'Orthodox' means little more than 'those things of our belief that we can justify'. Whether it is a council or Scripture that is used to justify one's position is immaterial, since use of Scripture as justification requires the claim that only Scripture has authority, itself a position only called 'orthodox' by those who need it to justify the other points of their "orthodoxy".

Goran,

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Jesus dis not come to condemn because the world already stood condemned.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

If God's wrath is still upon a person, punishment would not be an illogical next step.

From the Small Catechism:

What Does God Say of All These Commandments?

Answer.

He says thus (Exod. 20, 5f ]: I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

What does this mean?--Answer.

God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments.

_come back in 50 years and let’s see how things worked out_ Scott Henthron

The assumption here is that the progress of Churches depends on what sort of doctrines they adopt.

It does not take a great deal of thought to realise that the growth or lack of growth of religious bodies has little to do with doctrines alone. Buddhism continues to expand in the West as a minority faith, Islam is expanding around the world. As soon as central Europe became a place of toleration in the 1500s, a revised Arian and Unitarian view took root in actual churches and expanded rapidly.

No traditionalist, defensive church will do well in the near future. One that is attacking might do better than otherwise, but only among a minority of the population. Liberal and radical churches do not do well, except by occasional osmosis, because they do not represent an obvious amount of difference, unless there is some sort of cultural difference and thoughtful interest.

In other words, they will all be small. There isn't a magic formula to follow, otherwise every church in the land would follow it and we weak and hopeless liberals would just meet in houses for weekly grumbles. Suburbs and cities can have their big churches so long as they do not saturate the market.

There is an issue of selling point and relevance. I spent a lot of time among Unitarians trying to advocate difference without having to agree as a ditinctive selling point. It did not get very far, people want to agree on something substantive, and if you want to be postliberal (definition via appearances and actions) you may as well be in the Church of England. If a number of strongly doctrinal types walk off elsewhere then that postliberal broad and tolerant selling point may be restored better in the Church of England. It won't bring in vast numbers but there might be a better conversation with ordinary and intellectual thought beyond.

Divorce?

"This interpretation was generally put forward by rich people; the reason for this escapes me."

I would have thought the reason rather obvious.

"God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath"

What a terrifying God you believe in and fear. No wonder you have to cling so tightly to the law.

He's not the God I know and worship.

Pluralist: Open evangelicals are not the only ones caught between the Scylla of absolutely conservative sexual ethics and the Charybdis of deconstructive liberalism; indeed I get the impression that Ford Elms and Rowan Williams two are examples of people who proclaim the Nicene Creed with joy, yet do not take a wholly dim view of same sex attraction; yet neither of them would self-identify as open evangelical.

If the split comes, I'd sincerely like to end up in the same communion as those two.

I like that: "The Scylla of absolutely conservative sexual ethics and the Charybdis of deconstructive liberalism"--

I don't agree with half of the statement, but it was very well put. Thank you Siggi.

Conservative sexual ethics is not a horror to be feared and avoided, even though deconstructive liberalism definitely is. The juxtapositioning of these two fails for this reason--you need to find something more hideous than merely having a conservative sexual ethic (a good thing) if you want to find a proper monstrousity to place in opposition to deconstructive liberalism.

Steven

PS-Christopher Shell's post about the 180 degree change represented by the current liberal position is also very good.

"neither of them would self-identify as open evangelical."

Definitely not! Nor closed Evangelical neither. And while I am humbled, I can't be classed in the same category as +Rowan. Thanks for the swelled head, all the same:-)

"But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments."

I see God's blessing in my life daily, and His grace. I am also a partnered gay man. Does this cause some doubt as to your assessment of those to whom God gives His blessing, or am I merely one of the tares allowed to grow among the wheat till the day of reaping? For me, I will not let my fear of God's punishment get in the way of my gratitude at His blessings to me. If I am being led astray by the Enemy, that seems a little odd, since God gets all the credit for what I sincerely believe to be blessings from Him.

"No wonder you have to cling so tightly to the law."

Precisely! Or is it about feeling righteous in the obedience one fails to see in others?

Dr. Shell queries: "This, to mix metaphors, is a 180 degree quantum leap. Are there any other examples of this happening?"

Pluralist has already offered "Divorce."

I'll throw in "Usury."

Next?

Erika,

I absolutely fear the Lord; reverential awe is a perfectly appropriate response to the creator of the universe.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

God's judgment is a reality. Natural and moral law bears this out and executes His judgment all the time. Mistreat your body (the temple of the Holy Spirit) and your life is curtailed. Abuse your spouse and you destroy your marriage. We see the cause and effect of our sin every minute.

I'm shocked that this notion is so radical to you. As I've already shown above, we see God's love and mercy demonstrated with His judgment - these attributes of God are related.

We see a similar progression in II Thes 1:3-10. Also, compare Heb 10:18-25 with what follows in 26-31.

This is all 1C Christianity (i.e. written in 1st C).

Oh dear ! There is a lot of the psychological process called splitting in this piece, not unusual in very 'fundamentalist'settings of all kinds :-

God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments.

Posted by: Chris on Thursday, 23 August 2007 at 2:53pm BST

That great medieval psychologist Julian of Norwich, recognised that 'the wrath is not in god, in us, but in ourselves...'

Scott commented "We cannot see our side as above reproach or serious reform. If we had it so right… would we be in this mess?

Ford wrote on another thread "The interesting thing is those who on the one hand deny that such people exist, while on the other hand promote the myth of the persecuted Church surrounded by a hostile world. They need to believe the abstract "world" hates them because they are standing for God's truth... To acknowledge that it is their own bad behaviour that has driven so many away would explode this myth, and also their self-righteousness...."

Some are bemused by the camel through the gate of Jerusalem corruption "This interpretation was generally put forward by rich people; the reason for this escapes me."

One of my simple rules of thumb when considering the pros and cons of such things is the "WIIFM" factor. Whats In It For Me.

Rich people want theology that says its okay to be rich and ignore the poor. Companies want theology that says its okay to take now, leave desecration and not worry about sustainability. Thus violence lovers and merchants like just war theology. Misogynists want to be told its okay to abuse and insult women. Limited souls with little faith always want someone who is lower than them on the pecking order, GLBTs are the rung below Jews for many souls. The cruel or greedy like theology that condones evictions, genocide or cultural assimilation by force; the taking of others' property, livelihoods or wellbeing.

Christopher. It's not a complete 180-degree. Matthew 19:12 "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men...” I would interpret that some are born GLBT as promised in 2 Kings 20:18-19. In order to have peace, we need to accept that some of our descendants will be GLBT. However, we should not condone duress or molestation that distorts a souls sexual development and identity.

As Scott says, things don't look pretty. Iraq, Gaza and Darfur are awful. The holocaust, Rwanda and Cambodia were unmitigated disasters. We have to repair the wall, and that means protecting all the stones, including our GLBT descendants. Where there is a denial of grace there is a chink that lovers of tyranny can use to undermine the whole wall.

"Next?"

Women in the Church.

Well according to Chris we not only have to kick the gays out but also their children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren. Isn't that the clear and literal meaning? We will end up with a genealogical research service rivaling Salt Lake City.

BTW for the uninitiated, what are Open Evangelicals?

Another question for the uninitiated: If some of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels can be treated as examples of hyperbole, is that also true of the sayings of St. Paul? Also, what is the criterion for judging whether a specific saying is hyperbole?

_Open evangelicals are not the only ones caught between the Scylla of absolutely conservative sexual ethics and the Charybdis of deconstructive liberalism_ Siggi Pålsson

Obviously I don't accept that deconstruction is the Charybdis of anything.

The comment referred to Rowan Williams and Ford here. BBC Parliament is at a loose end and replayed the lecture on Wilberforce Rowan Williams gave in Hull. Being a deconstruction type I noticed that between the lines he made negative comments about liberalism and secular liberals, but his favourite word there, as so often, was "questions". When you read him it is like entering a world of mirrors, with a nuance to the left and a nuance to the right to make a point. Being a bit of a deconstructionist, then, I like to ask what all this boils down to - and usually it is narrative. It is narrative this and narrative that. You get the impression (or I do, and I am not alone) that Rowan Williams is this secret postmodernist who has pushed the art of handling narrative detail to such perfection that he sounds right in there, "able to say with joy the Nicene Creed". I do see Rowan Williams in that area around postliberalism and countermodernity, as the postmodern view is sometimes called, otherwise called Radical Orthodoxy. I always remember Don Cupitt referring to the bishop in Monmouth, who was very much affected by the postmodern approach to theology, and of course that narrative approach is there, the difference being the detail he applies.

Yes, it is likely that there are indeed those on the Anglo-Catholic side who are cut across by the current widening division. I suspect, however, that Rowan Williams is not one of them, and in any case the theoretical Church which loses the hard rignt would be one in which he could flourish, with all his theology in all its detail.

The fact is that the Anglo-Catholics have had their division already, and he did found Affirming Catholicism with others; the evangelicals have yet to split.

But, Chris, we no longer live in the 1st century, but the 21st, and what worked then does not work now. Similarly, what works in premodern nigeria does not work in late modern Britain.

Christianity needs revision. A single church body cannot contain ideas which have virtually nothing shared other than a name.

”It is difficult imagine that someone who considers the liberation of homosexuality from all prohibition ever being silent before any who say that homosexuality is sin, and vise versa. Without the ability to say this is our spiritual culture and that is yours, each with contradictory forms, can we remain one communion?”

I’m with John Henry. This is not Faith, it’s Culture. Anti Modern Social Politics, not Beliefs. Nothing to do with Theology.

Also with Pluralist: “Some think the Christian faith can negotiate with the secular/pluralist in tension with them (modernist liberals), others that the faith works within them (postmodernist liberals and radicals), others that it must resist and defend from the plural/secular (traditionalists of old denominational subtypes) and others that it must resist by attack (conversionists, the likes of Akinola and so on). This is why the homosexuality issue quickly becomes a broader issue about doctrines.”

Within living memory (1960ies), the “passages on the gay issue” were still as changed in the 12th century (Parisian Versio vulgata) to pro Chastity; that is pro Mandatory Celibacy and pro other Church (the Roman) and Empire political “issues” of Scholasticism.

“PS-Christopher Shell's post about the 180 degree change represented by the current liberal position is also very good.”

It is quite mistaken. But no look, no see. The Emperor is naked ; =)

The Book of Concord (Discord) was Approved and Signed by about 2/3 of the (Sovereign) Princes and Imperial (=Free) Cities who had once signed the Confessio Augustana in 1530 (Count Georg III Ernst of Henneberg signed in 1530 for his father, and in 1579 for himself).

It was first published on 25th June 1580. The 1584 edition reckons as definitive.

Except Melanchtthon’s Tractatus papae of 1537, the Book of Concord was first published in Sweden in 1730 in Concordia pia (= anti Pietist Government initiative).

The new and controversial part, the anti Calvinist and Phillippist Formula Concordiae, was Signed from 28th of May 1577, after having been in preparation from 1573, when the Elector & Duke of Saxony threw out the Crypto Calvinist and Phillippists from the University of Wittenberg.

The Elector & Count Palatine of the Pfalz bei the Rhine and other militant Calvinist who were dead against this Doctrinary declaration of their enemies, the “Gnesio Lutherans” (“the 2nd Martin” Chemnitz, Drs Andreae, Selneccer, and other spiritual great grandsons of Dr Luther +1546), had to sign for constitutional reasons.

The 1555 Peace of Augsburg gave vast political (Liberty) and economic (annexation of church territories) privileges to those Princes only, which had signed the Catholic (= for all) Confessio augustana in 1530.

Others, the non Catholics; zwinglians, sacramentalists and other sectarians and heretics, were outside Catholicism in a Constitutional, Political and Social limbo.

The 1580/1584 Book of Concord includes:

1) the 3 Creeds of the Ancient Church;
the Apostolic (Roman baptismal formula before 230, 5th century Gall),
the Niceno-Constantinopolitan (Chalcedon 451 + Charlemagnes Visigoth “filioque” of the Council of Frankfurt in 795), and
the “Athanasian”, only ever used in monasteries for “Hours” (Visigoth 670, Frankish 795).

2) The 1530 Catholic (= General) Confessio augustana (by Dr Phillipp Melanchthon, Coronation Parliament of Charles V, 25th of April 1530. There are 2 more; the pro Calvinist 1540 “Confessio augustana variata” and the quasi orthodox 1547 “Variatissima” ;=)

The (changed) Swedish translation (Confessio fídei) of 1593 (Upsala möte) was only ever published in 1594 (read: “Historical documents…” ;=)

3) the 1531 Apology to the CA (by Dr Phillipp Melanchthon),

4) the 1537 Smalcald Articles (by Dr Martin himself. Since he fell ill they were, however, NOT approved at the meeting of the theologians of the Smalcald League at Schmalkalden in February 1537, which was part-owned by Henneberg and Hesse)

5) the 1537 Tractatus de potestate et primatu papae (by Dr Phillipp Melanchthon at the meeting at Schmalkalden. It was not included in the Swedish 1730 Concordia pia – obviously, the Pope never was this kind of “problem” for the Swedish church; the 1510s apart),

6) the 1528 Catechisms of Dr Luther (for lay and clergy, respectively),

7) the 1573/1579 Formula Concordiae (a middle between Calvinist and Roman positions on Sin, Justification, and Works).

Chris quoted a forged John 3:18, (corrected): “Whoever has Faith in him is not to be judged, but whoever hasn’t got Faith is judged already, because his lack of Faith unto the Name of God's only-begotten Son.”

Chris concluded: “Jesus did not come to condemn because the world already stood condemned.”

Seems to me you need to read this again.

Chris quoted a forged John 3:36, (corrected): “Whoever has Faith unto the Son has Life eternally (= timely, for this Age), but whoever doesn’t listen to the Son will not see Life, for God's wrath stays with him.”

Chris concluded: “If God's wrath is still upon a person, punishment would not be an illogical next step.”

To you.

“From the Small Catechism:
What Does God Say of All These Commandments?”

Well Chris, as I told you before, this is about the 10 Commandments, not “the laws of men” (as in Neo Platonist cum Gnosticist morality proclaimed “Judeo-Christian” by the loud mouthed ignorant ;=)

They have yet to be fulfilled;

3 of them have been changed from Cult to “sex”,
1 of them from Household Loyalty of the Husbander to macaroni “adultery” (understood as “marriage breaking” of the wife),
1 of them from Slave trading to “stealing”,
1 from Greed (incl. marriage breaking of the husband ;=) to sexualized “covet”.

Several have been cut or edited (some excised altogether) in different traditions, incl. Dr Martin (who, however, closely follows the Jewish Catechism in Leviticus 19).

The 10 Commandments have yet to be fulfilled; Luke 16:17, Matt 5:18.

The Kingdom.

So I thow in the Sexualizations of the Scholastics (and the Parisian Versio vulgata).

"Conservative sexual ethics is not a horror to be feared and avoided, even though deconstructive liberalism definitely is."

The problem with that is that deconstructive liberalism is something you can avoid for yourself, if you wish, whereas conservative sexual ethics is something you're trying to impose on me, having chosen it freely for yourself first.

Doesn't sound like an equal comparison to me at all.

"God's judgment is a reality. Natural and moral law bears this out and executes His judgment all the time. Mistreat your body (the temple of the Holy Spirit) and your life is curtailed. Abuse your spouse and you destroy your marriage. We see the cause and effect of our sin every minute.

I'm shocked that this notion is so radical to you. "

Yes, Chris, it is profoundly radical and deeply shocking to me.
Because I see a world where the poor are suffering because the sinful rich exploit them, where the innocent become ill and die, where the callous destroy marriages, not only for themselves but their possibly innocent spouses. I see a world where children are brought up in violence, where clothes chains use slave labour overseas to fill their stores, where perpetrators everywhere seem to be getting away with the most awful crimes.

And I see a world where God is continuously trying to break through, to break the cycle of fear and violence, to bring love and peace, and a real understanding of the other person in their full, loveable humanity.

Judgement? Let's leave any possible final judgement to him. Here on earth we are called to love. That's not soppy and woolly liberal, but it's the only possible way of breaking the cycle.

"the theoretical Church which loses the hard right would be one in [Rowan Williams] could flourish" - Pluralist.

This may be true, but consider that there are many who are happy with the current centre of gravity of the CofE (which in my experience is not that ethically conservative). If the 'hard right' sheers off, the centre lurches left. The resulting culture might not be so congenial to the current denizens of the centre ground as they thought. An unintended consequence, but another reason why a narrower tent Anglicanism might be on marshy ground.

"Mistreat your body (the temple of the Holy Spirit) and your life is curtailed."

Punishment here and now. Hmmmm. The Orthodox, to whom I often refer, have an image of God that I believe is far older than this, one that actually DOES contain the image of God held by the first Christians. Yes, He is a God of judgement. Yes, there are consequences to our actions. But, the overhelming image is of a God of profligate wasteful love. In hymn after hymn, He is depicted as seeing and grieving over the suffering we humans brought on ourselves in the Fall. He is the "lover of mankind" who comes to release us from our sufferings so we can walk in the light. It's more a question of emphasis. The God depicted by Evangelicals, far from the lover of Mankind, is the wrathful judge, just waiting for the least slip-up so He can do to us what He forbids us to do to each other: torture, this time with no release of death. It's as though they whisper "God loves you" but shout "HE"S REALLY MAD". For them, the only consequence of the Fall is getting kicked out of Heaven so the Incarnation becomes about letting us back in. This misshapen image of God, one that I think borders on blasphemous, is not the God revealed to us in the Gospels. There, His wrath is almost always directed at those who strictly adhere to the letter of the Law while ignoring its spirit, who believe they are righteous in their obedience as though the legalism of putting only permitted food into one's mouth purifies the sin that comes out of it. Now, where do we find this in the modern world?

Hi Erika-
The 'realities' spoken of by Chris and by you are *both* real. It is not a case of either/or. After all, they are not mutually exclusive.

Hi Ford-
My heavy irony was lost on you, I guess.

Hi Pluralist-
Divorce - absolutely. This was just as much a false step and just as much culturally determined and predictable for that tired reason. That gives us 2, which is not a vast number. Therefore they are 2 very special cases which stand out like a sore thumb. (It has to be said, however, that the dominical words on divorce seem harsh on the innocent partner where there is one. But the dominical words are few - except in Matthew which probably represents later additions - and comprise a general principle.)

Hi Cheryl-
A few months ago we went through the several differences between a 'eunuch' and a 'homosexual'. Though the differences are many, the similarities between 'eunuch' and 'active homosexual' are none that I can see. There may be a similarity between 'celibate homosexuals' and 'eunuchs who were born that way'.

Hi Viriato-
Usury: good, though I was talking about New Testament principles. One of my friends did his PhD on the possible economic consequences of returning to a non-usury society. Many Christians, of course, have not done a 180 degree turn on this one: it is obvious that there can be cruelty in charging interest to the poor.

The main reason why neither divorce nor usury represents a 180 degree shift is that they are both seen as necessary evils. Supporters of homosexual practice, by contrast, see it as a positive good. I still maintain that that is unique. Is it any wonder, therefore that the topic is topical? It would be a wonder if it were not.

Goran said,
"Chris quoted a forged John 3:18, (corrected): “Whoever has Faith in him is not to be judged, but whoever hasn’t got Faith is judged already, because his lack of Faith unto the Name of God's only-begotten Son.”

Chris concluded: “Jesus did not come to condemn because the world already stood condemned.”

Seems to me you need to read this again."

For emphasis, whoever hasn’t got Faith is judged already.

They don't need Jesus's condemnation as they are already under the judgment.

BTW, on what basis do you claim these to be forged and on what basis should we trust yours as superior?

Erika:

That's the point: One cannot equate an evil of excess (such as deconstructive liberalism) and a good (conservative sexual ethics) that is not an excess. The comparison implied by the one who placed these two in justaposition was a false comparison.

As to your next statement: "The problem with that is that deconstructive liberalism is something you can avoid for yourself, if you wish, whereas conservative sexual ethics is something you're trying to impose on me, having chosen it freely for yourself first."

This is absolute rubbish. What do you think the liberals in TEC are doing if not imposing deconstructive liberalism after choosing it freely for themselves? The measure you mete shall be meted back to you . . .

Steven

>>>>Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Thursday, 23 August 2007 at 12:13am BST.

A fine analysis that would be quite helpful in reaching out to our moderate siblings of good will in the pew.

Christopher,
Indeed,and now I have egg on my face! I like to think I have a greater sense of irony than that.

Steven,
I disagree with your assessment that a "conservative sexual ethic" is a good thing. There are many who have suffered much of the negative side of that ethic. Its relegating of sex to "one of the dirty things" results in severe warpings of our sexuality, and has led to things like spousal abuse, violence, sexual abuse, and on and on. As long as sex is the dirty little secret that we don't like to acknowledge, then sexual wrongdoing gets to hide in the dark places and not be found out or dealt with. Sorry, but I cannot see that the conservative sexual ethic, linked as it is with shame and guilt, is any better than the modern liberal one. You'd have to show me that centuries of abuse and violence didn't happen, and you can't. I'm not arguing for license here, just saying that neither seems to be better than the other. You might like to think it's Rome's problem, but the child abuse scandals of the late 80s/early 90s and more recently that have plagued the Roman Church come out of that conservative sexual ethic, compounded no doubt by the imposition of priestly celebacy. We have in it clear evidence of what imposed celebacy does to those who do not have that charism. Paul clearly thinks it is a charism and marriage if for those who are not granted it. Why then has the Anglican Church declared the exact opposite?
And how are liberals in TEC imposing their "destructive liberalsim" on everyone else?

Steven makes a very curious argument, based on the assumption that his position is "good" while the opposing position is "evil." Hence, his entire argument boils down to "you should believe me because I'm right."

I expect he will follow that up with "if you don't believe me, just ask me."

Chris wrote: "They don't need Jesus's condemnation as they are already under the judgment."

Now, that is an Idea straight out of the Evil Spell!

Chris asked: "BTW, on what basis do you claim these to be forged and on what basis should we trust yours as superior?"

Learn some Greek!

Christopher Shell: "Supporters of homosexual practice, by contrast, see it as a positive good."

Rather, liberals see homosexuality and heterosexuality as moraly neutral. We affirm LGBT people as a positive good.

Many people who were once diehard opponents of women's ordination, citing Scripture and Tradition, underwent overnight conversions when they saw women's ministry at first hand. Similarly, people who witness the ministry of gay priests, do not concern themselves with the prurient details of what happens in the privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults, and whether this might conflict with obscure verses of the Bible.

People matter more than doctrine or tradition.

Conservative sexual ethics, like conservative religion, are harmful and repressive.

No place for them in a progressive movement.

Ford:

Your position is obviously deeply felt, but you basicaly have spent a great many words on what is essentially a "straw man" argument. Who said that a conservative sexual ethic has anything to do with sex being dirty? This is your projection and not a very in-depth one at that. I think God's creation of sexuality is wonderful, like the rest of the creation. Of course, like a lot of other things, our sexuality has been and/or is subject to various distortions by the fall. Consequently, like a lot of our other drives and emotions, we have to struggle to keep it on track and within bounds--but BAD, DIRTY?! TWADDLE!

To be Biblically conservative is to seek to conserve and adhere to what the Bible approves and teaches. We know what the Bible approves and teaches--sex as a part of marriage between man and woman. It also teaches that there is another blessed state for some--celibacy. However, it doesn't teach that every priest must be celibate--that is an RC innovation, and has been the source of a good many problems as you well know.

Anyhow, good try--but still off track. And, at least you seek to engage the issues.

Malcolm+:

Hmm. I have yet to read an argument at TA that didn't basically assert that the arguer's position was right/good and the opposing position(s) were wrong/evil. Whether we get into details and specifics often depends on the context as everyone here is used to the arguments pro/con by the other side on a variety of issues. Consequently, your remarks--which are rather snide--don't do much to advance the conversation. You would do better to at least jump in as deeply as Ford and tell me why you think that I am wrong in characterizing a conservative sexual ethic as good and/or deconstructive liberalism as bad.

Steven

Malcolm

And then maybe "if you don't believe me, then I'll make you". That's called forced conversions, it is duress, it is the antithesis of free will.

I'll admit to being snide.

But an argument which presents a caricature of the opposing position is an inherently dishonest argument.

Steven,

You’re forgetting that Academia and the State, if not the Church since Carolingian times, in East and West alike, have preached Gnosticisms against the Spilling of Semen (conceived of as seeds growing on their own, without fe-minine influence ;=)

You’re forgetting that Academia and the State, if not the Church since Carolingian times, in East and West alike, have preached that Abstinence is the Ideal, for those that may be able, and that said Abstinence gives A u t h o r i t y to the Abstinent Academics over the lay,

You’re forgetting that Academia and the State, if not the Church since Carolingian times, in East and West alike, have preached that Hetero-marriage is a much inferior state for those week in the Flesh, only,

You’re forgetting that Academia and the State, if not the Church since Carolingian times, in East and West alike, have preached that Hetero-marriage is a “lesser Celibacy”, only morally tolerable for precluding jumps in the hay,

You’re forgetting that Academia and the State, if not the Church since Carolingian times, in East and West alike, have preached that Hetero-marriage is only morally acceptable for the lower classes, to ensure the provision of labour,

You’re forgetting that Academia and the State, if not the Church since Carolingian times, in East and West alike, have preached that Hetero-marriage… (fill in the blank ;=)

Erika said,
"Judgement? Let's leave any possible final judgement to him. Here on earth we are called to love. "

Agreed. Just because we understand the world to fall under God's judgment does not mean we don't love. I do not judge others by stating God will judge.

In fact, evangelism and service to other people should be motivated out of our love for God and the image of God in others. If we love we should help people understand their position before God.

I think this reaction to the judgment can be seen in the parable about Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man experienced the judgment and wanted to warn others of what was to come. He does not judge but loves and seeks to prevent the judgment from coming on his family.

Goran, please tell me this passage isn't actually about a hot day at the beach...

Cheryl,
"it is the antithesis of free will."

But genuine free will doesn't appear to be part of the conservative view of faith anyway, unless it's the free will to do exactly what God has dictated in Scripture and literally preserved through the centuries in translations.

The glorious walking with God and trying to find a Christian path through the muddles of human existence thereby becomes a simple "walk in line, children, or suffer the consequences".

Chris wrote: "Goran, please tell me this passage isn't actually about a hot day at the beach..."

Seems to me you have hade more Sun than you need ;=)

Rick Allen wrote: “..or when Jesus says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."
...they are not distinguishing the relative weight of the ceremonial and moral obligations of the law, but shilling for the Empire.“

Don’t tell me you’re actually c o m p a r i n g the Gospel of God’s Righteousness in Christ to “mint and dill and cumin”?????

Malcolm+:

I agree that approaches that caricature the other side in order to criticize it are inherently dishonest (for those that are not deluded or misinformed anyhow). And, such posts are rampant at TA. In fact, I would estimate that around 90% of the posts at TA could be subject to this cricism. However, my comments did not caricature deconstructive liberalism as far as I can recall. I merely set forth a value judgment: it is bad.

On the other hand, you have yet to explain why my characterizations of conservative sexual ethics as good and deconstructive liberalism as bad are incorrect.

Steven

I quote from the Nigerian communication referred to by Colin Coward, August 19th above, showing the quality of the exegesis involved:

“Thus it is clear from the passages considered that the Old Testament regards homosexuality as an atrocious and unnatural act. The Mosaic Law is against it and stipulates capital punishment for the offender. It is classified among the most offensive crimes like idolatry involving the sacrifice of children, having intercourse with animals, or marrying a woman and her mother.”

Now seriously, Torah never meant “Law” in Judaism. Not even “law”. That notion comes from Alexandrian Philosophy. Nor is it “Mosaic Law”; it’s the Tradition of the Elders.

LXX Greek specific Theological/Technical “nómos” (cf kläro-nom-äsousin: take part in, be party to) means (in order of frequency):
1. the 10 Commandments, as handed down by God to Moses and received by him
2. the Tradition of the Elders (also handed down and received)
3. civil law (small case, also handed down and received).

You’ll find all 3 uses in Romans (if you dare look for them ;=)

“Death” in the Bible means being out of Communion ;=) Shan’t dwell on that one…

There is no “sacrifice of children” in the text of Leviticus 18:21, “Moloch” was introduced in later translations. The text says Árxonti and to Ónoma tò ónoma tò Ágiån; “the Mighty” and “the Name of the Holy One”.

By all accounts they are references to God.

21 Kaì apò toû Spérmatós sou ou dåseis latreúein Árxonti,
kaì ou bebälåseis tò ónoma tò Ágiån,
egå Kúrios.

And of your Seed you shall not give to the worship of the Mighty,
and you shall not profane the Name of the Holy.
I am the LORD.

“Having intercourse with animals” is a later, misogynous to be sure, addition to the text (Alexandrian? Scholastic?) for it only repeats the contents of the first half of the verse ;=)

23a Kaì pròs pân tetrápoun ou dåseis tän Koítän sou
eis Spermatismòn,
ekmianthänai pròs autó.

23b Kaì gynä ou stäsetai pròs pân tetrápoun bibasthänai;
Mikstaròn gàr esti. (24 words)

And to no quadruped shall you give your Bed,
to beget children.
You dis-honour thereby.

And a wife shall not give herself to any hard quadruped,
it is Mixing.

The gloss is carried further in the Latin: Mulier non succumbet pan jumento nec Miscebitur ei:
quia scelus est. (19 words, 3 added, 4 deleted = 22 words, 4 deleted)

and further still in the KJV: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto:
it is confusion. (23 words, 3 added, 6 deleted = 26 words, 6 deleted)

“Any hard quadruped” is a reference to a (male) Sacral prostitute, spending his life on 4 feet.

Like the first part of verse 23, the second refers to eis Spermatismòn; for conceiving, which is, however, missing from all translations (surprise, surprise ;=)

A passage on Household discipline, Sacral prostitution and Childlessness has skilfully been transmogrified into a Statement (“condemnation”) on Bestiality.

Of the woman.

“Marrying a woman and her mother” does exist though. It is found in Leviticus 18:17, which, however, along with verse 18 is the only one which properly can be said to address “incest” (not surprisingly, since this category was invented by Emperor Louis the pious and impressed upon the Council of Paris in 829 ;=)

Conclusion: As any attentive reader can see for herself, Leviticus 18 divides into 3 parts:

1 – 5 the Ezraic Framing (the imagined Conquest of yore, being the Return in late Persian times 398),
7 – 18 the 7th Commandment (Household discipline; Haustafel to Lutherans – some of it still around in Civil law) and
18 – 24 assorted bits apparently referring to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd Commandments (Cult) and the 8th , 9th, 10th Commandments (Neighbour).

It’s all about Authority in the Household, Cult and Communion Peace. Not sex.

It certainly is most Agonizing, but this is the way our translations of the Bible were made. The purposes are obvious. The effects are well known.

_why my characterizations of conservative sexual ethics as good and deconstructive liberalism as bad are incorrect._ Steven

Let me help. I'll make arguments as a deconstructive liberal, but anyone is free to go on interpreting traditions in a more absolute and doctrinal way as they approach the same liturgical material. Indeed, anything I write is designed to be taken both ways: reconstructs. On the other hand, a sexual ethic that restricts is a exertion of power over others, and leads to people leading closeted and false self-presentations when, within Christian expression, they should be doing precisely the opposite, as best they can. Remember the joke about being gay in Hereford - either in the closet or in the loft? Thus the ethic is harmful, directly: whereas, deconstructive liberalism allows the person to think for themselves, breaks open concepts that look closed but are revealed for the constructions that they are, and therefore this is to the good. In any discussion, if there is a concept to be deconstructed, I'll do it, and then folks are free to make of it what they will.

Steven
"You would do better to at least jump in as deeply as Ford and tell me why you think that I am wrong in characterizing a conservative sexual ethic as good and/or deconstructive liberalism as bad."

You quite rightly objected to Ford's quick categorisation of heterosexual sex as damaging because some heterosexual's sex is abusive and damaging.
It's clear to you that sex can be corrupted and that the important criterion is not whether heterosexual sex happens or not, but whether it happens in the context of a loving relationship.

So the main criterion of a Christian relationship is love, not sex, because sex can be corrupted, true love cannot be.

Can you then not make the mental leap to apply this same principal to same gender love?
The examples against same gender love in the bible are about the wrong kind of sex, because the writers assumed that all people were straight, and that same sex activity was therefore, naturally, perverted.

You and I know that is not the case. Whether the cause of same gender love is genetic or whatever, the truth is that those affected either have no choice or end up loving someone of the same gender so deeply that in the name of love, they choose a same gender relationship (bisexuals).

The only people who have problems with this are those who believe that Scripture was revealed and perfectly written down only once to people living in a totally different culture 2000 years ago.

If you are one of those people, nothing I will say will convince you.

But it you are open to any kind of genuine dialogue, you might at least recognise this as a genuine argument.

Well Steven, let us begin by observing that the label "deconstructive liberalism" is simply a meaningless pejorative.

Let us likewise observe that the use of such pejoratives against one's opponents as intellectually dishonest as the use of other labels (ie, 'orthodox") to create an artificiality about the debate.

I'm not going to "defend" "deconstructuve liberalism" because it is a phrase with neither meaning nor relevance to the discussion. It would be like defending "ickywam puzzledygunk."

Well, this thread has just about run out, but intelligent responses deserve an answer--even if brief.

Malcolm+:

Obviously, others do not agree with you that the phrase "deconstructive liberalism" is a meaningless pejorative. I used it only as a term that had already been put into use by others on this thread--and I considered it to be primarily descriptive. It is pejorative only to the extent that you think that the words "deconstructive" or "liberal" are always bad. I do not. If I had considered the words used to be synonymous with "evil", I would not have bothered to add a further value judgment, i.e., that the thing inidicated--"deconstructive liberalism"--was "bad". Actually, I believe that there are some "flavors" of liberalism that are not "bad" or "deconstructive" in the context of Christianity, Anglicanism, and/or Scripture. Consequently, there was need for a term to distinguish "bad"/"good" liberalism in this context. BTW-You have still not answered my questions.

Erika:

I follow your train of thought. However, I believe that it contains several logic defying leaps which, while absolutely necessary for you to reach your conclusion, invalidate your result. Unfortunately, I think this thread has just about run out--maybe we can bat around some ideas on the subject some other time.

Pluralist:

Thanks for the post. I think there are some other honest deconstructive liberals at TA--Merseymike being a good example. Unfortunately, most liberals here are closet deconstructionists, and attempt to deny the deconstructive nature of their positions and beliefs. It's always hard to discuss things with folks that don't seem to know their own minds or the logical basis/consequences of the opinions they express. (To be continued).

Steven

Pluralist:

Continued---As with Erika, we may be able to follow-up this conversation elsewhere. However, while waiting you can consider how to answer one of my objections to deconstructive liberalism, which is--how do you freeze a cultural/spiritual/moral pradigm into position and make it permanent? Deconstructive liberalism is ultimately based on a progressivist viewpoint, i.e., we know more than our ancestors about all of the foregoing, our paradigm is not subject to negative change (devolution), and further "progress" (if possible) is inevitable. I find the progressivist viewpoint to be, on all counts, a very dubious proposition.

Steven

You quite rightly objected to Ford's quick categorisation of heterosexual sex as damaging."

That's not what I said! My point was that a sexual ethic that is based in an assumption that sex is sinful, dirty, and shameful is damaging. Steven disagrees with this assessment of conservative sexual ethics. All that I can say to that is that the words and actions of conservatives say otherwise to me. Why, for one example among many, did someone stand at Gene Robinson's consecration and attempt to give a list of "gay" sexual practices as evidence of his unworthiness? I suspect, Steven, that your assessment of the conservative sexual ethic as being matter of fact and not at all guided by shame is like my assessment of the "orthodoxy" of liberals: not as cut and dried as we would like to think! I remember in the 80s when younger Evangelicals were writing and talking about how within marriage, consensual sexual expression was pretty much unlimited. It caused quite a stir, as these younger Evos rebelled against the repressive sexual ethos of their parents, then, typically, mined the Bible to back themselves up!
And I see you agree that imposing celibacy on those who do not have the charism is damaging. Not every gay person has the charism of celibacy, either, yet conservatives don't seem to think that damaging them by imposing celibacy on them is such a bad thing. It's horrible when the RCs do it to good straight guys, but quite all right for us to do it to the gays? Presumably, being openly gay, even when monogamous, is worse than any damage that can come from enforced "non-vocational" celibacy.

There are any number of reasons people hold particular positions on the current set of issues. Your false dichotomy assigns all the non-Akinolists to the school of "deconstructive liberalism." That is as ridiculous a bit of rhetoric as the dishonest self-appelation of "orthodox" to describe the Akinolist position.

There have been any number of issues over the centuries on which the Church's position has shifted, either gradually or quite suddenly. These include issues as diverse as pacifism and war, slavery, usury (which originally referred to any lending of money for interest) and more recently the role of women. If the Church can, over time, radically change its position on issues like these, there is no rational basis to argue that, on this one new issue, the discussion must never be opened.

But for me, the issue is less about sex than about schism. There is no rational basis to argue that this issue is the sine qua non of Christian orthodoxy and that division on this issue allows for deliberate acts of schism on the part of the Akinolists.

Did the Americans proceed too quickly in ordaining an openly gay bishop? Probably - though far be it from me to decry the way Sophia chose to direct the electoral synod of the diocese of New Hampshire.

Did New Westminster proceed to quickly in the authorization of blessing same sex unions? Maybe - though no honest commentator can accuse +Michael Ingham of unwarranted haste, since he essentially hung up the process for half a decade after it was originally approved by the diocesan synod.

But I must admit that I prefer the open and honest (if possibly ill-advised) approach of New Hampshire and New Westminster to the nudge and wink approach of the Church of England. And I certainly prefer it to the willful denial of reality that we see from Abuja.

You cannot freeze such a paradigm and make it permanent, Steven, and this is my argument against postliberalism and radical orthodoxy. But it is not about knowing more than our ancestors, indeed it can go back to some really distant ancestors. It is about story.

In the course of thinking, humm, I could put something of this on to my blog - and why not comment there - I then decided to look for some images of said John Milbank. I like to do a spot of cartooning. In the course of this, I came across this:

http://www.killingthebuddha.com/dogma/gods_own2.htm

It is old, and page 1 seems to be missing. But look at how it connects Rowan Williams and Milbank, and I have written here about Williams and the story. This seems to confirm my own suspicions about the basis of Williams' own writing - narrative, narrative, and that those who think he is a paradigm of orthodoxy old style have him very wrong.

Anyway I'll think up something not on conservative sexual ethic - about which I have no interest except to be done away with it - but about this notion of deconstructive liberalism (postliberal, really).

Goran,

Let's step back for a moment.

First you said, "How can anyone imagine that the 3 “uses of the law” viewed from within, of Luther’s theological great-grand-sons of the 1580 Book of Concord, is the same as the most superficial division into 3 from without of ABC Cranmer; Civil, Moral and Ceremonial?"

Having thought about and studied this more, I see your point. Luther is speaking of God's Law (as seen in the Ten Commandments) while Cranmer is speaking of Levitical law. This was certainly a misreading on my part.

Malcolm+:

You state:

"Your false dichotomy assigns all the non-Akinolists to the school of "deconstructive liberalism." That is as ridiculous a bit of rhetoric as the dishonest self-appelation of "orthodox" to describe the Akinolist position."

Even if this were true, which I consider to be subject to dispute, isn't your pattern of labeling people as "akinolists" or "non-akinolists" more of a false dichotomy than anything I have used or intended? After all, you just divided the world into Akinolists, who you apparently detest, and non-Akinolists, who you identify as those sharing your position. It seems you are hardly free to criticize others for putting people into boxes with labels. And, given your tone, you certainly seem to consider "Akinolist" a pejorative label. As to claims of "orthodoxy"--who at TA doesn't try to claim the high ground of orthodoxy? Are you exempt? You certainly don't seem to be.

So, where does that leave us. Hmm. You still haven't explained why conservative sexual ethics are bad and deconstructive liberalism is good. I suppose I'll have to help you out, though you could certainly take lessons from Merseymike or Pluralist. First proposition: A conservative sexual ethic is bad because it does not allow for the free expression of other non-conventional sexualities that liberals believe are congruent with God's will, even though they are not congruent with Christian tradition and/or a straightforward reading of Holy Scripture. Second proposition: Deconstructive liberalism is good because it provides a basis for superseding such inconvenient and unloving traditions and scriptures.

Just a start, but it does give you something to work with.

Steven

Ford:

I agree that your earlier post has been mischaracterized.

My point of disagreement was with your seeming characterization of a conservative sexual ethic as one that viewed all and any sex as bad, disordered, etc.--which seemed to be what you were implying. However, that does not mean that a conservative sexual ethic does not believe that some sexual practices are bad, disordered, etc. And, frankly, my liberal brethren do not really dispute this fact, they just draw the lines in different places. If I suggested that sex with animals, dead bodies, children and/or inflatable plastic dolls was A-OK, most liberals would balk at some if not all of these. This is, of course, quasi-humorous hyperbole intended to make a point--everyone draws the line somewhere.

You have now given me another point of disagreement--you seem to support the idea that if God had intended someone to be celibate who couldn't satisfy their sexual desires in accordance with His will (whatever those desires may be), God would have given them a charism for celibacy. I can't see that. God does not necessarily give out special charisms just because we are unable to satisfy our desires in one area or another, sexual or otherwise. Sometimes we just have to tough it out. Some tough it out in one area, and some in another. Some also seem to have more to deal with than others. I don't know why, I just have to trust amd do what I can to help.

Steven

Pluralist:

I get the feeling you're not through with your response, but I'll jump in anyway with a few comments.

First, I don't trust RW and certainly don't think of him as tried-n-true orthodox.

Second, I agree that there is a place for deconstructionism. Ultimately, any new paradigm deconstructs and is the result of deconstructing the old paradigm. (This is certainly a truism in the hard sciences).

However, I don't see this as being applicable to God's revelation in Scripture. Though Christians may find it hard to categorize and agree upon the degree to which Scripture has been influenced by the humanity of its writers, they agree that it is not ultimately (or perhaps primarily) a human construct. Consequently, it is not subject to deconstruction in the same way.

Some, such as the EO, also apply this to Holy Tradition as an inclusive concept embodied in Scripture, the Councils of the Church, etc. For my part, I am not willing to go that far, but overall I also approach the subject of deconstructionism at the interface between God's revelation and man--in the developed life and theology of the Church--with extreme caution.

Third, I see liberalism (in general) as merely the latest cultural paradigm struggling for supremacy in the world of culture and ideas. If it prevails today, it may be wiped out by a competing paradigm tomorrow--which may see all of us being beheaded as infidels in a world of Sharia law or being deprogrammed and treated as insane in the brave new world sought by modern atheism. Consequently, I see the need for something more solid, permanent and reliable for society and individuals to use in developing a social, religious and moral paradigm. This solidity is provided by Scripture and supplemented by and in the accummulated wisdom of the Church as the Bride of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit.

Steven

Ford
"That's not what I said!"

Sorry, Ford, I should have spent more time on my comment. I know that's not what you meant, but I also believe that this is how most cons evos will read your comment.
And of course I agree with what you actually did say.

OK, I've written something on deconstruction and liberalism. Hope folks who look like the cartoon. As for the previous posting, about who is writing what for Akinola, there is an additional image of software that some folks could use.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/

Let's help this Steven, because I would not accept your proposition (either?).

First proposition: A conservative sexual ethic is bad because it forces on to some people an inappropriate ethic for their sexual expression in loving relationships, does not allow for change in the Christian tradition, and ossifies interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Second proposition: Deconstructive liberalism is good because it provides a basis for analysing traditions and scriptures and provides a basis from within the tradition for a broader appreciation of faithfulness.

Steven, I do not think Biblical or traditional text is so privileged, so it is open to the full works regarding deconstruction. The Bible has too many contradictions, been already subjected to critical methods (deconstruction takes all this further) for this sense of certainty to rest upon it.

In some ways liberalism is out of date - I'd prefer to say it is built upon by the insights of language, communities, and narrative.

I see Christianity as a series of points of resources, that are brought in as a kind of channel, but none of these are privileged.

My approach is different from many here, in that I go much further, because I am indeed a deconstructionist. I start with the very liberal James Martineau of the later nineteenth century (sorry for being so obscure) and I then apply the end of objectivity-subjectivity in religion to that in relationship to a broad spiritual path.

Chris wrote: "This was certainly a misreading on my part."

Well, it wasn't really you, but the rather extreme Wiki entrance.

(the German wiki is ok)

That's twice now I've not developed a train of thought properly and in consequence misrepresented people or whole groups of people. Time to take a break. Apologies all round, especially to Ford and Steven.

In short, Dr Calvin wasn't de-constructing but innovating...

Steven wrote: “… we may be able to follow-up this conversation elsewhere. However, while waiting you can consider how to answer one of my objections to deconstructive liberalism, which is – how do you freeze a cultural/spiritual/moral paradigm into position and make it permanent?”

Seems to me that this is precisely what the anti Moderns are up to. It will fail, of course.

Steven wrote: “Deconstructive liberalism is ultimately based on a progressivist viewpoint, i.e., we know more than our ancestors about all of the foregoing…”

Now, it would be very interesting to hear you explain where you have heard somebody say anything of the sort?

Or, failing that where you got the idea to smear your fellow Christians with this nonsense. From CS Lewis?

Steven wrote: “I find the progressivist viewpoint to be, on all counts, a very dubious proposition.”

No, you don’t “find”. You start with it.

“Your false dichotomy assigns all the non-Akinolists to the school of "deconstructive liberalism." That is as ridiculous a bit of rhetoric as the dishonest self-appelation of "orthodox" to describe the Akinolist position.”

Not surprisingly, since the same people love to use the words “logic” and fallacy” as an accusation:

“I follow your train of thought. However, I believe that it contains several logic defying leaps which, while absolutely necessary for you to reach your conclusion, invalidate your result.”

“I get the feeling you're not through with your response…”

(that is when they don’t claim they haven’t got the time, or the education, or that substantial aspects of the subject are beyond pale – or simply gusto – or that this conversation really should be going on some un-specified else, and disapparate…)

“Le Troll est mort, vive le Troll!”

Malcolm+ wrote: “But I must admit that I prefer the open and honest (if possibly ill-advised) approach of New Hampshire and New Westminster to the nudge and wink approach of the Church of England. And I certainly prefer it to the wilful denial of reality that we see from Abuja."

Steven wrote: ”… which I consider to be subject to dispute…”

It isn’t. You'll have to contend with that.

“So, where does that leave us. Hmm. You still haven't explained why conservative sexual ethics are bad and deconstructive liberalism is good.”

Apples and Pears.

De-construction is a *method* to look carefully and closely at Concepts. Nothing to do with the (un-)expected result ;=)

Nothing to do with "post" anything. French Lexicography of le Grand Siècle. Louis XIV.

And nothing to do with Liberalism (= which is a method too, but a different method; political, in essence the acceptance of the possibilities of change)

Seems to me you are anti Teleological Theological, trying to put off a certain outcome which you conceive of as inevitable but bad.

“Conservative sexual ethics” (Radical Indo European Neo Platonism cum Gnosticism ravings of the Spilling of Semen) actually isn’t “conservative“ in any sense nor a *method*, but an Ideology, aiming at transforming State and Society, putting its Academic proponents on top.

Steven wrote; “. This is, of course, quasi-humorous hyperbole intended to make a point--everyone draws the line somewhere.”

It isn’t X – but one wonders what? Z? Y? what would you suggest?

Trouble is that you mis-characterize your “liberal brethren” (I don’t get this fixation with politics). They draw the line at consent. Coercion is beyond pale (or the Gospel, decency & c.).

Steven wrote: “Third, I see liberalism (in general) as merely the latest cultural paradigm struggling for supremacy in the world of culture and ideas. If it prevails today, it may be wiped out by a competing paradigm tomorrow – which may see all of us being beheaded as infidels in a world of Sharia law or being deprogrammed and treated as insane in the brave new world sought by modern atheism. Consequently, I see the need for something more solid, permanent and reliable for society and individuals to use in developing a social, religious and moral paradigm. This solidity is provided by Scripture and supplemented by and in the accumulated wisdom of the Church as the Bride of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit.”

There you have it: THE POLITICAL = anti Islamic USE OF THE LAW.

(BTW don’t understand how the Church can be both the Body of Christ and the bride of Christ at the same time????)

Hi Viriato

I should also have added the parable of the talents where the positive aspects of interest are highlighted. It could therefore be argued that the NT is potentially different from the OT on usury.

Likewise the NT is different from the OT on divorce: ie tougher than the OT.

Whereas on homosexual practice the two testaments are much the same.

"First, I don't trust RW and certainly don't think of him as tried-n-true orthodox."

Which is an example of one of the problems of orthodoxy -- who's got it and who doesn't. Defining people in those terms leads us into the kinds of judgments that Christ warned us against making.

"I see liberalism (in general) as merely the latest cultural paradigm struggling for supremacy in the world of culture and ideas."

You say that as if that were important. I share the liberal values of equality, liberty and democracy. I certainly hope these values continue to have a prominent role on the world stage for many, many years to come. I would see it as a collapse of civilization were they replaced with older, discredited ideas and the rule of thuggery.

Pluralist:

Thanks for re-writing my two propositions. I think you are able, for obvious reasons, to put forth a better statement from the 'liberal' side (I use the term advisedly, given the fuzzy meaning). To me, of course, your statement is a bit "loaded" from the reappraiser perspective, but mine probably looked just as loaded to you.

And yes, the crux of our disagreements certainly come down to that one question: Can Scripture be deconstructed--at least as I understand the term. Likewise, I think we would disagree on how far, and freely, one can deconstruct the Church's established tradition, theology, etc. The reason for my position on the first issue is simple: I see Scripture as primarily a divine construct, with human fallibility in terms of writing, choosing and preserving Scripture playing a minimal and probably nonexistant role. The reason for my position on the second issue: Some human fallibility is possible in this area. Consequently, I do not see deconstruction as an approach applicable to Scripture, and remain extremely cautious about its use and application in the second area as well. Conversely, I do not see these limitations as being applicable to other human constructs--where fallibility obviously reigns supreme.

Steven

Pluralist:

Continued--Interestingly, I think we would both be seen as radical and polar opposites by most of the posters at TA--who seem to see themselves as being somewhere in-between--i.e., "a deconstructive approach is possible, but only where Scripture clearly isn't in agreement with our perspective on right/wrong". Frankly, I don't think their position is stable. If Scripture can be deconstructed, then the question of how far it can be deconstructed is up for grabs. The drift will be towards making everything and anything subject to deconstruction as different groups find different things in Scripture that they want to avoid/change. Ultimately, I think the question will boil down to all or nothing.

Steven

PS-I'm gonna get to your blog and check out the article you've written. Unfortunately, no time at the present.

Ruidh:

I tried to make this clear before, but I must not have succeeded very well: I don't consider liberalism as a philosphy/approach or deconstructionism as a philosophy/approach to be innately evil or bad, but only to be evil/bad when wrongly applied.

As a working philosophy, liberalism seeks maximum individual freedom and empowerment. It has also gathered a host of other issues under its broad umbrella, but you have summed it up pretty well as idealizing and seeking equality, liberty and democracy. These are laudable goals and should certainly be sought, within limits, in the relationships between human beings--God's creatures.

What are those limits? Well, some may be purely practical--you're not going to make me equal to Pavorotti by putting me on an opera stage. However, most (for me as a Christian) grow out of the knowledge that God sets rules that "limit" individual freedom. (I use the term "limit" advisedly as it could also be argued that His rules maximize human freedom and potential).

Positively stated, God commands me quite simply to love Him and my neighbor. Negatively stated, he tells me not to do a large variety of things that are not consistent with loving Him and my neighbor. Thus, where liberalism or conservativism as social/political philosophies/approaches definitely go wrong is where they violate these limits.

Steven

"quasi-humorous hyperbole"

But, you see, Steven, for many, this equation is NOT "quasi-humourous hyperbole". This kind of thing is why the "listening process" was so important, and one of the ways those who claim to have listened show that they have not.

"Sometimes we just have to tough it out. Some tough it out in one area, and some in another. Some also seem to have more to deal with than others."

So, when straight men are forced to be celebate by the Catholic Church (backed up by Scripture and tradition, they would claim), that "causes a good many problems", but when gay people are forced to be celebate, that is just something we "have to tough out"? It damages straight people and that's a bad thing, but if it should damage gay people, then, what, it's all we can do, or what can you expect from such a bunch of perverts? Why do I think that while you might think differently, a lot of your co-religionists would not be at all interested in helping gay people deal with the issues that come from enforced celebacy?

Erika:

No need for an apology or a break from my standpoint. It looks like we could continue our conversation here for the time being if you would like. I had thought this thread was on its last legs, but it seems to be destined to continue for a while. It makes me wonder what the record is for posts under a topic? As I write, this one has already surpassed 200.

Steven

Steven, I am under no obligation to "defend" these false positions you create because I do not hold them. How can I possibly believe that "deconstructive liberalism" is good when I have clearly stated that the phrase is meaningless?

Perhaps, sir, the onus is on you to demonstrate that I am a deconstructive liberal, since I deny it, while you maintain, despite that, that I have some obligation to defend the integrity of this position that I don't hold.

In the meantime, I decline to play your silly word game.

Indeed, if you would do me the courtesy of responding to things I've actually said instead of jousting with straw men, you might note that I do not see this current issue as being about sexual ethics at all, but about power.

On the point of false categories - your duality of "conservative sexual ethics" and "deconstructive liberalism" is intellectually dishonest since there are a range of views on the besetting issue and many (indeed most) do not fit into the two limiting and artificial corrals you demand we all fit ourselves into.

Finally, on the use of the term labels.

I have made the point here that any set of labels to describe the various positions on these issues is complicated and the resulting labels will be inherently problematical at best. In general, I refer to "liberals" and "conservatives," both in quotation marks, to signify the broad brush "sides" of the debate. The use of quotation marks is to signify that the labels themselves (while not inherently pejorative) are not entirely accurate in describing all the players.

"Akinolists" is a term I use for a particular subset of "conservatives." Certainly the label - again a convenience, does not apply to all "conservatives." Indeed, I believe it applies to a very tiny minority of "conservatives" - those who are using the present dispute as an excuse to commit a coup d'eglise, who are seeking to overthrow more than four centuries of Anglican understanding about the role of foreign prelates in the governance of the church. And yes, it is a pejorative. But it is a pejorative with some meaning (though admittedly I might have offered up a definition at first use), describing a particular position from the "other side". Unlike "deconstructive liberalism," which is a baseball bat to beat on all and sundry from the "other side" regardless of what they might actually think.

"you're not going to make me equal to Pavorotti by putting me on an opera stage."

But no-one forbids you to go on an opera stage, or at least to try. The limitations are found within you, not set externally.

Peter Berger (sociologist) tackled this question of liberalism, radicalism and traditionalism on a question of stability. He thought that a system that conserved was more stable than one that traded doctrines (as he saw it), the sort of middling position that say loses the virgin birth and bodily resurrection while keeping the incarnation and resurrection itself. This negotiation of maintained contact with the secular/ pluralist world, by giving certain views up, keeps a Christian identity.

There is surely a sociological dynamic involved, but theological content is to be take at face value - genuine positions.

It seems to me that all positions are potentially fragile. The position I hold is sometimes called textual nihilism which is regarded by many as a kind of position of loss and running away. This misunderstands what I call remythologising, an understanding of how myth and tradition work and working with it towards inner and social life and direction. Clearly a liberal position, whether "trade-off" or not, is subject to change, and it too can move to my sort of view. However, a traditional position is subject to rapid collapse, as indeed are evangelical positions. I meet people who had the whole thing sown up, and it went pretty much overnight. What happened to the runner Jonathan Edwards?

A friend who goes to the pub says my view is "too challenging" for her - in other words, it threatens to bring the lot down. It is because she never has been introduced to theological questions. She is a middle of the road Methodist, no extremist, and says she has time for other faiths unlike some, but she just hasn't faced some Christian theological issues.

I'm sure Merseymike, who seems to be grouped with me for clarity, which is unfair to others, wouldn't mind me saying that some years back he retained a kind of theism by which he could not agree with me. Now he is to my theological left, partly for ethical anti-institutional reasons, but he did change theologically. I think my position is robust now, and stable, with a lot of effort put into it, but it does not have to be.

"As a working philosophy, liberalism seeks maximum individual freedom and empowerment. It has also gathered a host of other issues under its broad umbrella, but you have summed it up pretty well as idealizing and seeking equality, liberty and democracy. These are laudable goals and should certainly be sought, within limits, in the relationships between human beings--God's creatures."

So, indeed, liberalism isn't the problem you've made it out to be.

"I see the need for something more solid, permanent and reliable for society and individuals to use in developing a social, religious and moral paradigm."

And that's the fundamental problem, if you uphold liberty, you can't enforce your preferred moral schema on non-consenting adults. Bummer.

I have no intention of defending "deconstructive liberalism." And I am under no obligation to defend this pretendy pseudo-intellectual labour since I am not, nor have I ever been a "deconstructuve liberal."

I don't buy your false dichotomies. Repeat them as much as you like. It won't make them any more true.

As to the use of "Akinolists:"

While perhaps I could have offered a more detailed definition, it is implicit (I think) that I do not assign that descriptor to any and all "conservatives," but merely to those who demand that the solution to the present "crisis" is to have the whole of the Communion submit to governance by foreign prelates. Frankly, a small but loud minority of "conservatives."

Malcolm+:

I believe that meaningful, and probably civil, communication will not be possible between us. I will avoid making any responses to your posts henceforth and would request that you, likewise, pass over mine.

Pluralist:

Essentially, my position is probably close to that of Peter Berger in some respects; however, I think he would probably be coming at the issue from a different direction and with different presuppositions and analytical tools. However, we certainly seem to arrive at somewhat similar conclusions. Still, based on your summary, I think there are some differences. First, I merely posited that is not

Pluralist:

Oops. I accidentally clicked the post button, so I'll try to continue where I left off.

As noted, I believe that an approach that says--'I am only interested in deconstructing Scripture in areas where "I" believe Scripture errs'--will inevitably lead to an approach where all areas of Scripture are subject to deconstruction. Consequently, I think that all groups/individuals that adopt a "partial" deconstructionist approach will gravitate towards your "total deconstructionist" position with time.

The RC believe that this principle also applies to established doctrine (though the EO and others might disagree with the RC about what constitutes established doctrine), and criticize Protestantism generally on this account. However, I believe the RC concern is somewhat exaggerated. If Scripture remains the litmus test for Doctrine, and Scripture cannot be deconstructed, doctrinal deconstruction (and deterioration) will, hopefully, be limited by Scripture. This at least establishes a minimum level, though I never cease to be surprised by the doctrinal errors and absurdities of some folks who claim fidelity to Scripture.

Steven

PS-I've also seen some folks with a solid faith in the immutability of Scripture lose that faith--generally because of some major shock that turned their tidy world (and world views) upside down. However, I've also seen the exact opposite happen to total secularists/atheists in the same circumstance.

Ruidh:

You state: "So, indeed, liberalism is not the problem you've made it out to be."

If I've made "liberalism" out to be a problem in general I probably have not expressed myself very well, or have assumed that it would be understood that I was speaking to the current context, which involves the question of whether "liberalism" and its ideals trump Scripture and, to a lesser extent, established Church teaching. I am contra any "ism" to the extent and when it places itself above God's revealed will in Scripture. Period.

As to enforcing "my preferred moral schema on non-consenting adults"--what people do in bed is not directly at issue here. What is directly at issue is what the Church approves/disapproves. I am in favor of the Church approving/disapproving what God approves/disapproves in Scripture and not allowing any "isms"--including my own--to stand in its way. If that is not your approach, your priorities need to be adjusted.

Erika:

Your conclusion could only be true insofar as God does not enter the picture.

Steven

Ford:

Back in the late 80s and early 90s I taught, over the course of several years and in a large church, a class composed of elderly ladies. Some had living husbands, some were widowed, and some were maiden ladies. The latter constituted more than 50% of the group--for whatever reason (maybe WWII)--and had lived their lives as far as I know as chaste and celibate women. (They were very sweet old ladies, and though many have passed on, I still miss them). The church also had its share of godly old bachelors who had, as far as I know, lived their lives as chaste and celibate men. Likewise, among widows and widowers that I knew there were numerous people living chaste and celibate lives, some from a fairly young age. Throughout the ages of the Church there have always been people who, for whatever reason, were unable to marry and lived chaste and celibate lives. None of the ones I have known were dottier than usual (as far as I can remember), and many seemed to be quite happy and content, or at least as happy and content as anyone else in this troubled world. In terms of percentages, I suppose most of these folks were heterosexual, but many may not have been. Consequently, I see them as being representative in both categories.

Celibacy would not be easy for me, and you make it clear that it is not your preference, but has it every been easy for the vast majority of celibate Christians (Heterosexual or Homosexual)? I think not. Why, outside of modern social trends, has it become an issue (after almost 2000 years) for Christians (heterosexual or homosexual) who are not lawfully wedded together as man and wife to live a chaste and celibate life? Please don't answer with hackneyed arguments about how we now know more than the authors of Scripture. This assumes that an almighty God is incapable of assuring that His Word comes out the way he wants it to, and says what he means--a very dubious proposition. The answer is clear, but I don't expect most at TA to be willing to acknowledge it.

Steven

Steven
"Your conclusion could only be true insofar as God does not enter the picture."

It's strange, but I and those who know me and my life believe that my conclusion can only be true because God enters the picture.

Stephen
"Why, outside of modern social trends, has it become an issue (after almost 2000 years) for Christians (heterosexual or homosexual) who are not lawfully wedded together as man and wife to live a chaste and celibate life? "

I'm not Ford, but may I put my own view, please?
It's not about sex, never has been and never will be.
Sex is just an expression (a wonderful expression, it's true, but nevertheless just an expression) of love, friendship, deep commitment.
There is nothing like coming home to someone who knows you better than you know yourself. Someone who shares your triumphs and desasters. Someone who loves you when the world seems to be against you. Someone who celebrates with you when things go well. Someone who is there for you, come what may.
It so happens that for gay people that closeness can only be achieved with a person of the same gender. Sex? It's nothing compared to the depth of the relationship it celebrates. But it is an important part of it.

If you deny us sexual expression, you also deny us everything else you take for granted in a happily married relationship.

Erika:

My answer was probably too cryptic to make sense. What I wanted to convey was the fact that, whatever our internal and external limitations may be, we are not to do what God forbids.

BTW-I haven't gotten any word from the Lord on my possible opera career, but I'm pretty sure that He'd disapprove--if only to spare the world more pain.

Steven

"maiden ladies."

Might some of them been lesbians? They had them back then too, you know.

"chaste and celibate women""

"As far as (you) know." Exactly. I'm not one to pry into other people's private lives, but you're acting as though sex wasn't invented till sometime in the 1960s! Ward and June Cleaver were a myth! I worked in a senior citizen's home. They certainly weren't as chaste as you would like to think. We're talking sex between those who are not married, sneaking off to a broom closet for a tryst, and on and on. Just because people of that generation didn't talk about it doesn't mean they didn't do it. Doesn't mean they did, either of course.

No hackneyed arguments. Answer this: why does it cause problems (as you have agreed) to deny a Roman Catholic priest the companionship of a partner, but it is right and proper to do the same for a gay man or woman?

And speaking of hackneyed, why does it automatically follow that, if our modern understanding leads us to something different from what is in Scripture we are somehow impugning the omnipotence of God? Might God have spoken the way He did to people thousands of years ago out of compassion for their limited human understanding, not saying our understanding is unlimited, or even superior? Presumably God knew how He had created the universe, so is the Biblical cosmology a lie on God's part, was God confused, or was He acting in accordance with limited human understanding? Our understanding is still limited, and will always be this side of the parousia.

Erika:

Your list of "positives" includes nothing that could not have been claimed over the last 2000 years (and possibly back even farther). This is not an answer to the question posited.

Your claim that I am denying you sexual expression is also untrue--I have no power to deny you in such areas, nor does the Church. You are free to do what you want within the limits of the law. The only thing the Church is being asked to do--by both sides--is to acknowledge whether your "activities" are approved/disapproved by God, and to act accordingly within its sphere.

Steven

Steven
"What I wanted to convey was the fact that, whatever our internal and external limitations may be, we are not to do what God forbids.

BTW-I haven't gotten any word from the Lord on my possible opera career, but I'm pretty sure that He'd disapprove--if only to spare the world more pain."

It's not often that comments of TA have me in helpless giggles, but yours did. Can you genuinely be worse at singing that I am?
Sadly, judging by God allowing me to continue to sing (not in public, only in my car and at bad parties), he probably doesn't regulate the minutiae of our lives as much as might be helpful!

But my main point was that there is a genuine difference in what we believe that God allows and forbids.
You know, if I believed that a particular group of people was going deliberately against God's wishes, I would also query their motives.
But I tend to believe their claims that they do and believe, to the best of their ability, what they truly understand God wants from them.

Steven, I'm very serious now:
If we could agree that we all try to do what we genuinely believe to be God's will for us, we should be able to worship together.
The whole movement for splitting our beloved Anglican Community arises only because some of us try to discredit those who don't disagree with us as "ignoring" Scriptures.

Do you think we could agree that we have different ways of interpreting the bible? A lot is at stake!

"we are not to do what God forbids."

I have no idea whether or not this applies to you, Steven, but why is it that there are so many who happily trumpet such statements, yet who quite clearly do what God forbids? Why do they condemn the arguments of those who seek to understand and deal with some kind of compassion with things like homosexuality that they find icky, while having no problem with exactly the same degree of fudging that allows them to do what they want to do? Why, when confronted with this, do they deny that they are allowed to do the things they like to do as a result of fudging or compromising with the world? I have mentioned usury and military service as examples of things that once were considered inconsistent with the Christian life, yet are now called no sin at all. Those who oppose homosexuality, and I believe you might have been one of them, Steven, went to great lengths to demonstrate how such things are not the hypocrisy they patently are, even to the point of suggesting that the OT shows us God approves of war!

Steven
"Why, outside of modern social trends, has it become an issue (after almost 2000 years) for Christians (heterosexual or homosexual) who are not lawfully wedded together as man and wife to live a chaste and celibate life? "

And of course, there is the issue that you will allow heterosexual marriage, but not formal gay relationships.
That makes the whole thing very uneven, because whereas heterosexual people have a real choice re committment vs. celebacy, gay people do not have that choice, although we were born as innocently sexual as anyone else.

Pluralist:

BTW-I checked out your blog comment on liberal deconstructionists in the theological arena and found it very interesting--to the extent I could follow it. The fact that I could not follow it very well is my problem, not yours. Generally speaking, I'm completely unfamiliar with the names, faces and concepts of the folks you discuss. Consequently, a lot of it went over my head.

Also, I loved your description of yourself as a "textual nihilist" and should have mentioned it before--this seems to me to be a very cogent and concise way of putting things. What is very evident is that your nihilism in this context is balanced by a very strong affirmation of what are, overall and otherwise, positive values. Otherwise, I'd find it a very scary thing indeed.

Still, I like the term and continue to believe that textual nihilism, as you term it, represents one of the only two (at least relatively) stable and viable positions vis-a-vis Scripture--all or nothing. Consequently, if I am a dinosaur and my way is dying out--as some at TA seem to believe--you are the wave of the future. Those who are only "partially" given to textual nihilism at present will become full-fledged textual nihilists with time, and me and my kind will become diminishingly important and eventually extinct. (I'll wait for the TA cheers to fade before I try to say anything more).

Steven

No, Steven - the answer isn't clear. Quite simply, the Bible is wrong, and the men who wrote it knew nothing of gay sexual orientation.

I do not buy this scripture first and bulwark argument, simply because of the knowledge of Presbyterian Puritans and (in the US) congregationalist Puritans. They were Calvinists who, so sure of the Bible, wanted to subscribe to nothing else. They were not liberals (the Open Trust Myth came later in the nineteenth century in order to hang on to trinitarian origin trust funds), and did not intend any evolution of faith. Trusting in the Bible alone, they dropped their Calvinism and moved through Arminianism, and their trinitarian beliefs were not sufficiently supported. On the other hand, the English Congregationalists who maintained credal and other rules retained their Calvinism for a long period. Then, in this Presbyterian line history, along came very biblical and ideological Unitarians, who read their Bibles straight off the page. They believed in miracles and the resurrection, the lot. But they gave the label Unitarian and were denominationalist. Later on they battled with those who retained a Presbyterian parish mentality - who welcomed German biblical critical methods. The two sides battled, and the biblical literalists lost. A broader view took hold, one of subjective individualism, where the Bible was open to critical understanding.

It is doctrine that leads to one reading of the Bible over another, not the other way around, because we have the experiment where doctrine was excluded and not found, even when there was a literalist reading, and then confirmed by a more critical reading - a critical reading that curiously gives more space for a sort of trinitarian view as a sort of proto-development that some trinitarians express today.

Steven wrote: “If Scripture remains the litmus test for Doctrine, and Scripture cannot be deconstructed, doctrinal deconstruction (and deterioration) will, hopefully, be limited by Scripture. This at least establishes a minimum level, though I never cease to be surprised by the doctrinal errors and absurdities of some folks who claim fidelity to Scripture.”

What you are saying is that Doctrine is more important than the Holy scriptures (always in the plural) of the Bible. And that the x to make a certain way-out Doctrine unassailable, is to pretend that Scripture does not change ;=)

Nice try.

Steven wrote: “I've also seen some folks with a solid faith in the immutability of Scripture…”

Now, here is a shining example of what happens when one puts Doctrine above the Bible. “Immutability” is a Heathen concept. Not in the least Biblical but Alexandrian Philosophy.

Steven wrote: “I am contra any "ism" to the extent and when it places itself above God's revealed will in Scripture.”

It’s you own (faulty) reading (that of novel and sectarian Calvinism) not God’s revealed will.

Never forget that.

Steven wrote: “Celibacy would not be easy for me….”

I find it very strange that you all say this…

Steven wrote: “… and you make it clear that it is not your preference, but has it ever been easy for the vast majority of celibate Christians (Heterosexual or Homosexual)? I think not.”

And your conclusion?

Steven wrote: “Why, outside of modern social trends, has it become an issue (after almost 2000 years) for Christians (heterosexual or homosexual) who are not lawfully wedded together as man and wife to live a chaste and celibate life?“

Honestly, 2000 years ago, as well as 500 years ago, and 100 years ago, there was only ONE lawful way to be “wedded together as man and wife to live a chaste and celibate life” (or, if you prefer the late Modern take: “wedded together as man and wife”).

The Civil law way.

There was no distinct “Church” way before Roman Canon law (1243) – and it impressed itself on God’s good Creation with difficulty. From the Absolutist 1918 edition of the Corpus iuris canonici until 2nd Vatican (which re-defined the Church from Neo Platonist institution in the World of Ideas to the People of God).

Steven wrote: “Please don't answer with hackneyed arguments about how we now know more than the authors of Scripture. This assumes that an almighty God is incapable of assuring that His Word comes out the way he wants it to, and says what he means – a very dubious proposition. The answer is clear, but I don't expect most at TA to be willing to acknowledge it.”

I can give you an other one (hackneyed or not): his fixation with the (non) Spilling of Semen is Heathendom. Indo European Philosophy. Hellenism from Alexandria.

And yes indeed, it predates Christendom.

I am afraid, however, that it’s anti God, anti Cosmic, anti Creation, anti Christ, anti Church, anti Bible, not least anti Jewish.

Not valid.

Stephen,

I have been in pastoral relationships with many single people of the sort you describe, both as a confessor as and a spiritual friend, and while some of them were celibate, many were not, or had not been in their younger days. And good for them, i say, for being more various than people like imagine. I think you have a rather quaint view of people, and a faulty view of celibacy, which can be a burden, or a vocation, or a gift from God, or any combination of the three. Never presume about the lives of others.

Ford wrote: “No hackneyed arguments. Answer this: why does it cause problems (as you have agreed) to deny a Roman Catholic priest the companionship of a partner…”

But they don’t, do they? They call them Housekeepers. In Germany there are 2 or 3 different semi official leagues of Housekeepers discussing full legalisation of their concubine status.

Steven wrote: “Still, I like the term and continue to believe that textual nihilism, as you term it, represents one of the only two (at least relatively) stable and viable positions vis-à-vis Scripture – all or nothing. Consequently, if I am a dinosaur and my way is dying out--as some at TA seem to believe – you are the wave of the future. Those who are only "partially" given to textual nihilism at present will become full-fledged textual nihilists with time, and me and my kind will become diminishingly important and eventually extinct. (I'll wait for the TA cheers to fade before I try to say anything more).”

Lots of American Politicking in this; “slippery slope” and all…

Whoever mentioned the two-possibilities-only fallacy the other night, BTW?

Pluralist:

I am not a Calvinist-i.e., I do not believe that if you can't point to a specific passage in the Bible on something you can't do it and can't believe it. This is clearly wrong in my estimation and leads to some of the doctrinal absurdities and bad practices that are common in churches/denominations that have fallen away from the Catholic faith. So, "sola scriptura" in the sense that most ardent Calvinists seem to understand it would not apply to me--and I agree that it sometimes leads to some peculiar sects.

The Doctrine of the Church Catholic is extremely important to me, as I've tried to make clear. My understanding of the place of Scripture is fundamentally Anglican and consistent with the Articles of Religion--i.e., Article 20, which states in pertinent part that:

"[I]t is not lawful for the church to order anything contrary to God's written Word. Nor may it expound one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts another passage. So, although the church is a witness and guardian to holy Scripture, it must not decree anything contrary to Scripture . . ."

Consequently, I see Scripture as a litmus test, or perhaps you might prefer "a reality check" when it comes to the development of Doctrine. Doctrine that is contradicted by Scripture is bad Doctrine.

Steven

Thank you for reading what I wrote, Steven, and your kind comments about my positive affirmation.

I do have to repeat my position that all views are potentially unstable, nor do I think textual nihilism is inevitable for a great many people.

The reason is that there are cogent bases for having moderate liberal positions for example based on probabilities (around arguments made by Christians that can hold or fail even in high modernity/ postmodernity).

You might suggest that my viewpoint has a kind of "logical end" to it, but actually it doesn't: when I read Don Cupitt's The Old Creed and The New I can see that is another logical end of the view I have, but his is not one that is religious in any kind of symbolic enchanting way - it is to the point of being seated and white light through the window, and indeed a dropping of what he has called non-realism for a few decades. Each position has points of departure to move on.

It may ultimately be a psychological matter, coming out of the language we share and which gives framing to individual stances.

I've expressed myself elsewhere some interest in the position say held by John Hick, that of a pure transcendence, but I do so close to that position, rather than of that position. I'm signals of transcendence (Berger again). He makes very clear he is a realist, and indeed his is a realist position. In my one position leading to another, the objective/ realist is undermined, and thus so must be the subjective. We speak and then we understand; the common view that we understand and then we speak has been reversed (this is the "revelation" in the work of William James).

So for positive affirmation we have resources, rivers and streams of language available, including the Christian. That is to say, in different cultural settings, a lot of the work has been done before, with interpretations and reinterpretations.

Liddon:

Thanks for your post. It is interesting what impressions we may give from our posts. I was struck by your comment that I had a rather quaint view of people, etc.--all of which implied that I have lead a rather sheltered life and have a fairly unsophisticated view of the world and people. In fact, I am 53 years old with a wife of almost 27 years and five children ranging in age from 7 to 25. I have stood beside the graves of many people dear to me, including my own parents and matured during the late 60s and early 70s. Consequently, my youth included many of the youthful follies and sins, sexual and otherwise, common during that period. My work life prior to graduating from law school was almost solely one of manual labor, including a stretch of years working on harbor tugs among men for whom drinkin', whorin', cussin' and fightin' were the primary recreations. After becoming a lawyer my first work in the civil sphere included divorces where I dealt first hand with the subject of marital infidelity on a daily basis.

Consequently, I do not see myself as being naive or sheltered. And, while I take my fellow Christians at face value and try not to speculate about their "secret" sins (or the sins or their youth)--as I hope they do not speculate about mine--I believe I can safely say (as someone who is not without experience) that most of the sweet ladies I taught and dealt with (married and unmarried) were not involved in illicit romances.

Steven

PS-I agree that celibacy can be a burden, a vocation, or a gift from God (in any combination)--and certainly try not to presume about the lives of others, except where charity demands.

"They call them Housekeepers."

The Anglican phrase for lay people in such circumstances, at least female laity, is "travelling companion". To get back to the point, though, I still can't understand why imposing celebacy on RC clergy, is a Bad Thing and causes PROBLEMS while imposing celebacy on gay people is a good thing, and God's will. Now is this because priestly celebacy is Roman Catholic, and thus of the devil, is it because the stifling of heterosexual sex is unnatural while homosexual sexual activity is unnatural, thus enforcing celebacy on gay people cannot be damaging almost by definition, or what? Why look askance at Rome for forcing its priests to be celebate while asserting it is good for us to do the same to the gays? That some people live celebate lives by choice or by social situation is immaterial. That just looks even more as though the issue with priestly celebacy is that it is Roman, not that the imposition of it is damaging.

Regarding these labels, here is a puzzle:

Is it textual nihilism or nihilist textualism?

http://www.amazon.com/Predicament-Postmodern-Theology-Orthodoxy-Textualism/dp/0664223664

I shall mull over this while I go away and carry on with an abstract painting I thought I had finished yesterday.

Ford:

I may miss some of your points (in trying to scroll up and back to see what you've written and coming back down to this "box" to respond). So, if I do, let me know and I'll come back to them.

On the issues of whether some of the sweet ladies I knew were lesbians, had illicit sex in their youth, or were currently involved in illicit sexual relationships--I believe my prior post on this group notes that some of them may have been lesbians, and my latest post to Liddon is responsive to the rest of your comments.

On Roman Catholic priests vs. homosexuals, my position on whether RC priests should be allowed to marry is based on whether RC Doctrine and Practice is consonant with Scripture and what it says about presbyters (priests). My position on the Church approving active homosexual sex and marriage is also based on Scripture. My most recent post to Pluralist cites Article 20, which is a pretty good statement of my basis for saying that the Church is not empowered to forbid the first or to allow the second.

One of your last questions seems more complex, and I'm not sure I understand your argument, though it seems to be a good "tough nut" of the type I like to mull over. You seem to be saying that God condescended to the level of understanding of the people of the day in using terminology the people of that time would understand in discussing the universe, and hence may have been using this type of terminology in discussing homosexual sexual activity in the Bible? I may be understanding you incorrectly, but would like to engage the issue. Help me out if you can.

Steven

Erika:

I have probably answered some of your queries in my earlier posts today responding to Pluralist, Liddon and Ford. I'm running out of time at this point, but I'll touch on two things you mention.

First, you reference whether someone believes they are following God as a primary determinant in whether what they are doing is right, or maybe permissible. (If I am understanding you correctly). Whether something is right or wrong is seldom determined on a subjective basis. Do we say that someone is not guilty of murder because they thought it was right in the eyes of God for them to murder? Likewise, is the Church to make a determination of whether to approve or disapprove of some activity primarily based on whether the actors believe it is right in the eyes of God? Perhaps if Scripture does not speak to the issue and give us God's perspective, it might. However, where Scripture speaks it reigns supreme.

Second, I understand where you are coming from in terms of music. Some of my happiest times have come in trying to lend my very humble efforts to the singing of some some great choral piece (like the Messiah). I learned a long time ago that the best I could do was to stand close to someone who could really sing and try to blend--and time has not improved my voice. Still, I love to do it when I can (and until they show me the door).

Steven

Merseymike:

Thanks for popping in. I count you and Pluralist as two of the only "purists" for the other side, though I think you probably have more antipathy for the Church as an institution. Still, your thinking is clear, clearly expressed and rock solid in terms of your presuppositions. I don't agree, of course, but it is refreshing.

Steven

Steen,

I will agree that this exchange has become uncivil.

I suggest that part of the reason for this is your oft repeated demand that I defend "deconstructive liberalism." It seems that your argument depends on the assumption that anyone who questions "conservative sexual ethics" is therefore a "deconstructive liberal."

I will not (and frankly cannot) defend an ideology I do not hold.

I will admit that I have allowed this odd debating technique of yours to get under my skin and have therefore probably posted far too much of my frustration.

Respond or not. It really is no never mind to me.

Pluralist:

We are probably speaking at cross-purposes in terms of the subject of "stability". I am not speaking to your ultimate vision or paradigm (or anyone else's for that matter). (I hope that we all continue to grow and develop in terms of our viewpoints and spiritual lives).

I am merely speaking to deconstructionism as an approach or tool to use in approaching Scripture. From that standpoint, and in the context of our discussion of deconstructionism, I see the two polar extremes being: No Scripture is susceptible to deconstruction, OR All Scripture is susceptible to deconstruction. Consequently, the intermediate position would be "some, but not all Scripture is susceptible to deconstruction".

I see this last position as being innately less stable than the former two. However, I acknowledge that my use of the term "stability" is problematic. Unfortunately, I can't think of any other word to use. And, frankly, I also don't believe there is "stability" in any absolute sense in any viewpoint we may adopt--as humans are subject to change and vacillation (at least where God's Holy Spirit is not propping us up). However, I do think some viewpoints are inherently more "solid" from an intellectual standpoint and therefore innately less likely to shift and change. Hmmm. I'll keep thinking about this and see if I can come up with a better way to state my proposition.

Steven

Steven,
My comment about homosexuals versus priests is not about whether any position is Scripturally based, for the sake of this discussion. You seemed to have agreed that enforcing celebacy on Roman Catholic priests can be damaging to them as human beings. It distorts their sexuality, and, in time and given the right environment can lead, I believe, to the kinds of sexual abuse that we dealt with in the early 90s. Why then do you seem to think that enforcing celebacy on gay people, which I think is exactly the same as forcing it on Roman clergy, is NOT equally damaging? Why is it acceptable to put gay people at risk for a particular kind of psychological damage when you think it is wrong to expose presumably straight RC clergy to the same risk? We can talk later about whether or not God wants gay people to be exposed to that risk, for now, the issue is why such exposure is, for you, acceptable in one group but not in another.

As to your other question, yes, that's pretty much it. You can't deny that there are things in Scripture that are patently wrong. The thing is, how can Scripture be both True and yet get points wrong, and even contradict itself? The scientific inaccuracies, the internal contradictions, the obvious political propaganda of things like Kings/Chronicles, even John 21:23 all make me unable to have the certainty of the literality of the Scritpures that many do. Yet, I believe them to be true. So I have to reconcile how a complex document can be true, yet be wrong in many points that are anything but minor. This is one of the ways.

Steven,
"Scripture reigns supreme"
This is where we fundamentally disagree.

It's Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not "and Holy Scripture".
The Spirit guides the church throughout the ages and helps it to find it's path through the muddle that is the human condition.
The Anglican way of understanding Christianity is through Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

Thus, the church's position on ursury, divorce etc. has changed over time.

In the case of same gender love I would say that the church is still in the process of determining its position. It may well be that it ends up believing that same gender love is contrary to God's will. But it is equally possible that it changes its mind.

My own view is that there is sufficient serious pro-gay theology around to at least allow the validity of a positive Christian approach.
My personal wish and hope is that the church will eventually come to that conclusion.

But whatever the church will conclude will be a theology arrived at through the prayerful reading of Scripture, AS WELL as the application of Christian tradition and reason.

On the narrow point, about application to scripture of deconstruction (rather than a theological position), though even now I must say certainly not all biblical criticism is something to do with postmodern deconstruction, I would apply it to all. Question is, do some people apply such techniques to some and not all.

There is a problem of terminology here. Some use say source and redaction criticism without being deconstructionist - they are looking for objective truth. Deconstructionism implies a play of meanings, a focus on the reader and meanings that arise in the reader from doing the reading, including all the negatives and opposites and even humorous quips that arise and collapse back into the text, and it further means a focus on imagined and researched cultural meanings when they were written and who for. In other words, deconstruction implies interpretation on interpretation.

On the less specific understanding, when we looked at the Bible in the Bishop's Course recently, we applied critical commentary across the board, that is to say we did not privilege one piece of text any more than we privileged another. Why should we have done? We compared texts, we had the Greek and Hebrew presented, we looked at bits added, what intentions were and the issues at the time.

In another group meeting, we looked at Article 20 and the comment was made (not by me) that it is almost impossible to quote one piece of scripture and find you are not contradicting another. Anyway the view seemed to be that these are indeed historical documents or a historic relevance, and that's it, and thus we moved on. My own view was that the creeds are brought out of the museum case for liturgical use and put back again, but that the Articles stay in the glass case.

Steven wrote: “I see the two polar extremes being: No Scripture is susceptible to deconstruction, OR All Scripture is susceptible to deconstruction. Consequently, the intermediate position would be "some, but not all Scripture is susceptible to deconstruction".”

What difference would it make?

Most people don’t even read in. The only Bibles you read are corrupted translations.

There are Roman bibles (both Latin; the Parisian Versio vulgata and Sinaiticus-based NAB 1970 and the Imprimatur RSV 1972), there are Lutheran bibles (Luther 1523, Swedish 1541, Danish 1526/1529), Calvinist bibles (Piscator 1604 – “the Strafmichgott-Bibel”, how the Lutherans laughed at that one! ;=), Pietist bibles (Berleburg 1742, 6 vol. in Folio ; =O, Mormon, Jehova’s Witnesses, and even more extreme mid to late 20th century Dynamic Equivalent bibles, you name them.

And when I tell you of the systematic State and Rome distortions you stay mum; YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY!

If the entire Bible was “deconstructed” don’t you think God would speak to his Prophetesses and Prophets anyway? Would he not speak to his Church?? Do you think there would be no Church??? no Gospel????

If the entire Bible was “deconstructed” you would loose your precious Dogmatisms, that’s one fore sure, that is your rhetorical ploy of justifying them with the Bible – but they are not based on the Bible anyway, so why does it matter?

This is Don Quijote de la Mancha, charging… And it’s Politicking. No Faith, no Honour in sight!

RE Dr Hooker "Tradition" is NOT mentioned, it's really Reason, Reason, and Reason:

"What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of Reason; after these the Voice of the Church succeedeth.

That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of Reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever."

Dr Hooker: Of the Laws of the Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39, 8-14

"The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in the Controversies of Faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of the Scripture, that it be repugnant to another…"

Dr Hooker: Art. XX in The XXIX Articles of Religion

SCRIPTURE (uncountable: all scriptures) or THE scripture: specific scriptures)

… containeth all things necessary for salvation…

1. what Scripture doth plainly deliver = REASON.

2. some warrant in Scripture = REASON.

…not beyond what is written (1 Cor 4:6)

1. silence in Scripture,
= May not be required of anybody.

2. what is contrary to Scripture. Error.

3. what is repugnant to the Scripture. Error.

REASON

1. what Scripture doth plainly deliver
= What anyone unlettered may conclude.

2. some warrant in Scripture
= What the lettered may conclude.

The VOICE of the Church ( ≠ “Tradition”, mutatis mutandi, but change in continuity)

1. what the Church thinks and defines to be true or good in her Councils (but Councils err).

Ford:

I don't agree that celibacy is necessarily damaging to people. For some people it is probably more of a trial, for some people--apparently--less of a trial. I have known many people who were, as far as I can tell, celibate and seemed to be quite happy and content. Others seemed, at least, to be bearing up.

Some may have been fudgin' as you and Liddon point out, but I don't think they were all, or even most of them, fudgin'. On the other hand, no one who lives is unfamiliar with unrequited loves and tragic bereavements. Some people never find love in this way, this is especially a problem among the severely handicapped and deformed.

In whatever case, God tells us that our own trials are places for the development of patience which leads to wisdom--i.e., for spiritual growth. Other peoples' trials are places for Christians to show compassion and give help where they can. However, it goes without saying that such help must be congruent with the will of God. God says to visit the one in prison, He doesn't say to lead a jail break. I also don't think that it is God's will that I start robbing banks in order to have more money to give to the poor.

So, yes--I hope to have and try to have compassion for RC priests in their trials and for you in your trials. I also have my own trials, and I hope you will reciprocate. However, while I think the plight of RC priests it the result of bad RC policy, not the will of God as expressed in Scripture, I don't see your plight the same way. I can show compassion in both cases, but I can't say the Church's answer should be yes in both cases based on Scripture, etc.

Steven

Ford:

My own personal experience--having been in churches of both types and under teachers of both types--is that the presence or absence of error and contradiction in Scripture very much depends on the approach taken.

I was first under folks that practically crowed when they thought they could show a contradiction or error in Scripture. They were glad for such things, for the presence of "anomalies" loosened up the game and gave them more leeway for their own favored opinions as well as for saying those whose approach is different are fools.

On the other hand, when I came under the teaching of those who were not so interested in finding anomalies, but in expounding the Word of God as Truth, I found that most of the anomalies went away. Most of the apparent anomalies that had been the subject of much crowing disappeared under closer and more patient analysis and what, if anything, was left was of such a minor nature that I am content that it also has some explanation--even if I have not yet found it. God knows it and will show it to me in time.

You will find that a lot of problems disappear when you start recognizing that figurative and poetic language is just that, figurative and poetic language. It conveys meaning, but should not be literally interpreted. However, that does not mean that its ultimate meaning is changed. When Christ used the term "gehenna" he may not have been speaking about a small valley outside of Jerusalem, but he definitely meant it--as a symbol--to denote something very bad.

Steven

Erika:

Re: Scripture reigns supreme.

A nice jibe--but, my comment was in the context of whether the Church should pay more attention to Scripture or to folks who say they think God approves of their actions.

And, time will tell on the rest. Over time, a lot of "theologies" have come and gone. Many were incorrect.

Steven

Goran:

I don't usually respond to your posts. I think it is a bad idea as a prior attempt showed me that civil conversation would probably not be possible between us. I am not attempting to ascribe blame--it may be my fault (ask Malcolm+). Perhaps we are just too different in our thought patterns, beliefs and convictions.

In any case, I don't post here to get into arguments--I have enough conflicts to deal with in my work as a lawyer. Believe it or not, this board is one way I take a break from workaday worries and conflicts, and I would rather keep it that way.

However, since you seem to be frantically pouring out posts everytime I say something, it seemed worthwhile or at least compassionate to urge you to chill out. I am not interested in getting into a conversation that I think will inevitably degenerate in tone and content. And, since there are plenty of other folks for you to interact with, I can't see the point in you continuing to try to draw me out. On the other hand, if you have some other agenda, you will obviously be governed accordingly.

I just thought I'd let you know.

Steven

Steven,
"A nice jibe--but, my comment was in the context of whether the Church should pay more attention to Scripture or to folks who say they think God approves of their actions."

So was mine.

I'm getting a little tired of being told by you that my comments are "jibes", that I'm illogical and that I leave God out of my thinking.
Is this really the best way of engaging with people who don't happen to agree with you?
After all, it was you who initially started the conversation by asking for reasons of our pro-same gender love theology.

"I also don't think that it is God's will that I start robbing banks in order to have more money to give to the poor."

Some might quibble:

"The poor man hath title to the rich man's goods." (Latimer)

"If there is an urgent and clear need, so urgent and clear that it is evident that an immediate response must be made on the basis of what is available . . . then a person may legitimately supply his need from the property of someone else, whether openly or secretly. Strictly speaking, such a case is not theft or robbery." (St. Thomas Aquinas)

"The bread in your board belongs to the hungry: the cloak in your wardrobe belongs to the naked, the shoes you let rot belong to the barefoot; the money in your vaults belongs to the destitute." (St.Basil)

And I took this, in relation to celebacy of RC clergy:
"has been the source of a good many problems as you well know"

to be agreement with my position. Sorry. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I have no "plight". God has been better to me than I could ever have asked or than I deserved. He has led me on a path of healing and growth "from my youth up". Receiving abundant blessings from God is not a plight.

"You will find that a lot of problems disappear when you start recognizing that figurative and poetic language is just that, figurative and poetic language."

I'm glad we agree! The "anomalies" as you call them, don't go away however. I have posted several times a list of Biblical contradictions posted on the Net by someone with an obvious axe to grind with Christianity. That doesn't negate his point, however. I has been interesting to see the contortions people get into, even here, trying to maintain a more or less literal approach to the Bible while explaining, downplaying or otherwise trying to minimize the issue that such obvious cointradictions cause to their beliefs.

Pluralist:

We seem to be using the term "deconstruction" in different senses. And, yours may well be the more correct sense or use of the term in the realm of liberal theology and Biblical interpretation.

In any case, deconstruction without destruction or reconfiguration I would usually term "analysis"--i.e., recognizing that the whole is comprised of parts that can be taken apart and analyzed, we do so with the understanding of the whole being enriched by better understanding the parts and their interactions.

Deconstruction, as I use it, begins with analysis but proceeds then to eliminate parts. From there it can add parts and/or reconfigure existng parts (though where deconstruction leaves off and reconstruction begins I will leave an open question).

Thus, when the scientist Maxwell deconstructed the then existing theory for the propagation of electromagnetic waves he did so by eliminating a critical part of that theory--the idea of a luminiferous ether as a medium for waves--and substituted the idea that waves could be self propagating in a vacuum. Einstein, likewise, deconstructed a lot of existing ideas of Newtonian physics in developing his ideas.

In the Scriptural arena, I would term an approach to be deconstructive that negated the intent and/or meaning of parts of Scripture in order to achieve a different result. This may not be your approach, or even the proper use of the term in the liberal interpretive context, but that is how I have been using it.

On the question of Creeds and Articles, I probably have a tendency in terms of the former (proper or not) to give them equal weight with Scripture (much like the EO). As to the latter, I find them to be a concise statement of the most basic and fundamental lessons of historic Anglicanism. It is very difficult for me to see how either could be consigned by Anglicans to "a glass case" either temporarily or permanently.

Steven

PS-This doesn't mean that I consider the Articles to be inerrant and infallible, but I still see them as one of (or as part of) the formularies of Anglicanism.

Erika:

No offense was intended by my use of the term "jibe". I was referencing your remark that I was putting Scripture at an equal par with the Holy Trinity--which I considered (I think justly) to be a jibe (or jab if you prefer).

I was not offended by this--and complimented you accordingly. Perhaps I should have said touche! However, as I noted, this was not my intention. I was merely speaking to the proper sources for the Church to use in developing doctrine, policies, etc.

Steven

Thank you, Steven. And sorry I clearly misunderstood you.

Ford:

Great quotes! I love that kind of stuff, and the great thinkers of the Faith can certainly make you do just that--think! And yes, I do admit that there are times for radical action as Aquinas says. I also think that such action can occasionally grow out of a need to redress real grievances with the government or some other authority--i.e., the American Revolution. But, in such cases I am not sure that God's law is being violated. There are always (or almost always) exceptions to any general rule. But, those exceptions remain just that--exceptions. I may lie to save a life, but that doesn't mean that lying is "good" or in accordance with God's will in a general or absolute sense.

Steven

PS-Give me a cite for the "anomalies" list when you get a chance. I like to delve into such things when I have time.

BTW, if it wasn't clear from previous comments, I would be quite happy to have a constructive and civils discussion with Steven.

I do not feel that is possible if I am constantly asked to defend a proposition I do not believe. But if Steven is simply prepared to accept that my position is not based on "deconstructive liberalism" (whatever that is) I see no reason why we cannot discuss the issue.

Not everyone who criticizes Tony Blair is a Thatcherite. Indeed, most aren't.

Not everyone who criticizes George Bush is a fan of Michael Moore. Indeed, most aren't.

And not everyone who questions the recent elevation of sexuality issues to a Communion busting status rejects the authority of scripture. Indeed, most don't.

Of course, conversely, not everyone who advocates a more traditional understanding of sexuality issues supports Dr. Akinola's attempts to split the Communion in twain. Indeed, most don't.

Well the contention is, Steven, that the creeds makes statements not in the Bible, or at the very least assume a direction in the Bible that might not be there. So when people say nothing other than warranted in scripture, I begin to think that some things are not quite what they seem to be.

Malcolm+:

Pax. I think we just spent a few posts talking at cross purposes.

Pluralist:

Re: "Well the contention is, Steven, that the creeds makes statements not in the Bible, or at the very least assume a direction in the Bible that might not be there."

Very Presbyterian/Calvinist. In consequence, most of the staunch Presbys I know elevate the WCF (which they consider to be "more Biblical") over the creeds. They're especially bothered by the "one baptism for the remission of sins" languge, which they rightly see as being contra Calvin's soteriology (though I've seen some intellectual gymnastics at times in an effort to claim adherence to both the WCF AND the Creeds).

I disagree with the contention, but once again, am mostly interested to find this attitude among Anglicans who are not of the Puritan camp.

Steven