It’s often said that the revisionists have a low view of the authority of Scripture, which is true, but it’s more difficult to debate Scriptural interpretations than it is to expose problems in the area of pure logic.

What really offends certain Episcopalians about someone like Archbishop Akinola is that he affirms the falsity of someone else's viewpoint. It seems to them like the reasonable (and Episcopal) thing to avoid affirming that some viewpoint is simply wrong. They suppose that truth is subjective and, in taking this position, their claiming a dispensation for themselves they they’re refusing to any other view.

You don't have to affirm the authority of Scripture to see the logical problem here. Socrates exploded the fallacy of subjectivity for all time with the following question in the Theaetetus. Ponder his logic: "Since he grants that the opinions of all men are true, then would he not be conceding that his own opinion is false, if he grants that the opinion of those who think he is in error is true?"

We can acknowledge that perceptions may differ, but as Aristotle said in the Metaphysics: "Perception is surely not of itself, but there is something else besides the perception and that is necessarily prior to the perception."

This matter of objectivity versus subjectivity pertains also to issues of morality. C. S. Lewis put it this way: “We are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people get their sums wrong, but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.”

We may not know even approximately the nature of the moral requirement in a given instance, and we must remain humble about that, but that doesn’t prove the nonexistence of the moral order. The danger all around us now is that people are forsaking any notion of objectivity in the moral area – even though there is unrecognized unanimity about morality in many areas. Rape isn’t moral wrong just because almost every thinks it is wrong but because, as Lewis said, there is a “real Right and Wrong.” It’s just as real as the multiplication table and the law of gravity. If there is something wrong, there has to be a right that is being violated.

If you’re talking with a revisionist or someone who isn’t sure, see whether this issue of subjectivity is lurking. You’ll probably find that they’ve never been presented with the ancient logic of how subjectivity refutes itself.

Nice piece jfm and it nicely highlights what is wrong with imposing one pure interpretation that is meant to apply in all circumstances to all people for all time. If that was the case, then there would be no such thing as other suns (the earth would still be flat) or nuclear energy (matter would still be solid).

Clavier wrote "...The bishops go to Lambeth first of all as individuals, individually invited, and only secondly as provincial affiliates. This is a fact both they and the rest of us should stress and take in deadly earnest."

Yes, all should take this seriously, not just the bishops. This has been the reality in any community for all eternity. We enter into a parish on the same precepts; we come before God on the same basis. Before God we are all equal, whether we are male or female, human or angelic, young or old, perfect or fallible.

Romans 9:14-29, God will have mercy on whom God will have mercy, God will call his own whomever God wants to call his own, God will harden or soften as and when God pleases, God will cast some for noble purposes and some for common. We are all but players in God's larger game and it is not our place to deny that which God has Created.

1 Corinthians 1:27-2:5 God chooses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; the weak to shame the strong; the lowly things of this world and the despised things — and the things that are not (e.g. angels and transcendent forces) — to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before God. We have come not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

Isaiah 44:24-28 we worship the Lord of the entire universe who overthrows the learning of the wise. The same Lord who allows Jerusalem’s foundations to be rebuilt on the keystone that is the stumbling block for those who can only recite Laws but not live them: for they stumble over the stone of Love that underpins all just Laws.

"It’s often said that the revisionists have a low view of the authority of Scripture, which is true"

It's true that it is often said, but otherwise it is a great calumny.

"Since he grants that the opinions of all men are true, then would he not be conceding that his own opinion is false, if he grants that the opinion of those who think he is in error is true?"

Socrates (and you, jfm) apparently never heard of the paradox?

Truth may be objective---(fallen) human *apprehension* of Truth NEVER is.

[Then again, I suppose it would just be easier for me to say "Akinola is OBJECTIVELY WRONG." And he is. Paradox! ;-/]

I've never met someone who supported gay rights (including the right to marry or be ordained or anything else heterosexuals can do) who thought there was no distinction between right and wrong...only that gays marrying or being priests or bishops was hardly in the same category as the imperatives of the Ten Commandments.

If anything, they are of the opinion that preventing ANY human being from exercising all his/her options in life--including marriage or ordination--was at least as wrong as not honoring our parents.

Since when has bad manners been "logic"?

;=)

Further... it seems to me that being honourably mis-taken or over-stepping (amartía) is not at all the same as being dis-honourably mis-taking - but that some can't tell the one from the other.

Nicely put, jfm, but doesn't the adequacy of any objective ethical argument depend upon the adequacy of the objective data that underpins it? In an objective discussion of sexual ethics, for instance, must one include objective scientific data concerning our sexual lives, data adduced only in recent decades, or is reliance upon Scripture alone entirely sufficient for the construction of an objective ethic?

Recall that when the Episcopal Church of the short-lived Confederate States of America broke away from the larger American church in 1861, the proponents of schism asserted that Scripture supported the cause of slavery -- Roman slaves clearly participated in the life of the early Church, but nowhere does Scripture require, or even mention, the freeing of slaves. Slave owners, they said, were doing the work of Christ by keeping the needs and wants of so many souls few, while taking the dangers of perilous moral choices upon themselves. These arguments in support of the C.S.A. and its cause, and others like them, were presented with passion and complete conviction. You might argue that, in retrospect, it is easy to distinguish where their arguments went astray (after all, the world's first manumission societies for the freeing of slaves were created by the first generation of Christians and, at the least, the Southern reading of Church history was very selective -- and while they were technically correct in their reading of Scripture, they did rather conveniently forget about the Golder Rule -- try following that as a slave owner), you would never have convinced them at the time, because their reading of the "objective" facts that underpinned their "objective" moral and Scriptural arguments was narrowly selective and grounded in their own self-interest, racial bias, and ignorance. They were passionately convinced that Northern abolitionist Episcopals were religious and theological revisionists of the worst sort.

So -- there is indeed a real right and a real wrong. We are certainly in agreement on that! But it does not offend me at all that Archbishop Akinola "affirms the falsity of someone else's viewpoint." Since I affirm at least the partial falsity of his viewpoint in the matter of sexual ethics, I'd be a hypocrite indeed if I were so offended. Rather than offended, it would be more accurate to say I'm skeptical of the moral, ethical, and Scriptural arguments of conservatives that seem to so consistently misread the objective facts of the case, whether that case be slavery, modernization (in the controversies over the Book of Common Prayer), women's full inclusion in the life of the Church, or the full inclusion of Gays and Lesbians.

Actually, almost everything jfm states is demonstrably false -- I have yet to discover one "revisionist" who does not believe that Akinola's viewpoint (i.e., his desire to kill gay people) is false (& immoral & evil & just plan wrong).

jfm is spamming blogs everywhere with that comment, over and over again. I've already run into three on which s/he's posted the same exact thing.

Thanks Peter and others, for summarizing the questions that so many of us have, inquiring into this odd new entity, the realignment equation: Presuppositionalist Christian Beliefs=Objective Truth.

That such assumptions and hermeneutic frames begin, by defining empirical data as irrelevant and out of bounds, must surely be one of the strangest operations of this unacknowledged intellectual strategy, which so often claims that it is just perceving and embracing everyday, common sense realities.

But - if we now have any common sense realities about queer folks as The Hot Button Realignment Issue - it surely must be that they do as well in work, and love, and relationships, and life - as exclusively straight (and exclusively conservative?) citizens do. Across a wide ranging and inclusive, for better, and for worse. And, so far as this everyday truth being common sensical - we still know it in our work teams, neighborhoods, and schools - and churches? - even when AB Akinola clearly does not - yet?

So far as progs and libs believers taking scripture in a high and serious manner. What is more demeaning and belittling to scripture in the long run?

To claim that it is well nigh infallible and closed or finalized as we currently understand it, thus rending scriptural authority vulnerable to every new empirical finding that could possibly come down the turnpike as neuroscience and genetics unfolds over the next hundred years?

Or, to intentionally seek a best practice range of inquiring hermeneutics that allow us to hold scripture in one hand, plus the empirical data in the other as we carry out our open-ended discernments?

Which one of these two intellectual strategies is most likely to get into a terrible crisis, every time some new discovery arises from the New Biology - especially in the domains of neuroscience and of applied genetics?

I claim for the time being: A two-handed hermeneutic holds a much higher and deeper view of the authority of scripture than a one-handed, conservative (and likely, Reconstructionist?) hermeneutic.

They may go as individuals, but after the effort of meeting the Episcopal Church as a whole through its House of Bishops and through the effort they made to work with the communion, it would be a strange response if individuals were invited or disinvited (as Fulcrum suggested) as this would lead to quite a degree of anger and staying away and even changing the position of The Episcopal Church from one where it is trying to relate itself to a slower Communion.

bls

Sometimes a soul has a "revelation" and is then full of unchecked enthusiasm to share it with as many souls as possible. Surely you have seen a freshly "born again" Christians?

A parent encourages their toddlers in their first steps, they don't taunt them about their lack of coordination or that they fall on their diaper cushioned bottoms. Some of my most delightful moments are watching toddlers who just learnt to jump: at every opportunity they practice jumping, at the bus stop, in the shopping queue, whilst their parent is greeting a neighbor. Their little faces light up with joy.

Woe to those who would deprive a child of the joy of its early victories.

Pat

I think you might have just given a gem which I am going to paraphrase "Preventing ANY human being from exercising all his/her options in life - including marriage or ordination - is at least as wrong as not honoring our parents."

Deliberately thwarting or depriving any being of fulfilling its potential or God's decrees is as wrong as not honoring our parents. Who are we to argue that God casts some of us for noble purposes and some for common (Romans 9:20-21). Who are we to argue with the Potter (Isaiah 29:16 & 64:8)

Then there is Jeremiah 18:3-10 or Isaiah 45:9-13 "“Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker… Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘He has no hands’? Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’ “This is what the LORD says—the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands? It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” God will raise up a redeemer in God’s righteousness who will make all our ways straight. “He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but NOT for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty.”

See God's contempt for bought salvation at Zechariah 11:13 and Revelation 22:17 "The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” …whoever wishes, let him take the FREE gift of the water of life."

drdanfee says "I claim for the time being: A two-handed hermeneutic holds a much higher and deeper view of the authority of scripture...."

I bet you do.....drdanfee - why do you think that might be???

I would quite like to have a justification for storing up lots of wealth.....but I notice there are verses in the bible which say "do not store up wealth"......drdanfee, can you use your 2 handed methods to write me a little get out clause to satisfy my greed?

(if you do this well, I will come back to get a sophisticated justification for the odd affair....I am sure you can come up with something sophisticated, drdanfee, and paint everyone that opposes my sins as oppressive and nasty)

NP,
surely, the point is that you have said on this forum before that you would quite like to be wealthy, although you know it's wrong.
You seem to have no problem living with that contradiction and committing that sin again and again - and I guess from the stories of your business travles that you possibly have more money stored away than Jesus would ever have approved of.

Yet, about two thirds of Jesus' teachings are about wealth and power, so one can assume he considered this to be a pretty important point.

Now, why is it that you get away with this sin, while others are supposed to leave your pure church because of what you perceive to be our sins?

There are verses in the Bible which say all sorts of silly things, NP. That's why we need to recognise it as a human production of its time and discard what has been shown to be culturally contained.

Christianity requires revision. Otherwise, as your posts demonstrate, it is little more than an out-of-date rule book for premoderns.

All you need, NP, is a quick course in the basics of the various critical approaches to the Bible (form, tradition, redaction) and you soon see that the one handed approach to using the Bible won't last.

Hello Erika - I was just thinking yesterday that I had not heard from you for a while. Hope all is well.

- the point is that I am not rejecting what the bible teaches just because I am tempted to do so....I do not seek to justify my temptation to be greedy but instead I fight it and repent when I need to do so - not to earn salvation but, as Romans 6 clearly teaches, as an appropriate response to God's GRACE, we do not excuse sin

Thanks for responding NP, but I fear you missed the point: Can you speak to how the current preferred realignment conservative method - which even denies that it is an interpretation strategy - positions the alleged high authority it says scripture has in what is actually, functionally a low and vulnerable place.

It might help to break this request down further into parts: (1) how does a closed frame as method parameter leave our view of scripture in a low and vulnerable place, just because it has no discerned strategies in its best practices tool kits for two-way discernment between/among changed domains and our discernment understandings? Plus a request for an applied, historical study: (2) how is it, that so far every single instance of a traditional scripture understanding which proved contradicted by empirical facts, slowly but surely lost out to those empirical facts? Or, put slightly differently: How is it that every time an alleged high view of scripture traditionally read actually lost out to the empirical facts, that pre-existing high view of scripture did not protect and buffer the received notions against having to cope with the facts?

You attribute personal motives to me - and rather garden variety base motives, at that - when I am asking methodological questions.

Maybe we can talk about how low you think my personal motives to be, after we have finished putting our methodological or hermeneutic cards on the table as it were.

In any case, attempts to carefully consider best practices, inquiry, and methods are not by definition always nothing but desperate and dishonest searches for dodgy personal escape hatches from the wrath-fired lock-downs of Jesus' gospel message.

You're close to embarrassing yourself by sidestepping the method questions.

JFM said: "It’s often said that the revisionists have a low view of the authority of Scripture."

Malcolm dismisses: The fact that something is "often said" does not make it objectively true. Your little fib here is a good case in point.

It is also often said that "blacks are intellectually and morally inferior." Oddly enought, the fact that it is frequently said likewise does not make it objectively true.

All sorts of things "often said" are complete and utter crap. "Jews are money-grubbing and cheap." "Jews kidnap and kill Christian (and Muslim) children." "Islam is a terrorist religion." "Women are too emotional to exercise leadership."

All of these things are often said. And all of them, like your little gem, are objectively false.

Indeed, one might even call them damnable lies.

One could certainly call them bigotted claptrap.

But, NP, you can't deny that you're quite content to repent of your financial sins, without actually changing your life style to become more biblical. Certainly, it’s not so long ago that you mentioned a trip to some foreign country or other, and you have posted here before that you’d quite like to be rich. And HTB is famous for attracting a young, very well off crowd. I have seen the alpha course videos, and they do not spend 2/3rd of the time condemning wealth.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problems with that, but then I'm not the one who claims that the bible has to be taken literally.

If you were genuine in your belief, you would be bombarding us with anti-money posts at least to the same extent as you're campaigning against one single out gay bishop.

I have yet to hear you campaign loudly against the enormous amount of money a Lambeth conference costs, against investing church funds in property, against the astonishing splendour of bishop's robes, the silver used in our churches, the whole cost of keeping the Christian church on the road, against bishops and archbishops from desperately poor African countries flying around the world, ... and against unnecessary foreign holidays, more clothes than we need, wasting money on food, restaurants, entertainment, big cars, excessive air travel ...

Until you're as vocal about all of this, and until you can demonstrate credibly that your own life in this respect is holy, pure and biblical, you will excuse me for believing that you are measuring yourself with a different yardstick than those who commit your personal pet sins.

And please don’t tell me that you repent where necessary. Repentance without change is useless. Otherwise you would have to say that gay people may happily live together as long as they keep repenting!

Welcome back Erika

Drdanfee posited two choices to claim interpretation of scriptures infallibility, closed and finalized; or to intentionally seek a best practice range of inquiring hermeneutics that allow us to hold scripture in one hand, plus the empirical data in the other as we carry out our open-ended discernments?

I chose the latter when God chose to affirm me in a way that even Dawkins could not deny the corroborations. After the shock of grasping the scale of the game, there was the realization to prove that the God of gods existed, that the God of gods is both outside of all space and time yet capable of acting within space and time, of operating at both the macro and the micro, of creating universal laws of physics but able to tweak them to create a miracle. Evolution can occur because God does not age as we age and has an endless consciousness.

God can not be threatened by anything manifest in this reality because God creates all of reality. What can be threatened are human or angelic paradigms and their "sensibilities". God can scandalize, angels, priests, humans. Plus God likes to do it, look at me, some inadequate failed woman who God managed to keep secret for over 40 years. You should have seen the angels tripping over themselves the first few months after they found out I was here - my daughter and I still laugh over some of their escapades.

It is right to trust God. God is not threatened by science, only our current comprehensions of God. The world did not end when it was no longer flat, nor did the universe stop when it became clear the earth circled the sun, nor when we discovered planets around other suns. It is not the sciences that are a threat to humanity; it is our failure to manage our aggression, fear and greed. Angels are guilty of this too. Humanity frightens them, what if they start being able to move through space and time, will the universe survive? Legitimate fears and we need to learn to manage our aggression or we are destined to become extinct on this planet, but, and this is a big but, that is humanity's choice and the angels are not to work to speed the day.

Erika says - "But, NP, you can't deny that you're quite content to repent of your financial sins, without actually changing your life style to become more biblical."
???? The whole point of repenting is to bring your lifestyle into line with God's wishes (as we see them in the bible, Erika - and doing this as a response to God's grace. It is not just saying words...it is turning around, turning away from sin.

drdanfee....I am trying to imagine Peter, James and John having a great discussion with you about hermeneutics by the sea of Galilee!! I wonder if, maybe, you are overcomplicating things? Why would you be doing that??

"A discipline of biblical "hermeneutics", ie of interpretation, has no point unless we are resolved to be obedient." - Professor O'Donovan. His article may help you.
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20061109odonovan5.cfm?doc=151

NP,
"???? The whole point of repenting is to bring your lifestyle into line with God's wishes (as we see them in the bible, Erika - and doing this as a response to God's grace. It is not just saying words...it is turning around, turning away from sin."

Excellent!
In that case I look forward to you repenting that you ever said you'd like to live in a house like Desmond Tutu, that you would like to be rich, and I look forward to a spate of comments against the accumulation of wealth.

I also look forward to you supporting TEC in their efforts to promote the Millenium Development Goals. If I remember correctly, you were a bit scathing about them back in February and believed they were just a smokescreen to hide the real issues.
Now we agree that Jesus focussed on wealth more than anything else, I'm sure you will see the errors of those comments and applaud TEC for pursuing what really matters.

And in the UK, I'm sure to meet you at a Make Poverty History event in the near future.
Things are looking up!

Oh, Erika - do you think you have made a strong point??

I have said many times that I fight the temptation of greed.....never that I justify my greed or the materialism found in Western churches.

You are off topic and seem to think you are proving something imporant.....you talk as if you have me on record trying to justify being greedy or storing up wealth but you do not.

Even if I was like Tutu (talking about poverty but living in an exclusive suburb of Cape Town, where most houses are over $1m), still, two wrongs would not make a right and the talk on poverty is absolutely right....

Again, Erika.....crying hypocrisy is not news....we are all hypocrites (see Romans 7). The point is that only some try to ignore scripture in order to justify sin - rather than repenting, some want to make everyone accept their sin but this just ain' right, especially in the light of God's grace (see Romans 6)

No, NP, you still haven't grasped that we don't believe that gay relationships are sinful.

And we never will. Just because your religion says its so means nothing, because we don't believe in fundamentalist religion.

Oh...sorry. My browser has updated with recent posts, including one by NP.

I'd like a clarification of tone -- are some of these posts, including those by NP, angry? Or do you all know each other well enough through your previous posts here and elsewhere that they are best read as merely vigorous? Don't mean to offend, but I'm puzzled...

Merseymike - it is not the I say something is a sin.....the CofE says in Lambeth 1.10 that certain behaviours are "contrary to scripture" -

this was approved by a majority of the bishops of the Anglican Communion (not by me!) and would be today again (but of course, the Lambeth Palace politicians would not dare have another vote on it as they know they would lose......and seem to have more influence on the ABC than the Primates or bishops of the AC! Tangled webs being woven south of the river.

'But such intransigence is not the Anglican way, and if they push much harder it is they who will be in schism'

The Tablet in my experience normally offer wise and considered comment on political and theological matters - often with the benefit of having had an extra dya or two to consider their leader comments. This comment is spot on - and amongst evangelicals so far only Bishop Broadbent in the UK (ie not Fulcrum and certainly not the schismaniac NP tendency) seem aware of the danger.

Meseymike....I know what you think but I am afraid certain behaviours are "contrary to scripture" as Lambeth 1.10 says (not my resolution but voted for by a majority of CofE bishops and would still be passed today despite your beliefs which are cleary not based on scripture

'...but I am afraid certain behaviours are "contrary to scripture" as Lambeth 1.10 says '.

No need to be afraid a moment longer.
Because, there is not a word in the Bible about same gender relationships.

PERIOD

I know this will come as such a relief to you.

(Unless you count David & Jonathon;or Ruth & naomi; or Jesus & his beloved disciple; or Paul & Barnabus, of course)

NP wrote "...some try to ignore scripture in order to justify sin - rather than repenting..."

I wonder if this is what Jesus was referring to of the teachers of his time who worried about whether Jesus had acted out the ritual to clean the outside of the cup, whilst leaving their insides filthy and selfish...

Then you had better inform the CofE, NP, as they do not follow the letter of Lambeth either!

Peter: this is largely a site for liberals, but NP - a conservative evangelical, posts (very) regularly. The problem is that we know his opinion but he appears frustrated that we have not considered it worth embracing, so repeats the same arguments constantly.

I think that can lead to a little irritation.

NP,
Two wrongs don't make a right, that's absolutely true. And I'm pleased that we have established that financial greed is wrong.

But why is it financial wrongs that can be tolerated, whereas perceived sexual wrongs that have to split the church? And don't tell me you're not tolerating financial greed - I have yet to hear you campaign against it, whereas I've listened to you arguing the anti-gay case for months without ceasing.

You still have not made a convincing case why financial wrongs, which destroy lives and keep people in poverty all over the world, are less important than the sexual "wrongs" between two loving people.

Even if you think they're both equally wrong, you still have to explain the calm acceptance of the one vs the hysterical panic against the other.

Can the only difference be that people who commit financial wrongs know they're wrong and "repent" (although clearly don't change their behaviour!), whereas people who commit what you consider to be sexual wrongs don't believe they are sinning (and also clearly don't change their behaviour)?

Is right-thinking more important than right behaviour?

Peter of Westminster

"I'd like a clarification of tone -- are some of these posts, including those by NP, angry? "

I think some of us are getting exasparated with some people who simply repeat the same arguments instead of engaging in constructive conversations, and who don't appear to respect their conversation partners at all, and I suppose that exasparation comes through at times.

NP has his own style of writing, generally littered with multiple exclamation and question marks (I have yet to work out what they add to the arguments being put). It appears increasingly angry and frustrated, I agree.

But on the whole, the tone on this site is courteous, often warm and friendly, largely very constructive, and ad hominem attacks are discouraged. I hope you enjoy it here!

Welcome Peter

To add to Erika's comment

There are some who simply post here because they fear that if the "alternative" is not posted they have failed.

Their postings become repetitious, and confusing as they have catch phrases that they use across a variety of threads, using question or exclamation marks to portray they are adding emphasis.

There is a long term stand-up joke in Australia about one marginalised politician who over relied on the phrase "please explain".

On TA we substitute the phrase "Lambeth 1.10"

It means nothing, but they use it as stop gap.

Ignore them, the rest of us will engage in meaningful dialogue, if they are being too rude and upsetting you, let us know and we will bat a balls in your direction.

Erika - I am not angry or frustrated. - I sometimes have to repeat things because the "revisionist" approach so conveniently ignores facts (eg Lambeth 1.10, TWR, Tanzania etc)..... if people just pretend certain things did not happen and certain verses do not exist, I have to ask questions and refer to the facts and relevant verses.

Remember, I see God blessing my church richly all the time - and also my own work. I see new Christians coming to faith regularly and growing in maturity and serving so I am quite confident of my position - even if the Lambeth Politicians destroy the Anglican Communion....it does not shake my confidence as I see God working all the time in his church. If he were blessing the liberal churches so richly, I would wonder if they had a point but I do not see much life or health in liberal churches. So, given all the evidence I see to support the view that we should stick to the bible and God will bless us, I am not frustrated or angry that some do not believe or reject God's biblican morality, I am just sad about that.....

Go along to St. Peter's Eaton Square NP - not far from HTB and you might find a thriving liberal church preparing to welcome the ABC

NP: you don't have to repeat anything. We heard you the first time. And we don't agree with you.

Now, how about only contributing when you have something new to say. Otherwise one could be forgiven for thinking that you are merely a troll. You surely realise that none of us are convinced by your opinions?

Mersey - do you realise the irony of your last post?

You don't repeat yourself round here?

The AC has listened for a long time but not been persuaded to get rid of Lambeth 1.10 - but you do not advocate that people for it should shut up, do you?

Sorry - MM, I know you would prefer a whining TA which just had posts saying "oh, those conservatives are nasty" and "we are fighting for justice, led by the spirit" but when I see people ignoring verses, facts or agreed AC positions, I will mention it.....

NP wrote: “Again, Erika.....crying hypocrisy is not news....we are all hypocrites (see Romans 7). The point is that only some try to ignore scripture in order to justify sin – rather than repenting, some want to make everyone accept their sin but this just ain' right, especially in the light of God's grace (see Romans 6)”

Might this be the beginning of an Insight?

Yes, we are all hypocrites – provisionally at least.

But the real point seems to me to be that “some” i n v en t “scripture” in order to say that what others do and don’t is “sin”…

… rather than repenting of their own, very real, ones.

Dear NP, you’re lost in translation.

And you don't even suspect it.

What an Awakening!

NP said: "this was approved by a majority of the bishops of the Anglican Communion (not by me!) and would be today again (but of course, the Lambeth Palace politicians would not dare have another vote on it as they know they would lose......)"

Tell the truth, NP. A very significant minority of bishops opposed including that line in the resolution. Of those, some ended up voting for the resolution despite their reservations over the particular clause. They compromised, NP.

Of course, my lord of Abuja probably objected to that entire "listening process" thing, but voted for the resolution because he knew he'd be able to ignore the bits he didn't like. And indeed, there has been no listening process in Nigeria.

But finally, NP, how can one possibly conclude that the liberals are afraid of the possible outcome of votes at Lambeth. It's not the liberals running around in a panic trying to have Lambeth postponed. That would be your leader from Abuja. He knows he'll lose at Lambeth because a majority of bishops are not prepared to declare against the Americans (and Canadians), even if they disagree with some of the things the Americans (and Canadians) are doing.

Your side has overplayed its hand, NP. And now, even Akinola realizes that he has screwed it up royally. That's why he's desperately scheming to have the match postponed.

Gee NP, if we were to go for a quantitative "who is ignoring the most passages in the bible", I think you would come first amongst all regular TA contributors.

NP, we know they are there. And a report has just come out saying about Lambeth 1:10...

It is not ignored, it is not Holy Writ, and the Anglican Communion is capable of change, and so we wish to change from such fraught documents.

Pluralist - you now see TEC HOB claiming to be Windsor Compliant.....TWR affirms Lambeth 1.10 - not because it is holy writ but because it is based on scripture which most in the AC still hold to

Malcolm - you say "tell the truth" and the fail to show that anything in my statement was not true! Be logical

You post:
"NP said: "this was approved by a majority of the bishops of the Anglican Communion (not by me!) and would be today again (but of course, the Lambeth Palace politicians would not dare have another vote on it as they know they would lose......)"
Tell the truth, NP. A very significant minority of bishops opposed including that line in the resolution. Of those, some ended up voting for the resolution despite their reservations over the particular clause. They compromised, NP. "

In other words, Malcolm, as I said and YOU AGREED above, Lambeth 1.10 was approved by a majority of the AC bishops.....this is the truth (even though you do not like it)

And yet you fail to acknowledge, NP, that:

a) the Lambeth resolution has no juridical standing and merely refects the majority view of the chaps (and a couple of womenfolk) who happened to be present;

b) that the Lambeth resolution is far more nuanced than the one-liner you pretend it to be;

Finally, NP, I've had quite enough of your recurring slander that anyone who disagrees with your narrow and intolerant view of scripture is "ignoring" scripture. That, sir, is a damnable lie and you should stop repeating it.

People of goodwill can disagree on what scripture is says regarding a particular issue, whether it is homosexuality, capital punishment or economics. That doesn't mean that either one is "ignoring" scripture, but rather that they have reached different conclusions. (And the same certainly applies to Lambeth resolutions or Primatial pronouncements.)

Your argument all depends on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is "ignoring" scripture. And that, sir, is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

I don't know the mind of God, and neither do you. We each look at scripture (in the context of the Church's teaching) and come to conclusions. Either of us may be right. Either of us may be wrong. And chances are, neither of us has it quite right.

I'll quote you a nice evangelical puritan like yourself. "I beseach thee, gentlemen, by the bowels of Christ, might ye be mistaken?"

The Church requires 2/3 NP.

This thread could do with a MJ posting. The bishops do not make a church, plus not all the bishops were present, the US was barred from that meeting. So how can "all" the bishops have agreed when the meeting was "stacked".

That's a bit like stating that the breakout conference at Dar Salaam was unanimous, so therefore the main conference was too. Well, it might have been if ABC had not shown hospitality and invited Schori...

"I don't know the mind of God, and neither do you. We each look at scripture (in the context of the Church's teaching) and come to conclusions. Either of us may be right. Either of us may be wrong. And chances are, neither of us has it quite right."

The problem, Malcolm, is that NP and his ilk clearly believe the mind of God was set down once and for all in scripture and is therefore immutable and they know it by reading it.

If that isn't hubris, I don't know what is.

Pat - it ain't hubris - it is is simply that we go by scripture, believing God inspired it and He is not schizophrenic and suddenly contradicting himself to suit VGR.......... and we want to avoid the false teaching that comes from people making up their own religion as they go along (normally, in order to suit themselves, funnily enough)

'...clearly believe the mind of God was set down once and for all in scripture and is therefore immutable and they know it by reading it.'

What of the instability of the signifer ?

None may rest on our fading (withering) laurels

NP is a plant to make wooly liberals, like me, sharpen up our act / thinking !

'the heart of the eternal is most wonderfully kind'

"it is is simply that we go by scripture, believing God inspired it and He is not schizophrenic and suddenly contradicting himself to suit VGR."

But that requires the presumption that a) the authors of the scripture correctly understood what God was telling them in the first place; and b) that you have the same understanding they did (if the first presumption was true at all, that is).

We're all human, NP...we cannot completely understand God's will. But I firmly believe that, little by little, he is letting us gain the knowledge to understand it better, through reason and science. And when that understanding leads me to believe that previous interpretations of the scripture were incorrect--mainly because of cultural inhibitions and misunderstandings, not to mention lack of the scientific knowledge to properly evaluate what God has said--then I will accept what my OWN understanding tells me, rather than the understandings of people who lived decades, centuries, and millennia before me.

All very nice, NP. But neither you nor your bigotted friend in Abuja are infallible. I don't accept papal infallibility and I certainly don't accept your.

I note you ignored my challenge, NP.

Will you admit that an honest person, looking at scripture, MIGHT come to a different conclusion that you without "ignoring" scripture?

Will you even concede that this is valid as a hypothetical construct?

I suggest that, if you cannot concede either of these points, your sould is in grave danger, for you have fallen into the grievous sin of pride.

Well played Pat, Jesus would like you

Luke 12:54-59 Jesus said “…Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time? “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right? As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way...’”

You act as did Peter and John in Acts 4:13-21 When the Sanhedrin "…saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. So they… conferred together. “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.” Then they… commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened."

Today souls are witnessing the miraculous healings of GLBTs and their being accepted as God's children, just as the Potter cast them. There are those who are attempting to stop the evidence of the miraculous healings and their implications from being seen, heard or understood.

1 Corinthians 10:15-17. We speak as Paul did to sensible people; who can judge for themselves. There is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

The veil to the holiest of holies was torn asunder by the Cherubim of the Ark as she moved to rescue Jesus' soul at the point of death. You do not need a priest to commune with God, Christ consciousness is freely available to all who come honestly and humbly before God.

NP wrote: “… it is simply that we go by scripture, believing God inspired it and He is not schizophrenic and suddenly contradicting himself…”

Most “translations” do contradict the Gospel.

BTW, I wonder where you get your prejudices about schizophrenics from, NP.

Same place as all the others?