Monday, 12 November 2007

lawsuits

Updated Tuesday

The Washington Times has an article about Virginia: Episcopal dispute hinges on 1860s law by Julia Duin.

The largest property dispute in the history of the Episcopal Church, brought on by divisions over a homosexual bishop, is likely to turn on a Civil War-era Virginia law passed to govern churches splitting during disputes over slavery and secession.

The Rocky Mountain News has an article about Colorado: Diocese turns up heat in lawsuit over schism by Jean Torkelson.

The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado moved Friday to sue individual parishioners who support the breakaway congregation at Grace Church and St. Stephen’s Parish in Colorado Springs, according to documents filed in El Paso District Court.

The petition asks the court to add 18 people to the diocese’s existing countersuit, which is seeking monetary damages as well as repossession of the church.

The targeted members include everyone on the parish’s governing board as well as the church’s main spokesman, Alan Crippen, and its rector of 20 years, the Rev. Don Armstrong.

We haven’t previously linked to reports of other recent developments in this case. Here are some backfile items:

ENS Bishop deposes former rector Don Armstrong

Living Church Forensic Audit Faults Diocese in Armstrong Investigation

Press releases from the Diocese of Colorado about all this are here.

Update Tuesday
Here is another article about Virginia, from the Richmond Times-Dispatch Episcopal property case goes to trial today.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 10:00am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

1 Corinthians 6:7

"To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"

(this applies to both sides, of course....)

Worth reading the chapter given the issues ripping apart the AC at the moment:
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Corinthians+6

Posted by: NP on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 10:34am GMT

On the subject of the expanded list of those to be sued in CO and Colorado law necessitating their addition. Named in the article is Alan Crippen. Alan Crippen is the President of the John Jay Institute, a quasi-educational organization that "educates" suitable conservative candidates for careers in law and politics and serves as a feeder for them into conservative networks. It received, and may be continuing to receive, free rent at Grace St. Stephens. Prior to his move to John Jay, Crippen was with the Witherspoon Fdn, basically the same model and, I beleive, it was part of the Dobson (Rt Wing Conservative Focus on the Family) family of organizations. Crippen was with Dobson, I believe, for about ten years. Crippen recently was ordained a deacon in the CANA group. A Diocesan spokesperson, in a previous interview, did note that the Institute was a most unusual "ministry" for the Episcopal church as it usually supports such things as pre-schools, soup kitchens etc. I believe that if the diocese should regain control of the property, Mr. Crippen will be soon looking for another location for this "ministry"

Posted by: EmilyH on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 12:44pm GMT

NP:

And what would you have a wronged person do when all other options fail? Is being a Christian to be denied the resource of the civil law?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 2:06pm GMT

Duly noted, NP.

But, then, Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents [as well as] innocent as doves;" and "Make friends for yourself with unrighteous mammon." We are certainly called to turn the other cheek, and to go the extra mile; but perhaps in the mind of Christ even that has limits.

Posted by: Marshall Scott on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 2:18pm GMT

Hello Pat

- following what St Paul says, both sides should be avoiding the courts even if it means being defrauded etc.......

If all we are fighting for is money or property, we should not fight....and if no agreement can be made, we should just give up our rights.....as I said, this goes for both sides. So, if TECUSA takes a CANA congregation to court for their building, even if they mostly paid for it themselves, they should avoid the courts, give TECUSA the building and trust God to provide for their needs. He will....he has a great record of faithfulness to those who obey his word.

St Paul's words are very clear in 1 Cor 6

Posted by: NP on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 2:30pm GMT

Is being a Christian to be denied the resource of the civil law?

In a sense yes, for we are not to look to the courts for vengeance. I kind of agnostic about the property issues, however TEC really seems to desire to expand this to taking individuals to court. A Christian is fight for distributive justice and retributive justice but this moves into punitive justice which Scripture points us to the Lord, He'll repay. So on the second article this moves from a mere property disagreement to a vengeance one, hopefully the civil judge will not allow the courts system to be abused by TEC and throw the motion out or as in Virginia the judge asked why so many were named and said he'd give a ruling if TEC didn't respond.

Posted by: Kevin on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 3:47pm GMT

NP is using good old-fashioned proof-texting. The context of the statement is that of the 1st C. Resorting to the courts then meant participating in the pagan state religion.

The exhortation simply doesn't apply any more because the conditions which necessitated it are no longer present.

Posted by: ruidh on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 3:54pm GMT

NP, enjoys clobber verses from the Bible, taken out of their cultural context.

Paul was writing during the time of the Roman Empire that did not then recognize the emergent Christian movement as a RELIGIO LICITA. Taking matters to a Roman court might have brought on suppression of the Christian mission, if not persecution, by the imperial authorities.

The majority of St. Stephen's/Grace Church, approx. 500 members, have been evicted from their church by the Armstrong secessionists, about 340 members. Under TEC's canons, individuals may leave the denomination but do not take with them church property, which, under an implied trust agreement upheld by the court system in most U.S. states, is vested in the parish as long as the parish is a constituent member of the Diocese. If the parish ceases to be a constituent member, the property reverts to the the Diocese and, in case the Diocese ceases to be a constituent member of General Convention, to the National Church, which will hold the property in trust for the missionary work of the Church in that geographical region.

If the Diocese of Colorado failed in its fiduciary responsibilities to the remaining 500 members of TEC, it would be subject to litigation for gross fiduciary negligence. A society governed by law--as is the U.S.--cannot turn a blind eye to a group of people diverting property from its lawful owner for whatever reasons. THEFT cannot be countenanced.

NP, you may have Bible passages in your arsenal that legitimize theft?

Posted by: John Henry on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 4:02pm GMT

Well, there's an easy answer - those leaving the Episcopal Church hand back the keys to the building. Simple.

Posted by: Merseymike on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 4:34pm GMT

I think a 'property dispute' is a fair term, I think the cries (I do mean cries) of theft are not, at least the civil authorities (who also have things written about theft) have declared it as such.

Posted by: Kevin on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 4:59pm GMT

I am astonished that Virginia parishes would actually point to the church's divisions over the issue of slavery as a precedent for dealing with the present difficulties regarding homosexuality. I presume that in Virginia churches today there is a considerable degree of consensus on the issue of slavery. History and the church itself have judged that slavery is wrong, and those who relied on a fundamentalist approach to the scriptures to butress their support for the institution of slavery are now seen--rightly--as misguided. Surely the parallels between the issues of slavery and homosexuality are too obvious to be missed, and the approach to the scriptures employed by those who would condemn homosexulaity is the same one used by supporters of slavery in the 19th century. If I were a Virginia Episcopalian, I wouldn't be pointing to the actions of 19th century Virginians as a model for how to proceed in the present crisis.

Posted by: Ken on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 5:25pm GMT

Oh God! I agree with NP on this. I don't think not suing people was solely about not taking part in the Roman legal system. It is a sign of our failing as Christians, whether or not the judge before whom we appear is a pagan. So is the tendency to blame each other for the situation in which court work raises its head. But I'm agreeing with NP, so I must be wrong. I need a little lie down.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 5:30pm GMT

As for Kevin's comments, above. It is not vengeance to seek to preserve for the future what those who came before us preserved for us.

A parishioner at our church who is upset at the cost of litgation, and thought the Diocese ought to just hand the property over, was brought up short when I asked him if, when he put his wife's ashes in our columbarium, he assumed that this would continue to be an Episcopal church, so that when his time came, he would have the burial service he wanted, presided over by an Episcopal priest, and would know that his children could put his ashes with his wife's.

Or would it be OK to let some other church take over the property and decide about that for him?

And don't think for a minute that something like that couldn't and wouldn't happen - ask the Episcopal congregations that have to meet in other churches while the squatters occupy TEC property.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 5:33pm GMT

If I'd written such a comment there would have been howls about my being a false teacher.

In God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery e.g. Leviticus 19:15; 2 Chronicles 19:17; Job 32:21-22 or 34:17-19; 1 Timothy 5:21. Jesus understood and was thus challenged in Luke 20:21"“Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth."

Deuteronomy 1:16-17 "...Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God..."

Proverbs 24:23-24 "…To show partiality in judging is not good: Whoever says to the guilty, “You are innocent”—peoples will curse him and nations denounce him." Just as is done in Jeremiah 8:8-13 where God rebukes the greedy deceitful prophets and priests whose lying pens handle the law falsely and proclaim peace where there is none.

Job’s challenge (13:7-10) "Will you speak wickedly on God’s behalf? Will you speak deceitfully for him? Will you show him partiality? Will you argue the case for God? Would it turn out well if he examined you? Could you deceive him as you might deceive men? He would surely rebuke you if you secretly showed partiality."

Habbakuk (1:2-5) pleas: "How long, O LORD, must I call for help…? Why do you make me look at injustice? …Destruction and violence are before me... Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted”. God’s answer: “Look at the nations and watch— and be utterly amazed. For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told."

Which continues at Malachi 2:4-10 "…you will know that I have sent you this admonition so that my covenant with Levi may continue… a covenant of life and peace… you have violated the covenant with Levi,” says the LORD Almighty. “So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people, because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.” …Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant…?”

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Monday, 12 November 2007 at 7:04pm GMT

I'm surprised you report you have not previously linked reports about Don Armstrong. I could have sworn I have read everything you post now on this website in the past.

Completely unrelated - but pertinent on this and any other post...for some reason there are some people's posts who I just scroll past without reading...it is like I have tried and struggled for long periods but almost give up because they should be shorter and snappier.
Sadly this seems to affect both sexes...but more women.

Posted by: Neil on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 12:10am GMT

PS And its not like I agree with what the men write either! But, at leats I tend to read what they write.
Moral: keep it short.

Posted by: Neil on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 12:13am GMT

Under US civil law the leaders of TEC have a fiduciary duty to protect and preserve the assets of the not for profit corporation. If they declined to pursue property claims in civil court, disgruntled members could file suit against them to compel them to do their duty.

Posted by: Richard Lyon on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 1:29am GMT

It's not a matter of suing your fellow Christians. It's about making sure that both sides have all the relevant evidence, and, in the case of an ecclesiastical authority rendering best judgment.

In the US, a civil authority can compel full disclosure of all relevant information, the good and the bad, from all litigants. An ecclesiastical authority can't. It must rely on only that information that those under investigation are willing to disclose.

How this works out...
In the case of +Duncan et al., they will likely be brought before ecclesiastical authorities for abandonment of communion etc.,-- ecclesiastical offences. But, if they are found guilty, it will likely be on the evidence revealed in the Calvary suit litigation. Without that civil action, the ecclesiastical authorities would have had no knowledge of, and more importantly, no way of learning that the alleged offences ever took place. The religious authorities only know what those under investigation are willing to tell them.

By contrast, because an ecclesiastical authority was denied all relevant data in the Armstrong+ case, it may not have delivered the best verdict. In this case, the Diocese requested interviews with the vestry of Grace St Stephen's. It was denied. It requested other relevant data like tax returns, and again, it was denied. The ecclesiastical court rendered judgment on the data it was given, a judgment that may or may not be accurate. Civil action, IRS investigation may indeed vindicate Armstrong+. And Grace St Stephen's has sued to insure their continued control of the property.

In +Duncan's Memo to the GS Steering Committee, he asked the GS to push an agenda at Dar-es-Salaam to end litigation. Litigation was clearly not in his best interest. But only through the civil process can both sides in the ecclesiastical dispute be certain that they are getting all the relevant evidence to insure an accused's best defense and an ecclesiastical authority's best decision.

Posted by: EPfizH on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 2:38am GMT

Merseymike says "Well, there's an easy answer - those leaving the Episcopal Church hand back the keys to the building. Simple."

Sure, that is what I said, based on scripture - you see, I do not fear that MM.

Ford - very amused by your jesting.....but I reckon if we both agree and scripture supports us, we may well be right....

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 7:14am GMT

Ford,
Just as with everything else in life there is no clear right or wrong here. It is impossible to sit nicely in the white corner feeling Christian and holy. Both options, law suit or simply giving in and allowing the bullies to steal your church have moral implications.

Also, I don't quite understand why it's wrong to point out that someone has consistently refused all offers of reconciliation and compromise, and that what they're doing now is actually wrong and their own fault.

I don't often agree with NP either, but there are times where discernment is necesary (not judgement if judgement is taken to mean condemnation!), and where we have to chose what we believe to be the lesser of two bad options.

To me, that's the beauty of knowing that we're all sinners. It isn't about sitting in the corner wailing about how evil we are, but it is about accepting that human affairs are so messy that it is impossible to get them right. Shades of gray, not black and white.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 9:26am GMT

more on lawsuits here

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2007/11/13/a-church-out-of-control/#more-2373

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 2:58pm GMT

Ford:

I'm also in agreement with NP. However, one of the problems is coming up with a venue and method for settling differences of this type. Ideally, one might postulate some type of mediation or arbitration proceeding with trusted Christian mediator(s)/arbitrator(s) and a set of ground rules agreed to by both sides. Unfortunately, though both sides might actually agree to the concept, they would probably spend the next 20 years trying to decide on who to use and what rules to apply.

Steven

Posted by: Steven on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 3:22pm GMT

Erika says "Just as with everything else in life there is no clear right or wrong here."

Erika - many of us do believe in objective truth.......and I think we are in good company.....John 14:6

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 4:29pm GMT

>> By contrast, because an ecclesiastical authority was denied all relevant data in the Armstrong+ case, it may not have delivered the best verdict. In this case, the Diocese requested interviews with the vestry of Grace St Stephen's. It was denied. It requested other relevant data like tax returns, and again, it was denied. The ecclesiastical court rendered judgment on the data it was given, a judgment that may or may not be accurate. <<

Oh, don;t be fooled by the whitewash. Armstrong took loans which were illegal inder CO law -- undisputed in the vestry sponsored review. Armstrong diverted funds from a restricted trust to his children's education -- undisputed in the vestry sponsored review. Grace and St. Stephens underreported Armstrong's income to the IRS until after the diocese review committee had released its list of charges. then they went back and restated several years worth of prior earnings reports. If Armstrong shuts his mouth, pays his back taxes, interest and fines, then there won't ever be an IRS prosecution.

Posted by: ruidh on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 5:23pm GMT

Neil:

Good point about keeping it short and sweet. However, it can be difficult at times, such as when you get a multi-point rebuttal to one of your own posts. This kinda forces you to respond to most or all of the points made, leading to--you guessed it--lengthy counter-posts.

This is the main problem for me. First posts can usually be pointed and succinct, but responding to someone else's multi-point post often leads to responsive posts that are a lot longer than I would prefer.

Steven

Posted by: Steven on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 7:21pm GMT

When I started a few years ago, there were complacent conservatives who claimed there was no biblical underpinning for "liberal" theology and therefore God would never even contemplate their arguments or issues.

Conservatives also like to claim that the Word of God brings healing and that "evil" is driven away by the gospel.

One of our joys last year was getting a couple of conservatives to smarmily comment that the bible can be read in many different perspectives.

Another joy is discrediting those who claim the bible is not relevant for "liberals" or "secularists".

Sure, not everyone will read every posting, some are more relevant than others. I don't write for the ADHD theologians, I write for those who are seriously interested in the bible and its relevance for these debates. I am not going to deprive the motivated a chance to re-evaluate and integrate the bible because others prefer ignorance or are "too busy" or "too important" for the Word of God.

Not every thing suits everyone. I love Goran's scholarly postings but have no hope or interest of developing his talents, yet I still rejoice them being here for those who do enjoy them (and take comfort that someone is covering a base that is not in my talents).

Personally, I love TA's broad range and depth of postings over typically supercilious acerbic retorts that epitomise many other internet forums.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 7:36pm GMT

The Living Church is siding with CANA's forensic audit report, declaring Mr. Don Armstrong not guilty of the charges brought against him by the Colorado ecclesiastical court.

Part of the problem the Diocese of Colorado faced was that Mr. Armstrong chose not to co-operate with the diocesan auditors and make financial documents available to clear his reputation. Nor did his parish leadership give depositions, when requested. Therefore, he has no one but himself to blame that he was found guilty by the ecclesiastical court and, upon review of the verdict, deposed by his Bishop, whom the accused does not recognize, although the diocesan audit pertained to business conducted by St. Stephen's/Grace Church while rector and parish were still constituent members of the Diocese of Colorado.

Mr. Don Armstrong excela at playing the "victim card". +O'Neill and PB Jefferts Schori are the real bullies after all!

How would this kind of subterfuges play out in the real world? His must have been a "dream world" with lemmings pandering to his inflated ego.

Posted by: John Henry on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 10:51pm GMT

ruidh. I have not suggested that Armstrong+ is innocent. In no way would I wish to be him right now and if +Minns swallows the vestry's forensic accountant's report, I would like to suggest some opportunities in the American housing market for him. It is possible that a court procedure, if the case moves that far, would vindicate Armstrong+. It is equally possible that it wouldn't. The vestry claims that they were assured that the scholarship/compensation practice was quite common. One wonders who on earth so assured them. But, the point remains, the ecclesiastical authority could not obtain the data it needed to make the best decision. They had no way to compel production. It is of course true that it was Armstrong+ and his vestry who denied it. Until there is a court proceeding, I must presume Armstrong+'s innocence. I am hopeful that there will be an Internal Revenue Service inquiry and, should the IRS deem it warranted, prosecution. That would assume that they believe that Armstrong+ intended to commit some crime, embezzlement, fraud, tax evasion, whatever. But proving the intention, vs incompetence, stupidity etc., will be difficult and makes their pursuing the case less likely. It seems much more likely that the IRS will ask him to pay the fines and the overdue taxes, a matter between him and them, and we are likely never to know the outcome.

Posted by: EPfizH on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 11:12pm GMT

Neil writes: "for some reason there are some people's posts who I just scroll past without reading...it is like I have tried and struggled for long periods but almost give up because they should be shorter and snappier.
Sadly this seems to affect both sexes...but more women."

"PS And its not like I agree with what the men write either! But, at leats I tend to read what they write.
Moral: keep it short."

Well, Neil, there are different tastes and different attention spans. If you like short and snappy, that is a reflection of your personal taste and not an absolute standard, not something you are entitled to moralize about. The word limit on this blog allows for the more detailed, informative and thoughtful posts which some of us have the interest and the patience to read.

Concerning your view that women offend more than men in this area, I wonder whether you know that it is very common for men to perceive women as talking too much even if they are talking less than, or the same amount as, men. A review of some of the studies on this phenomenon is found at
http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/prejudice/women/

Here is a quote:
"In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:
'The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.'”

You can find lots more on this topic simply by googling "women perceived as talking too much" (but without the quotation marks/inverted commas).

Posted by: Mary Clara on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 11:57pm GMT

Hi Mary

Nice to see Dale Spender's research hasn't disappeared into nothingness.

The other thing that sometimes God loves to affront by using the despised or weak, so that "the authorities" are discredited and/or so that no one may boast (before God we are all equal) e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:28, Obadiah 1:2-10

Mind you there's some also pretty horrible imagery about how God strips and humiliates Zion, as a lesson and witness to the corruption of God's peoples. But the thing is that God also does that to catch souls out e.g. Micah 4:11-13 "But now many nations are gathered against you. They say, “Let her be defiled, let our eyes gloat over Zion!” But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD; they do not understand his plan, he who gathers them like sheaves to the threshing floor. “Rise and thresh, O Daughter of Zion, for I will give you horns of iron; I will give you hoofs of bronze and you will break to pieces many nations.” You will devote their ill-gotten gains to the LORD,their wealth to the Lord of all the earth."

One of my other joys is providing biblical imagery to justify our sensibilities. It is so much fun to watch the conservo's go to swing "you're not being biblical" cudgel like they are used to, and seeing someone else offering up relevant refuting biblical passages with aplomb (even if they don't quote the words). :-)

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 at 9:43am GMT

I should not have made a generalisation about my problem with long posts. The thing is though, that there just happen to be 3 female and 1 male poster who have had, and I am sure still make valuable points - and I have tried over some time to wade through the verbiage. But now, when I see who is posting, my eyes simply glaze over in those cases. That is a pity, and I might be accused of being lazy - but I just wish some people would be shorter and snappier. You are completely right that it is personal taste of course...I hate sermons being overly long and padded out too!

Posted by: Neil on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 at 9:53am GMT

Cheryl mentions "offering up relevant refuting biblical passages "


Cheryl - I ain't seen any "relevant refuting biblical passages" from you which show that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in saying certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture".....

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 at 10:10am GMT

NP - "I ain't seen"

Should read, "I haven't seen". Bible literalism and functional illiteracy make for poor companions.

Posted by: Stephen Roberts on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 at 1:20pm GMT

"relevant refuting biblical passages"

NP, given that you honestly believe that Paul gives you the right to sit in judgement on other people, what's the point of giving you any Biblical passage? You only accept your particular way of reading Scripture. The people with whom you are arguing have a very different understanding, one that you do not think is valid, to the point that you deny its historicity. They cannot give you the refutations you want because they do not argue as you do. It does not give you any pause for thought that they think exactly the same way about your understanding of Biblical interpretation. They are "unsaved", presumably, and therefore wrong. So be it. If you seriously believe Paul allows you to judge, if you think Bible mining is good theology, if you consider Scripture to have authority your opponents and the historical Church do not agree with, if you seriously think the Cross is a symbol of punishment and warning, if you cannot accept that these ideas are NOT traditional Christianity, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, how can anyone argue with you?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 at 2:37pm GMT

Steven,
Dialect, whether geographical or social, isn't functional illiteracy. Sorry, but I natively speak a non-standard dialect, and 'tidden bad English jess coz 'tis not de way you talks. Sorry. Pet peeve of mine. All the same, Biblical literalism and functional illiteracy might not make good companions, but they make frequent ones.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 at 3:50pm GMT

Ford says "They cannot give you the refutations you want because they do not argue as you do."

Not at all, Ford....as you know, there are no verses to show that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in saying certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture"..... this is why people do not "mine" them and refute biblical arguments but rather talk of anything else but what the scriptures say on the presenting issue which is still tearing the fabric of the communion as its seeks rights above scripture.

If there were verses to refute Lambeth 1.10, I am sure they would have been highlighted years ago - but, Stephen, there AIN'T.

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 at 4:15pm GMT

No, Np. You still don't get it. The Bible is errant and wrong in parts - a product of its time. Rights are far more important than the authority of this human production - which contains some good material, but one needs to be selective.

The refutations are simply that the Bible needs to be treated critically and recognising its cultural, historical and outdated premise.

Next you'll be telling me that Genesis is more than a story and has genuine connection with the way the world came to be. Despite the fact that science clearly shows this not to be the case.

No, NP, the problem is your religion. It has no role in a progressive and contemporary society. That's why there does need to be a split, because the beliefs you propagate are little short of risible.

Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 at 10:28pm GMT

NP wrote: "... this applies to both sides, of course..."

"All things equal" - but they are not.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 10:08am GMT

Kevin wrote: "A Christian is [to] fight for distributive justice and retributive justice but this moves into punitive justice which Scripture points us to the Lord, He'll repay."

I thought this whole affair of claiming church property for oneself and one's buddies was "distributive" as "punitive"?

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 10:15am GMT

Ken wrote: "I am astonished that Virginia parishes would actually point to the church's divisions over the issue of slavery as a precedent for dealing with the present difficulties regarding homosexuality...."

Seems that they do not agree with your assessment of Slavery or with the outcome of the American Civil War.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

(I'm sure NP has a quote from Paul... ;=)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 10:22am GMT

"Moral: keep it short."

Intelligible isn't so bad either.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 10:24am GMT

NP wrote: "If there were verses to refute Lambeth 1.10, I am sure they would have been highlighted years ago - but, Stephen, there AIN'T."

Chronology, NP!

There are no verses on Lambeth 1998 I.10, because it's later by some 17 hundred years.

(Nor is there a word "homosexuality" in the Bible until RSV 1947, for the same reason)

"Text without context is pre-text"

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 10:37am GMT

Merseymike....says "Next you'll be telling me that Genesis is more than a story and has genuine connection with the way the world came to be."

Absolutely, it is....this does not mean the world was created in 6 24 periods but Genesis is certainly more than a story.

MM says "The Bible is errant and wrong in parts - a product of its time" Really? Is this because you want to justify certain sins?

You claim to be an Anglican despite not going to a CofE church, I know.
Guess you are familiar with these?

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/thirtyni.htm

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 10:48am GMT

"You claim to be an Anglican despite not going to a CofE church, I know."

And, you go to a church that says it's CoE, but apparently doesn't use anything recognizable as an Anglican service, preferring to be "informal".

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 11:24am GMT

"Is this because you want to justify certain sins?"

Perhaps. Or perhaps he can't ignore these exmples any more therefore must let go of the the idea that the Bible is somehow a consistent document. I believe it is true, and God's words too, NP, but I can't ignore simple fact either. That would be superstitious.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 11:52am GMT

Pat,
Not only is their praxis, by all accounts, not recognizably Anglican, neither is a good part of their theology. I don't know if this applies to HTB, but I was once on an Anglican website that encouraged baptised Christians to pray for the baptism of the Holy Spirit! I never figured out what they thought happened at the font.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 1:24pm GMT

Ford:

You addressed a post to "Steven" that should have been to "Stephen." This is doubtless a quibble on my part, but since I am not excessively sensitive to the use of dialect (and often use it myself), I just want to say watch yo step! Us deliberate users of bad grammar and dialect don't want to be represented as supporting the detractors of such, and don't y'all ferget it!

Steven

Posted by: Steven on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 2:00pm GMT

NP-"Absolutely, it is....this does not mean the world was created in 6 24 periods but Genesis is certainly more than a story."

Whoa, WHOA! Either it is or isn't. Your world of biblical idolatry doesn't allow for such gray areas!

Oh, it's OT, so it doesn't matter eh, like you dismissed the passages concerning the wearing of mixed thread clothing and charging interest in moneychanging.

Weak argument NP. Picking and choosing!

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 2:30pm GMT

Pat - believing the creeds and being in line with the 39 articles probably makes one Anglican......you talk of liturgy but it lses its value if it is not believed.....

Ford, sure, there are inconsistencies but, as you know, nothing which really casts doubt on the Truth behind the whole bible.........
I am not a literalist....we need to read intelligently, looking for the intended meaning of texts in their context and in the context of the whole bible.....I don't think it is "fundamentalist" to agree with our bishops saying in Lambeth 1.10 that certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture", is it?

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 4:14pm GMT

Steven wrote: "I just want to say watch yo step! Us deliberate users of bad grammar and dialect don't want to be represented as supporting the detractors of such, and don't y'all ferget it!"

As I said, intelligible is not bad.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 11:24pm GMT

Steven,
Deepest apologies! Us non-standards gotta stick together:-) Tell me, is there a plural possessive for y'all? Where I come from we used to say 'you' singlar, 'youse' plural, and 'yours 'n' ders' for the plural possessive.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 4:11am GMT

NP wrote: "... you talk of liturgy but it loses its value if it is not believed..."

You are no suggesting people do liturgy they don't believe in, are you?

NP wrote: "Ford, sure, there are inconsistencies but, as you know, nothing which really casts doubt on the Truth behind the whole bible..."

Ah! the soft line defense of 20th century American fundie literalism... Delicious!

NP wrote: "I am not a literalist..."

See above.

NP wrote: "... we need to read intelligently, looking for the intended meaning of texts in their context and in the context of the whole bible..."

Requires intelligence and a whole lot more (knowledge of History/Herstoy, Sociology, the developement of Ideas ;=) one would think...

NP wrote. "I don't think it is "fundamentalist" to agree with our bishops saying in Lambeth 1.10 that certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture", is it?"

Not unless you are implying that the Holy Scriptures (ever in the Plural) of the Church is that "scripture" in the Singular?

But you are - and you are incapable of defending you stance.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 8:23am GMT

chiorboy - you are obviously very ignorant re Genesis.

When it says "day" in Genesis 1, do you think the word means a 24 hour period???

- get a commentary

-this might teach you something too...
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Wg66gWttf-cC&dq=the+case+for+a+creator&pg=PP1&ots=kbn8UlgTMl&sig=i7zuSB3yFJKV1Ki3UY4TKZt67Gs&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DThe%2BCase%2Bfor%2BA%2BCreator%26meta%3D&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1

Posted by: NP on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 9:13am GMT

"I am not a literalist"

Since when?

"we need to read intelligently, looking for the intended meaning of texts in their context and in the context of the whole bible"

Since I began confronting you, you have consistently argued against this position. What made you change your mind? I assume that you will now cease calling people in TEC faithless, aince you are now claiming that their approach to Scripture is not only valid, but one you now claim to believe yourself.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 11:11am GMT

I have come to the conclusion that NP is not a literalist, he's an authoritarian. The Bible means what the authorities he accepts--in this case, the Primates who approved Lambeth 1.10--tell him it means.

In this, he is more Roman than the Romans.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 12:06pm GMT

Ford - even though you have repeteadly called me a "fundamentalist" etc, I have always said that scripture is to be read and interpreted in context....and, as you know, this is perfectly consistent with thinking that our bishops are right in saying certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture"

Posted by: NP on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 12:13pm GMT

"The Bible means what the authorities he accepts--in this case, the Primates who approved Lambeth 1.10--tell him it means."

I'm not about that. If the Primates changed their minds I couldn't see NP and those like him doing the same. I see it more as having a huge blind spot and looking for permission to indulge in it. They will go to whichever authority permits them to continue to preach their pet brand of sinfulness.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 12:53pm GMT

Ford, where you come from, they used to sing the praises of "cod tongues in the spring of the year, fried in maggoty butter." (When we were out your way this summer, my wife tried cod tongues and quite liked them. For some reason she was unwilling to try fish and brewis.)

Anyway, it seems we have nailed down NP's position on scriptural inerrancy and scriptural authority. The Bible is to be taken literally when NP wants to take it literally, and his interpretation is authoritative. Apart from his differing conclusions, I fail to see how that makes him any different than Dr. Spong.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 3:00pm GMT

"I have always said that scripture is to be read and interpreted in context"

So why, when people do this and disagree with you, do you call them faithless?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 3:29pm GMT

Well, Pat and Erika.....whatever you want to label me ...... I, like most in the AC, do not believe there is a strong biblical justification for condoning what our bishops have said is "incompatible with scripture".....most Anglicans, most Christians today and in the last 2000 years would say our bishops got it right.....so, yes, I think it is reasonable that we listen to their teaching.......given holiness matters a lot (according to Christ, that is)

Posted by: NP on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 4:37pm GMT

Hi Ford:

Where I come from "y'all" is proper grammar for the "plural you" in all contexts. However, we tend to turn our noses up at the use of y'all for the singular. This is either extremely back woods or extremely affected use of proper dialect. Example of addressing a single person in this manner: "Y'all going to eat that drumstick, or can I have it?" Sniff! Definitely not language used on proper Southern verandas when the mint julips are being sipped!

The possessive plural of you is accomplished by merely adding apostrophe s--e.g., on bringing home a lost hound and addressing the members of the family on the front porch: "Is this yall's hound dog?"

I hope this helps.

Steven

Posted by: Steven on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 4:42pm GMT

"I have always said that scripture is to be read and interpreted in context..."

Well.. maybe it's a question of what that context is?

Neo Platonist moralities, +Dunhelm, RAJ Gagnon, "Dr" Cameron...

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 4:56pm GMT

It won't be pretty...

They will scream: You are not my Bishop!

They already do.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 4:59pm GMT

"Well, Pat and Erika.....whatever you want to label me ...... I, like most in the AC, do not believe there is a strong biblical justification for condoning what our bishops have said is "incompatible with scripture".....most Anglicans, most Christians today and in the last 2000 years would say our bishops got it right.....so, yes, I think it is reasonable that we listen to their teaching.......given holiness matters a lot (according to Christ, that is)"

And the Inquisitors would have said the same things--albeit with 1500 in place of 2000--with regard to Galileo. And they would have been wrong. Is it at all possible that "most Anglicans, most Christians today" and "our bishops" are wrong, too? Was it reasonable for Christians of the 15th and 16th Centuries to listen to the teachings of their religious leaders about the workings of the solar system, when all serious observation proved them wrong? If not, why is it "reasonable" to listen to today's religious leaders regarding sexuality, when all serious scientific observation proves them wrong?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 7:42pm GMT

So a "day" in Genesis is open to interpretation?

So how does directly quoting you make me ignorant?

(Ba-da-bump! Guess I shouldn't go there)

YOU were the one making the reference
YOU were the one making the inference
YOU are the one who doesn't TAKE any responsibility
for what they put on this website.

Talk about ignorance.
Picking and Choosing!

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 7:52pm GMT

NP
I'm not very interested in what "most" of the AC think. The beauty of the AC used to be that you could be at the edge of it and still be accepted.
I will do everything I can to keep it that way.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 7:55pm GMT

"we tend to turn our noses up"

Steven, if I may be permitted one more small derailment, there was a Canadian movie a few years back called Bayo, that was supposed to be about a rural Newfoundland boy. It was widely praised as getting the language right. Hmph. A small Newfoundland outport having a different Irish accent for every inhabitant, and none of them the Irish accents that came here, and no English ones to be heard, despite the character's very Protestant names. We have the iterative of the verb 'to be' I bees, you bees, etc. It is NOT the present. 'I am sick' states my current health, 'I bees sick every morning' is far more chronic. By the time I got to the point where the lead character, who had had his rich St. john's accent drilled out of him by the director who had no idea what Newfoundlanders talk like, said "I bees wasting me time here" Instead of "I'm (or even I'n) wasting me time here" I was so disgusted I stormed out in a huff, convinced that Canadians will never get it! Whatever we disagree and nearly come to knocks on matters of religion, we are allies in the language conflict!

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 16 November 2007 at 8:09pm GMT

choirboy - you're not making strong points (even though you seem to think you are)

2 Peter 3:8
"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Find me a verse that says our Anglican bishops are wrong when they say certain behaviour is "incompatible with scrtipture"....i.e. show they are calling something good and holy and acceptable to God a sin - then you would have a strong point, choirboy

Posted by: NP on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 11:18am GMT

"... is as..." not "is", NP

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 1:47pm GMT

"Find me a verse"

Why? Bible mining is not theology. It is merely seeking justification for what one already believes.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 2:29pm GMT

Ford says "Bible mining is not theology. It is merely seeking justification for what one already believes."

Ford - a lot of "seeking justification for what one already believes" is passed off as theoogy and scholarship these days..... however, asking for biblical justification for a position is reasonable when addressing theological questions in a Christian church, is it not?

Posted by: NP on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 5:06pm GMT

Evation, semper evation.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 7:27pm GMT

"asking for biblical justification for a position is reasonable when addressing theological questions in a Christian church, is it not?"

No, actually. Asking for Biblical justification means "This is what you want, now show me where the Bible justifies doing that." Theology say "This is an issue. Now what does the Bible say about the isuue?" Quite a different thing, actually. You go to Scripture looking for justification for what you want, and if you can't find it, which I suspect is rare, you assume you aren't allowed to do it. Others take the aprroach that they have to deal with an issue, now what are the principles whereby the Scripture says Christians should deal with such an issue. You seek permission or refusal of permission. Others seek ways of approaching life's problems. Look at diet. For you, Peter's dream means you are allowed to eat bacon. For me, Peter's dream means I don't have to worry about clean versus unclean, those things are meaningless. It's what comes out of one's mouth that makes one unclean. You treat Scripture as, among other things, a list of rules. I see it as, among other things, a list of principles by which to live. It's letter of the Law versus spirit of the Law.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 7:34pm GMT

Ford commented

"Bible mining is not theology. It is merely seeking justification for what one already believes."

Guilty as charged, and I have never claimed to be doing otherwise. The role of a prophet is not to act as a scribe and come up with most academically rigorous model that can be contemplated and regurgitated through generations of scribes who hide in ivory towers.

The role of the prophet is to get amongst the masses and make the bible relevant to the issues of the day. I am mild compared to many biblical prophets: I've never preached naked in a public venue, I haven't lived on bugs and berries, I haven't deliberately conceived a child with a temple prostitute, I haven't worn weird clothing and dug holes through walls or in fields.

But, I am still passionate for God and about God and I love God and what God wants for humanity. I want to see humanity aspiring to the best of what God has offered, not justifying the continuation of the worst traits.

I want to see the fruits of Jesus' sacrifice fully actualized, not deferred for another generation or species because some will not recant of violence, repression, accusations, greed, slavery and/or deceit.

I am completely and utterly biased and I deliberately mine the bible to justify my perceptions. My enemies can neither quantititatively nor qualitatively match my biblical passages. Their theology is completely surrounded and overwhelmed by the flood of biblical passages that justify my passion for God's desire for grace.

So NP earlier taunted "Cheryl - I ain't seen any "relevant refuting biblical passages" from you which show that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in saying certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture"....."

NP has decreed that Lambeth and Lambeth 1.10 are holy and a cornerstone to justify his rudeness and aggression to others, and to condone depriving others of the basic social and legal needs that any sentient human being requires to be sane.

I have as much hope of healing or convincing NP as I have of stopping a wife basher from beating his wife, or a drug dealer recruiting more addicts, or a terrorist leader spawning more cells. Some souls can listen whilst some will refuse to listen because they have too much invested in their current paradigms. I heal those who want to be healed and show them how to make peace.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 8:19pm GMT

"... asking for biblical justification for a position is reasonable when addressing theological questions in a Christian church, is it not?"

Only if you think that "biblical justification" is the only justification for a theological position. That has never been the case in Anglican tradition before.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 9:36pm GMT

"biblical justification"="bible mining"=PICKING AND CHOOSING NP!

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 12:21am GMT

Cheryl,
I like you comment, but would be interested to hear whether you would modify it in the light of Ford's second comment immediately above yours.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 9:20am GMT

choirboy - I see you still have not come up with any verses to show that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in saying certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture"..... maybe our Anglican bishops got it right??

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 9:50am GMT

Like worm on a hook.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 12:37pm GMT

Ford's comments about eating bacon parallel the apostle Paul's about eating food that others might consider to be holy/unholy and offending others sensibilities (e.g. Romans 14). It is particularly insightful example as it indicates in Paul's time culinary practices were seen to be capable of putting one inside or outside of grace, whilst some today believe sexual practices in and of themselves can put someone in or outside of grace. At the moderate level we ask whether souls are being too obsessive and or judgmental of others on one hand, or too relaxed and overly tolerant on the other hand.

This article went up overnight http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter1-18a.html It refers to a basic mishna of three pillars: "They are: (a) that man serve G-d, (b) that we act towards one another with kindness and brotherhood, building perfect and Divine societies, and (c) that we study Torah and become spiritual people capable of forming a relationship with G-d."

The ten commandments did not come from debate and academics.

I love that God promises his covenant of peace repeatedly throughout history (with Jesus as a unique affirmation that grace is available for ALL humanity, both the "holy" people and the "unclean" gentiles). e.g. Isaiah 5:9-10 "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,” says the LORD, who has compassion on you."

Hosea 2:14-23 "Therefore I am now going to allure her… she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt… I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air... Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety… I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion… I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’ ”

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 7:17pm GMT

Lambeth 1:10 also mentions something about a listening process. Where is there a scriptural prohibition from doing that NP? And you are obviously in violation of subsection "c", so what is your point? What has bible mining to show contrdiction of Lambeth 1:10 got to do with anything?

Sorry NP, I don't bible mine. Scripture is and will never be used as a weapon against my fellow human. That's the difference between you and me.

PICKING AND CHOOSING, from the the XII Lambeth Conference no less!

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 10:48pm GMT

choirboy...you do not "bible mine" because the bible says so much which you want to ignore.

Our Anglican bishops are not "fundagelicals" but have have consistently maintained the biblical line in issues of morality.....and even the liberal ABC has supported TWR which strengthens Lambeth 1.10.

By the way, "to listen" does not mean "to agree". We have been listening in the AC for decades....even Rowan Williams past writings have not convinced many that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong..... we have been listening while some people with their "integrity" have flagrantly condoned behaviour our bishops say is sin....... no wonder so many CofE churhces empty year by year by year.

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:32am GMT

"...no wonder so many CofE churhces empty year by year by year...."

Yes, no wonder...as they see the church's leaders deny the God-given human desires of a significant portion of the population.

It never occurs to you that the problem isn't that the church is too liberal, does it? It never occurs to you that the problem is that the church isn't liberal enough?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 12:56pm GMT

"you do not "bible mine" because the bible says so much which you want to ignore."

No, NP, that's why you Bible mine.

""to listen" does not mean "to agree". "

Then why do you continually claim that it does? Why do the people who say that give such clear evidence by their actions and words that they HAVEN'T listened at all? It's pretty obvious that you haven't NP, you can say what you like. I have been trying to tell you for the past year or more the ways in which your words show that you have not listened. One powerful piece of evidence is that, whenever I say this, you take it to mean that because you don't agree, I think you haven't listened. That is not the case at all. It isn't your disagreement that is evidence of your lack of listening, NP, you could very well listen and end up in exactly the position you are in now, so disagreement is merely disagreement, deep, principled disagreement, but nothing more than that. That you haven't listened to one word gay people have been saying is shown by other things entirely.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 2:00pm GMT

"choirboy...you do not "bible mine" because the bible says so much which you want to ignore."-NP

No, you're wrong. I meant what I said. You don't know a thing about me and making a cheapshot like that shows your maturity.

I never said a thing about "fundagelical" bishops.

And in my opinion, you haven't listened at all. Not the LGBT community, but to the Holy Ghost. so you are in violation of 1:10 (c).

You keep PICKING AND CHOOSING, and your love of God's creation shows well on this blogsite.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 3:43pm GMT

Ford - I say to listen is not necessarily to agree because we are supposed to be forever "listening" and never coming to an agreed position on whether not certain behaviour is compatible with scripture unless that conclusion is to agree that certain sins are now holy, good and acceptable to God (despite all the evidence in his word)....this creates the space for some to condone in the AC, despite what our bishops consistently say, what is called sin in the bible.

I will listen to scripture..... I trust the Author.

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 5:06pm GMT

"It never occurs to you that the problem isn't that the church is too liberal, does it? It never occurs to you that the problem is that the church isn't liberal enough?"

It is NP's constant assertion that conservative Evangelical churches throughout England are filling daily as the True Evangelical Gospel is faithfully preached, word by condemnatory word. It is the Liberals, in his view, whose churches are emptying out from the false teaching they put forward. He also resents the money these holy people must pay to support the failing faithless liberal parishes. He apparently has never met a non-Christian who was not repulsed by his brand of Christianity. Odd, because I've never met one who wasn't.


Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 5:21pm GMT

"I will listen to scripture..... I trust the Author."

Which author would that be? It is not Anglican tradition or belief that the Bible was written by God...but that it was written by men (a lot of men, not all of them the people to whom we ascribe it) who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Not dictated to, but inspired.

You seem to treat the Bible the way a Mormon does the Book of Mormon or a Muslim the Koran, that it was handed down directly by God.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 10:55pm GMT

"I will listen to scripture..... I trust the Author."

Which author would that be? It is not Anglican tradition or belief that the Bible was written by God...but that it was written by men (a lot of men, not all of them the people to whom we ascribe it) who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Not dictated to, but inspired.

You seem to treat the Bible the way a Mormon does the Book of Mormon or a Muslim the Koran, that it was handed down directly by God.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 10:56pm GMT

NP: Why do you still belong in an Anglican (presumably CofE) parish? It's obvious you don't need a priest, let alone a bishop, just your "biblical authority". So why not a soapbox in the middle of Waterloo Station?

And why do you keep taunting and mocking others on this site? Do you really think you are effectively witnessing for Christ? Do you think you are "converting" people here at TA? And since you are on such intimate terms with our Savior, do you think He approves of what you are doing?

Go dig around your bible to scramble for "answers", while you ignore what is truly in your heart. And that ain't Christ.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 12:03am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.