Sunday, 18 November 2007

From Calvary To Lambeth

BBC Radio 4 will broadcast a programme From Calvary To Lambeth on Tuesday 27 November at 8.00 pm. Here’s the blurb:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, once labelled “a rabble-rouser for peace”, gives vent to his feelings of shame for a worldwide Church which – as he sees it – is homophobic and “obsessed” with human sexuality. This is tragic, he says “in the context of a world suffering from war, poverty and disease”. God must be weeping, he says, to see a Church with priorities so different from those of its Founder who first and foremost loved, welcomed and embraced all humanity.

His critics – including former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, MP Ann Widdecombe, and the US conservative Bishop, Robert Duncan – stand up for a Church working worldwide on behalf of the poor and deprived, and accuse Desmond Tutu of engaging in caricature, special pleading and false theology. Michael Buerk reports.

News reports so far:

BBC Tutu chides Church stance on gays

Sunday Telegraph Jonathan Wynne-Jones Carey and Tutu wade into conflict over gays

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 9:00am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion
Comments

One gathers that George Carey's approach to divorce, a topic on which Jesus left strong, unambiguous statements, are rather more flexible than his opinions on homosexuality, about which Our Lord seems to have expressed no opinion whatever. Wynne-Jones insults Archbishop Tutu when he groups him as "two of the Church's most respected figures" with the man who hawked the marital confidences of the late Princess of Wales to add news-worthiness to a dull autobiography and who looses no opportunity to undermine his successor at Canterbury, widening the fast-developing rift in the Anglican Communion every time he does so.

"I respect homosexuals, their right to exist" is the sort of blindingly patronizing nonsense that half-way passed as charity fifty years ago, in the era of the Wolfenden Report. That Carey thinks it will pass muster today underlines just how dated his opinions are.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 1:20pm GMT

”Seriously unhelpful” or not, I for one, believe that Dr Carey’s credibility – as a theologian – would be much boosted if he left late Modern anti Modern Social Politics and all the Propaganda about “defence of marriage” & c. out of this, and stuck to the “biblical” claim (not that it is true): that the Bible is “clearly unequivocal” pronouncing on categories and definitions its authors hadn’t heard of…

For either it’s in the Bible – or it isn’t.

If it is, no Political propaganda is required, but only undermines his claims (and those of late Modern translators from Rome, Colorado and Cambridge, into Ecclesiastical and Political power games ;=)

As it is, he enforces the impression of a dotering old fool blinded by his own Homophobia.

If there is a “clear” case that the “terror verses” are about homosexuality in any way, and that the anti Modern politicizing traditionalist are in fact Traditional: make it!

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 1:41pm GMT

I like that the Telegraph devotes almost the whole article to Carey, and hardly mentions Tutu at all. Since Carey is probably the least-respected archbishop of canterbury in anyone's living memory, a man who acheived nothing of worth in office and has, since then, bitched about his successor in the cruelest terms, and in all ways devoid of Christian charity... I think it is safe to say the man is jealous that Williams is actually going to be remembered.

Posted by: ash on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 2:11pm GMT

Given that at least one of Carey's offspring is divorced, that's hardly surprising - but then, I expect no better from someone who really wasn't up to the job.

Hopefully, when the split comes, he will be on the other side of the wall.

Posted by: Merseymike on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 2:27pm GMT

There's an article worth reading in the Tennessean - "Does the Bible always tell us so?" - on a new documentary by Daniel Karslake - "For the Bible Tells Me So"

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071118/NEWS06/711180382/1023/NEWS

Karslake received the following note from a gay teenager in Iowa:

"Last week I bought the gun, yesterday I wrote the note, last night I happened to see your show on PBS. Just knowing that someday, somewhere, I might be able to go back into a church with my head held high, I dropped the gun in the river. My mom never has to know."

That's the reality we face as a Church.


Posted by: MJ on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 4:57pm GMT

"I respect homosexuals, their right to exist" the Daily Telegraph quotes Carey.

That's all right then, respecting their right to exist.

Posted by: Pluralist on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 5:01pm GMT

Carey seems to be taking inspiration from the approach of his patron, Margaret Thatcher, spending his retirement ungracefully meddling in politics long after he ought to have left such matters behind.

I can well understand the poster above who considers him to have been the worst ABC in living memory: while he does possess qualities, leadership, grace, and good judgement are not among them. We ought not to forget that as ABC Carey blocked Rowan Williams appointment as Bishop of Southwark: the grace with which Williams has since treated Carey should be a lesson to the older man.

For what it's worth though, I'm not sure that Carey has ever made the unity of the Church paramount: the whole Lambeth 1.10 fiasco which has since caused so much damage was the direct result of his inability to seek consensus. One can only hope that more take the steadfast approach of the Dean of Bangor, and rebuke those sour clerics who act as a "divisive force" and "a factor of disunity and of disloyalty to Rowan Williams".

Posted by: John Omani on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 5:29pm GMT

Problem with reading Lord Carey's Telegraph interview remarks, is simply that in the larger light his respect is frankly unbelievable.

He has not taken anybody in the so-called Anglican Global South very seriously to Anglican gospel task for their support of citizen abridgements of just these human rights he now claims so automatically to respect.

Why not?

How is it that, when it comes to evaluating queer folks sexual behaviors, no matter of the heart's inner motives (nor of a modern biopsychosocial understanding of embodiment?) can be allowed to deflect us from utter condemnation based on religious revelation; but that, when it comes to evaluating straight citizens' sexual behaviors, it is precisely matters of the heart and of modern understandings which compel us to moderate Jesus' allegedly clear teaching about divorce in the New Testament?

The reason Lord Carey is still vulnerable to suspicions of homophobia is that he still engages unthinkingly in presupposing that straight folks just like him so naturally arrive at their sexual orientations, while queer folks probably do not.

In Lord Carey's world view, queer folks have no fundamental space to engage in narratives of heartfelt allegiance. Not to their own queer embodiments understood via the best available biopsychosocial data. Not to physical safety in their homes in places like Nigeria where supposedly Nigerian Anglicans model the gospel without qualm or blemish for the rest of us (enough to lecture and condemn the rest of us?). Not to citizenship that includes access to opportunities and resources for building a work life and a relationship life that can stand the tests of adult time and adult difficulties.

So. Dear Lord Carey.

If you continue to speak quite badly of queer folks owing to their sexual orientations? If you wish us to take you with the utmost seriousness? To follow you as you say you follow Christ? How can we be certain that you are not actually prepared to pretty much use these nasty traditional pieces of strong trash talk - precisely to interfere with queer citizen rights to exist, to be safe at home, and to have valuable and ethically valorized relationships of commitment and care?

Your goodwill is as presuppositional as your anti-queer-folks negatives. Neither seems trustworthy.

If your life among us is data. What, dear Lord Carey, have you bothered to do lately for the queer folks whom so you so fundamentally respect?

Posted by: drdanfee on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 6:01pm GMT

MJ

That was a beautiful posting and heartens me that this work is not being done in vain. That is one child's soul who has been comforted, their faith in God restored and their hope for a loving communal church has been revived.

Love Desmond Tutu, always have, ever since I heard him in a Perth Cathedral back in the 1980s. He's like a good wine or cheese, he just keeps getting better as he ages.

I am still bemused that some souls think that allowing other souls to enter into a long-term committed relationship with someone else somehow diminishes the love or value of their own relationship. They sound like the horrible kind of souls you get that are constantly nitpicking and harassing their neighbours and friends. The sort who have to sabotage other peoples' relationships or gazzump their successes so that they preen that they've "made it". The kind who make dramatics at another's wedding because they can't share the limelight with anyone else, even on their wedding day.

Another couple's marital status does not change the standing of my own relationship (unless their marriage came about by my ex-spouse leaving for the other bride LOL). Another soul's success does not change mine before God.

God encapsulate all of space and time, there is no shortage of room or limitations of love. That is just what some cruel souls like to advocate so they can continue to steal others' resources and dignity.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 6:04pm GMT

I respect heterosexuals, their right to exist ...

Posted by: L Roberts on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 6:51pm GMT

I am so pleased that Lord Carey ackowledges my right to exist.

Of course, I had not known that decision was up to him.

He seems to have too much idle time on his hands. I think he should take up a hobby of some kind that will engage whatever marbles he's got left rattling away in there ... prefereably after he moves to Pitcairn Island.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Sunday, 18 November 2007 at 9:32pm GMT

I'm not homophobic, but...

Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 12:58am GMT

The Telegraph article refers to two respected Anglican leaders. Tutu is one. Who's the other?

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 4:08am GMT

The comment from Carey is truncated -- he also says he respects gays' rights to set up home, etc. So he is far more liberal than any RC bishop could be. I am sure he and Tutu can discuss amicably and in a civilised style.

I was surprised to discover in Hans-Joachim Schoep's collected essays one on homosexuality, in 1963, containing some very well thought out arguments. He points out that the Leviticus stuff about lying with men as a thing to be shunned is about the temple prostitutes found throughout the Orient for centuries. Though Schoeps knew the Bible and Jewish tradition better than any bishop, he did not find in the Bible any basis for homophobic attitudes.

Posted by: Joseph O'Leary on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 7:39am GMT

2 retired archbishops comment on AC matters.........

One is treated with appropriate respect but the other is vilified for his views.....not very liberal (let alone convincing)

On TA, only one of them gets comments like this,
"Carey seems to be taking inspiration from the approach of his patron, Margaret Thatcher, spending his retirement ungracefully meddling in politics long after he ought to have left such matters behind."

I wonder why the other archbishop is not called upon not to meddle and leave AC "matters behind"?
Oh, because he supports the revisionists of TECUSA and elsewehere?

Boringly predictable attacks on ++Carey here....

Posted by: NP on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 8:51am GMT

RE Dr Carey's claim to respect gays' rights to set up home, & c., I would suggest we take it as hyperbolä in the exitation of the moment.

Somehow, I am sure he did not support HM's Government's Civil Partnership legislation, or plead for it in any way...

We would have heard of it, wouldn't we?

;=)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 9:13am GMT

Joseph O'Leary wrote about a certain Hans-Joachim Schoep: "He points out that the Leviticus stuff about lying with men as a thing to be shunned is about the temple prostitutes found throughout the Orient for centuries."

Quite a few deny there ever were such a thing in Jerusalem - and some say Herodotos (from whom this story semms to come) was mis-taken altogether.

Inquiring minds want to know...

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 9:16am GMT

NP:

Perhaps the difference is that one treats homosexuals as a class of people who require his forbearance..."I do not deny their right to exist"...while the other treats them as people as fully deserving of God's love and ours without reservation.

Which attitude, to your mind, is Christian?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 11:45am GMT

Tutu is not the former head of the Anglican Communion, NP; Carey is - with power and position comes responsibility, NP, something that has not always been Carey's strong suit, in or out of office.

Praising Tutu (still a sore spot with you, I gather) while holding Carey to account is completely liberal, NP - it's Carey who isn't. "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue", in the words of the late Senator Goldwater. Remember the verse attributed to A.P Herbert, addressed to a former ABC in the wake of the Abdication Crisis - "Of Christian charity how scant you are, You Old Lang Swine, how full of cant you are"?

I would like to think that NP, like his EvoBuddy Carey and unlike some African prelates , recognizes gays' "right to exist". Tell us that it's so, NP.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 12:19pm GMT

Are these false dichotomies deliberate or gratuitous? Surely everyone knows that, of those Christians working worldwide to combat poverty and disease, a high proportion are orthodox.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 1:08pm GMT

Merseymike: "Given that at least one of Carey's offspring is divorced, that's hardly surprising - but then, I expect no better from someone who really wasn't up to the job."

That comment is ad hominem and thoroughly out of order. Whilst I may not agree with George Carey's position on homosexuality, nor his current interventions, bringing his children into the argument is nothing short of scandalous.

Posted by: Stephen Roberts on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 3:33pm GMT

"bringing his children into the argument is nothing short of scandalous."

His children aren't being brought into the argument. The point being made is that it is not at all unexpected that a person would be lenient on some things when his life has been impacted by it. He well knows the pain associated with divorce, and has compassion on those going through it. Gay people have had little impact on his life, most likely, so he sees no need for compassion. It's hard to fell compassionate for the faceless other, which is why the Right needs for us to be faceless others beyond the Pale, outside the Church. That's why they are so afraid of the "listening process". They are afraid that the conflict between our humanity and their judgemental legalism would be untenable even for them. Thus, they will be faced with a choice, either agree with us or accept that God hates and excludes people who are just as human as they are. The sad thing is that there is a third way they don't even contemplate: preach their message in a way that we can hear. They could learn how to do that, but they don't. Why? Is it because they know no other mode of Evangelism than threat, judgement, and attack, or is it that they don't actually want us to hear the Gospel after all?

Posted by: ford Elms on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 4:45pm GMT

Stephen Roberts - thank you for introducing some even-handedness to this thread

Posted by: NP on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 4:49pm GMT

Stephen,
I can understand that you find it unfair that Carey's private life is brought into the discussion. But it does rather point to the fact that experience and close listening can influence a person's views (as they should do!).

And that's why this is not an ad hominem attack but a valid point to be made.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 5:00pm GMT

Not entirely scandalous, Stephen, since it raises the valid question of if, had the archbishop's son been gay, rather than divorced, the circumstance would have softened his stand on homosexuality.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 6:05pm GMT

An ad hominem attack posted on TA? I am shocked.

On +++Carey and the right to exist, I thought that was a power granted to the ABC. He thinks, we are.

Posted by: jamescrocker on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 6:29pm GMT

You have to go back to 1987 to recall the last time gays were blamed for HIV/Aids, to the then Greater Manchester Chief Constable, James Anderton, an evangelical Christian, who accused gays of "swirling around in a human cesspit of their own making". I hadn't realised this point of view was still prevalent.

More recently, environmental catastrophe has been blamed on us, and now we are at fault for undermining the institution of marriage: a terrible burden to bear when we are simply asking for the Church's affirmation of us and our loved ones.

I'm grateful to Archbishop Tutu for taking a moral lead by confronting apartheid where it still occurs.

Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 9:50pm GMT

"I hadn't realised this point of view was still prevalent."

There's lots of this kind of stuff. Some believe we are pedophiles, some believe our lifespans are 30 years shorter than "normal" people's. Indeed, some actually fabricate propaganda and call it science just to "prove" the point. Bishops in Africa have been quite clear that they think us "inhuman". This, for some reason, is believed to spur us to repentance. Go figure!

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 10:15pm GMT

>>>More recently, environmental catastrophe has been blamed on us

I'm not entirely clear on whether Dow believes that we ourselves are to blame for floods, or if it's our rectal demons who are at fault.

Posted by: JPM on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 10:32pm GMT

There is plenty of reasoned criticism of Carey on this thread, NP, and rightly so of a man who has repeatedly attempted to undermine his successor, and in the process has done great damage the unity of the church. To say that discrimination against homosexuals is not a matter of injustice or human rights is an absolute disgrace. In so doing, he is a hypocrite for ignoring the clauses of Lambeth 1.10 which require clerics to minister sensitively to those of that orientation.

After your shocking ad hominem attack on ++Tutu in the subsequent threat NP, suggesting that he is somehow responsible for the HIV epidemic in South Africa, I really am surprised that you have the nerve to comment here. If you really are an evangelical, and not a troll, you are doing them great damage with your shameful remarks.

Posted by: John Omani on Monday, 19 November 2007 at 11:24pm GMT

John Omani says "After your shocking ad hominem attack on ++Tutu in the subsequent threat NP, suggesting that he is somehow responsible for the HIV epidemic in South Africa..."

What tosh - do read what I wrote. It is not what you said. Maybe Ford's explanation of the point on the other thread will help you....

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 7:36am GMT

I haven't got Schoeps to hand right now; he does not say there were temple prostitutes in Jerusalem, but claims they were common in regions around Israel over centuries and that Leviticus is very much on guard against them -- which he links with the centuries long battle against pagan cults that we find in the OT. Schoeps was a very great scholar (notably of Judeo-Christianity and Paul, and a historic figure in Jewish-Christian dialogue (his book on Israel and the Church, first ed. 1937, is available in English; both parents died in concentration camps).

Posted by: Joseph O'Leary on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 7:48am GMT

To Goeran and others on Carey and equality legislation: I remember well Abp Carey's interventions in the gay rights debates during his archiepiscopate. He spoke against every liberalising of the law for gay people, and voted against them in the House of Lords. He was not an "innocent bystander" at all, but attempted to be a major block to the development of equal rights. I received a long letter from him once, explaining why lowering the age of consent for gay people from 21 to 18 would be the end of family life, see an increase in child abuse and the exploitation of the innocent. Needless to say, he lost the debate: the legal age has since been lowered to 16, as it is for straight people, and none of the dire consequences he was predicting have come to pass. It is also well-known that at least part of the reason the gay debate has flared up in the C of E during Abp Rowan's time is that Carey did everything he could to keep the issue off the agenda while he was in power. I think it is perfectly right that he should be held accountable for the maintenance of such a misguided (and, I would submit, unChristian) anti-equal rights policy on the part of the Church during his tenure of office.
His repeated public interventions since his "retirement" have been unbecoming (do we ever hear anything similar from Abp David Hope, for example?) and cannot be construed as at all kind to his successor.

Posted by: Fr Mark on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 8:35am GMT

And the other thing is they are again inconsistent in their application.

They say that GLBTs should not act on their sexuality because it risks shortening their lifespans; but then exhort that women should submit to sexual activities and conception, with no regard to how it might shorten their lifespans.

They tout scriptural authority going back 2000 years and seem oblivious that makes them collusive in thwarting God's promised everlasting covenant of peace.

To paraphrase Jesus at Luke 11:48, by their own testimony they approve of what their teachers have done and that they also have no desire for peace.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 8:56am GMT

Mark says "His repeated public interventions since his "retirement" have been unbecoming (do we ever hear anything similar from Abp David Hope, for example?) "

- but you do not mind interventions from ++Tutu??

You criticise ++Carey.....but I do not see Rowan the Undecided taking Lambeth 1.10 on to revise it .... in fact, I see him strenthening it with his support for TWR ...... so, unles you think very badly of ++Rowan, maybe ++Carey was not such a devil?

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 9:45am GMT

I discover that Schoeps at age 20 was recognized by Max Brod as the only other person who understood Kafka (Brod did not know his age until they met; he had already offered him the job of collaborating on Kafka's Nachlass) and that in addition to his theological research Schoeps authored a five-volume "Deutsche Geistesgeschichte der Neuzeit" (1977-1980).

Posted by: Joseph O'Leary on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 11:09am GMT

I see there's a shadow side: Schoeps (1909-1980) was unpopular as an antidemocratic lifelong monarchist (for the Prussian monarchy); he wanted to divide German from Un-German Jews and organized a Jews for Hitler group (before reality caught up on him); after the war he came back to teach in Germany, which remained his spiritual homeland.

Enc. Judaica says: "Schoeps' relationship to the Jewish community has been a clouded one. Beginning in the early 1930s, Schoeps was a prolific writer, who adopted a radical dialectical Jewish theology which excluded all nomistic as well as nationalistic-cultural elements, bringing Judaism very close to Christianity but stopping short of baptism. More significant however, was his espousal of an extreme German nationalism, that led, in the decisive year of 1933, to the conviction that it was possible for the "German Jews," as distinguished from the Eastern European Jews then in Germany and the Zionists, to come to terms with National Socialism. In 1956 he wrote his autobiography in which he noted with regret his failure to recognize the true face of Nazism (his own parents were killed in a concentration camp)" [Correction: his father died in the Theresienstadt ghetto; his mother was gassed in Auschwitz]. For Schoeps on Paul, see http://www.jamesclarke.co.uk/jc/titles/paul.htm. Schoeps developed a hybrid theology of his own that both Jews and Christians have criticized.

Posted by: Joseph O'Leary on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 11:34am GMT

Well, there we go - if Anglican 'Mainstream' disagree with tutu, then he must be getting it right!

Posted by: Merseymike on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 12:10pm GMT

Well, that's very interesting, but the issue was sacral prostitution.

Did it exist at all or is Herodotos wrong?

If so, did it exist in Jerusalem?

The idea that the background to Leviticus 18 is sacral prostitution depends on there being any.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 12:21pm GMT

NP: if Abp Tutu were making comments to undermine his successor at Cape Town, that would be unbecoming, but he is not doing that, as far as I understand. I think he is also on a different plane from My Lord Carey when it comes to being a credible voice for reaching out to a wider audience than our usual dull and uninspiring leadership. Abp Carey trumpeted the re-evangelisation of England during his archiepiscopate, and nothing at all happened. Meanwhile, Tutu was getting on with the business of being a real Christian leader, one who stood with the marginalised and the oppressed when the chips were down - that gives him a moral authority that those who have sat home comfortably all their lives do not have. If he speaks, we should take note - he is perhaps the nearest thing to a person widely regarded as a saint that the Anglican Church currently has, and that should weigh more for Christians than whether someone was a safe pair of hands as an administrator and committee-man.

Posted by: Fr Mark on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 1:22pm GMT

"Maybe Ford's explanation of the point on the other thread will help you...."

Don't use me as a weapon. I think your attitude towards AIDS in Africa is self delusory and contradictory. You claim education is required, yet you defend someone who actively stands in the way of educating a sizable chunk of the at risk population. And why do I think the only kind of education you will accept is "God says don't do that."?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 1:30pm GMT

"moral authority "

I don't think NP understands the concept of moral authority as distinct from being able to cite isolated verses from the Bible to demand people behave in a certain fashion.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 5:12pm GMT

Male prostitutes attached to shrines are mentions in Dt 23.18, 1 Kgs 14.24 and 15.12, 2 Kgs 23.7.

Mary Douglas in Leviticus as Literature insists that "abomination" is a wrong translation and we should translate instead "something to be shunned".

I wonder at Jacob Neusner's editorial judgment in confiding the essay on Homosexuality in Judaism (Encyclopedia of Judaism second ed., 2005) to the notoriously homophobic Norman Lamm, who writes something that could be described as hate literature, praising JONAH, the Jewish branch of NARTH, and denouncing the film "Trembling before G-D" (2000) for its failure to mention JONAH and to accept that gay men, with some difficulty to be sure, can perform in heterosexual marriages. At least we do not see leading Anglican publications confide entries on homosexuality to Akinola.

Posted by: Joseph O'Leary on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 3:09am GMT

"Male prostitutes attached to shrines are mentions in Dt 23.18, 1 Kgs 14.24 and 15.12, 2 Kgs 23.7. "

I know, but is it factual?

(and the contradicting Claim that Herodotos was wrong is based on what)?

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 7:55am GMT

Ford says "I don't think NP understands the concept of moral authority as distinct from being able to cite isolated verses from the Bible to demand people behave in a certain fashion. "

What I do understand, Ford, is that some in the AC are desperate to justify behaviour "incompatiable with scripture" ...... and, yes, I find it hard to see their "moral authority" or integrity in doing that.....especially if we are supposed to be saved by grace (Rom 6:1, Eph 5:1-21)

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 8:27am GMT

"some in the AC are desperate to justify behaviour "incompatiable with scripture" ...... and, yes, I find it hard to see their "moral authority" "

The problem, NP, is the lack of credibility in those in whom you do see moral authority. That you can actually think that someone who seeks the jailing of those who work for the reduction of human misery, or who constructs elaborate persecution scenarios, a la +Harvey in Canada, (and which to me shows a profound weakness of faith, actually) have any authority to speak on the Gospel is beyond me. Do you seriously believe that someone who preaches the lie that homosexuality is a choice and that "many homosexuals can change" actually has any respect for or knowledge of the Truth? If they can't "rightly divide" the falsehoods of the world, how can they possibly know the Truth of the Gospel?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 1:21pm GMT

Ford says "The problem, NP, is the lack of credibility in those in whom you do see moral authority."

Back to this old red herring....
No, Ford....the only moral authority I see is not in any person or leader but in God and his word....this is why I cannot condone behaviour our Anglican bishops consistently say is "incompatible with scripture"

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 at 3:11pm GMT

NP posted: "I cannot condone behaviour our Anglican bishops consistently say is "incompatible with scripture"

That must, of course, be corrected to read:

"I cannot condone behaviour our Anglican bishops consistently say is "incompatible with my (NP's) own interpretation of scripture"

How long will it take NP to understand that straightforward difference between him/her and most of the posters to this site?

Unlike the Calvinist approach that NP prefers, and which is not part of the historical Anglican Communion, most of us are willing to continue the diversity of the Anglican Communion, where differing interpretations of non-core elements of scripture are perfectly fine.

While I would like NP, and others like him/her, to believe differently on the matter of sexuality (i.e. monogamous sexual relationships, whether homosexual or heterosexual, are equally legitimate), I would respect his/her right to believe differently than I do on non-core elements of our faith.

Posted by: Jerry Hannon on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 12:28am GMT

NP: . . . our Anglican bishops consistently say is "incompatible with scripture"


MF+ observes: Shouldn't that really say '. . . a majority of Anglican bishops at a particular meeting, after a lot of manipulation of the agenda and an agressive floor fight and following a series of amendments which softened the first draft of the resolution, voted on a split decision to say is "incompatible with scripture".'?

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Thursday, 22 November 2007 at 4:03pm GMT

Whether male temple prostitutes existed or not, there was certainly a concern about them in ancient Israel, so the verses about men lying with men could be rooted in this ritual concern rather than in natural law style ethical reasoning.

Posted by: Joseph O'Leary on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 7:15am GMT

It most certainly cannot be "natural law ethical anything!

That one is 12th century.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 23 November 2007 at 9:54am GMT

Schoeps writes, with references to 1950s publications of W. F. Albright, G. Fohrer, J. P. Asmussen, I. N. Epstein:

‘We know that pederasty in the form of sacral prostitution belonged to the Canaanite ritual cult since the 14th century BCE. The hierodules or temple prostitutes were indicated with the divine attribute as ‘the holy ones.’ According to Rash Shamra Fragm. 8252 in Uragiritic kedashim (pleasure boys) and kohanim (priests) were on the same level. They belonged to the temple personnel and had a higher rank than temple servants, singers, gatekeepers, etc. The kedashim are indeed to be seen as a legitimate priestly guild in the service of the goddesse Ashera, the consort of Baal. This is the real reason why pederasty, known to the Israelites only in connection with the sacral prostitution of the fertility cults of their environment, was rejected and branded as a crime deserving death. For Yahweh such sacralization of the sexual is an abomination.’ (Ein weites Feld, Berlin, 1980, p. 381)

‘The Canaanite abominations enjoyed great longevity, for Lucian, thousand years later, still attests these “very holy customs” for Hierapolis in the neighbouring south (De Dea Syria, 22). The Moabites on the border of Canaan confirm sacral prostitution in the service of Baal Peor, just as the Ishtar cult of the Assyrians according to Akkadian as well as Greek witnesses had hierodules utriusque sexus. Whereas the Code of Hamurabi (178-82, 187) is likewise occupied with cultic pederasty for Babylonia, sacral prostitution clearly did not become established in Egypt.’ (p. 381)

Posted by: Joseph O'Leary on Saturday, 24 November 2007 at 7:26am GMT

Jerry Hannon - man, you love to distort things.
No, it is not my interpretation..... it is those of our Anglican bishops. I agree with our bishops consistently expressed view (which happens to be consistent with 2000 years of Christian tradition and teaching and even the RCC church.....our bishops are not taking a controversial position!!)

Now a few bishops try and argue for sodomy not being a sin...... the ABC tried it in the past but even he says the bible says only negative things about it and, importantly, says nothing positive about it in any context......

I know your tactic is to try and label the traditional Anglican view as extreme and to pretend that most of the 50m Anglicans in the world are quite happy for there to be sodomy in the vicarage....... but I notice that even Rowan Williamsm despite his musings on the subject as an academic, is not trying to get Lambeth 1.10 removed and replaced by a more "inclusive" view....... could this be because very few in the AC believe that sodomy is not a sin in God's eyes and because it cannot be shown to be good, holy and acceptable to God from the bible???

Posted by: NP on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 4:29pm GMT

Jerry Hannon - man, you love to distort things.
No, it is not my interpretation..... it is those of our Anglican bishops. I agree with our bishops consistently expressed view (which happens to be consistent with 2000 years of Christian tradition and teaching and even the RCC church.....our bishops are not taking a controversial position!!)

Now a few bishops try and argue for sodomy not being a sin...... the ABC tried it in the past but even he says the bible says only negative things about it and, importantly, says nothing positive about it in any context......

I know your tactic is to try and label the traditional Anglican view as extreme and to pretend that most of the 50m Anglicans in the world are quite happy for there to be sodomy in the vicarage....... but I notice that even Rowan Williamsm despite his musings on the subject as an academic, is not trying to get Lambeth 1.10 removed and replaced by a more "inclusive" view....... could this be because very few in the AC believe that sodomy is not a sin in God's eyes and because it cannot be shown to be good, holy and acceptable to God from the bible???

Posted by: NP on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 4:29pm GMT

NP, NP, NP, 'sodomy, sodomy, sodomy in the vicarage". Must have been particularly fire and brimstone yesterday at HTB. Did you observe Christ the King?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 6:57pm GMT

Did you observe Christ the King?

Or perhaps "Stir Up" Sunday?

Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln on Monday, 26 November 2007 at 10:40pm GMT

What about St. Cecilia on November 11/22?

Oh, it's not in NP's "bible", so must be idolatry.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 12:48am GMT

I mentioned Christ the King because the Gospel was the story of the Good Thief, and on another thread I have noted that he entered the Kingdom without repentance, so what does that say for NP's idea that we must repent in order for God to find us worthy? NP obviously believes in justification by works, I wonder what the works of the Good Thief were that made him acceptable to Jesus on the Cross. It's a counter to the woman taken in adultery.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 2:23pm 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.