Unscriptural! I am afraid that that is the last thing polygamy is!

Isn't this just a rehash of a month old ACNS release? What's new?

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2008/4/2/ACNS4385

http://allafrica.com/stories/200804040568.html

John
Yes it is, but our reports at that time focused on the GAFCON items rather than this.
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/2008_04.html

The actual Communique, from the meeting of 26-29 March said this:

http://www.anglican-nig.org/Nnewi2008Communique.pdf

BIBLICAL MORALITY
15.For the past five years the Church of Nigeria has become known around the world as a champion for Biblical Sexual Morality. We recognize that we cannot simply ask others to conform to biblical norms if we ourselves are unwilling to look inward especially on the issue of the sanctity of marriage. At this meeting we took time to reflect upon the issue of polygamy, a practice that is still present in Nigerian culture. We agreed that while there are complex pastoral issues that must be addressed we as a Church stand against it and declare that the biblical norm for holy matrimony is the lifelong monogamous union of one man and one woman.

As a result of this, will the Nigerians be issuing a lower membership number, as polygamous families go and find a Church that combines Christianity and local custom?

Gee, isn't that nice, just in time for Lambeth, excuse, GAFCON.

A very "English" English communique in terms of construction and syntax, Simon. Wonder who might have written it.

Polygamy unscriptural? Behold, the triumph of BIBLIOLATRY over, y'know, actually *reading* da Good Book.

But then again, these are our Nigerian betters speaking, so what do I know?

I suppose that the Archbishop is trying to be systematic in his thinking. I can imagine him rolling out the RC argument 'homosexual acts are contrary to nature as they can not lead to procreation, so they must be condemned' and following it with the logical and systematic thought 'contraception is contrary to nature because it prevents procreation' ...
thereby condemning many people in sub-saharan africa to die of sexually transmitted disease...
but allowing him to feel virtuous and systematic in his theology.
Theology is a messy business which can not always be systematized.
I don't know which Bible he is reading... isn't it fairer to say 'the biblical norm we choose to highlight is...'?

This " ban " is mere window dressing before GAFCON...anyway polygamy has the blesssing of Lambeth 1988. The polygamists only have to pretend they are recent converts, to continue in their unions.

“We recognize that we cannot simply ask others to conform to biblical norms if we ourselves are unwilling to look inward especially on the issue of the sanctity of marriage. At this meeting we took time to reflect upon the issue of polygamy, a practice that is still present in Nigerian culture.”

The Texas Fundamentalist Mormons case is up and someone spills the beans on AB Abuja ;=)

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. W h o might it has been? An American auxiliary?

Lets remember that the stand up til now of AB Abuja and his American followers has been that Polygamy (which as Patriarchal is inherent to all pre Modern cultures) does not exist in Nigeria, although especially allowed “pastorally” on request by Lambeth 1988...

And now it looks fishy?

Perhaps the Nigerian bishop is seeking to read with scripture and so the "intention" of scripture.

If you just read what is there you will have Cain killing Abel on the first few pages. Is that normative as direction for human conduct? Does it reflect human reality or God's intention with humanity? In the same way with marriage, there is much that reflects human culture and blindness, do we merely take what is there or read it for God's intention? Jesus seemed to think it makes a difference (Matt 19:3-9).

Ben W

"'homosexual acts are contrary to nature as they can not lead to procreation, so they must be condemned' "

You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that all societies consider the procreative act to be special, and not for obvious reasons! It is a sharing in God's creativity. Non-procreative sex is something other. Whether to be condemned or not is an entirely different question, of course, whether inferior or not is also another question, but definitely different. The funny thing is that this idea is quite pagan. The life producing power of heterosexuality has always been seen as a sharing in the Divine. Read the Mesopotamian myths of Enki, Enlil, and the various other gods and goddesses. Personally, I find no threat to nor slur on Christianity in this. Wasn't it Augustine who said there is nothing new in Christianity, it's all there in the pagan beliefs, just hidden? The funny thing is that this very pagan concept is being championed by people who would become apoplaectic at the thought that their new basis for the Christian faith actually has very strong pagan roots.

And wasn't the tolerance for polygamy about compassion on the women and children who would be left destitute should the man be forced to choose only one wife? What happens to them now? Is it better to drive innocent women into prostitution, because that is often the fate of women left with no other financial recourse, in order to make one'sself appear holy?

Rather than trying to make this dated and erroneous book fit either side of the argument, you may instead consider that its use is minimal.

Lambeth 1867 condemned polgamy amongst african converts..1988 overturned it.

The Church in Nigeria will just be hiding this abberation, unil after GAFCON.

Meanwhile divorce and re-marriage are allowed, and contraception is not even an issue.

Women can't even be lay readers...they know their place.

Frankly, Ben W, I can think of few things more frightening in all the universe, than the Nigerian (arch)bishop's take on the "intention" of scripture.

"Does it reflect human reality or God's intention with humanity? In the same way with marriage, there is much that reflects human culture and blindness, do we merely take what is there or read it for God's intention?"

Curious,

People have been saying the exact same thing over the gay issue. Could the famous "clobber verses" possibly reflect mores of the late Bronze Age rather than durable verities (such as the innumerable condemnations of hypocrisy, and equally innumerable exhortations to compassion, even to the emptying out of self)?

And after more than 30 years of this issue being fought over in the Church in one way or another, I'm still mystified why this issue and not others (lay presidency at Eucharist for example) is a church-breaker.

Which is the greater sin? To keep multiple wives, or to divorce a multiple number of times?

MM,

Interesting - you say about the Bible: "consider that its use is minimal." At least we know where you are coming from.

I think you have just nicely answered Ford's accusatory question earlier about whether I think people just "make it up" as they go along.

Ben W

counterlight,

I suppose you consider what Jesus had to say about marriage simply passe (of the "bronze age" to be put down)! If they are verses of scripture you don't like they can simply be dismissed as somebody's "clobber verses" (who is reading with care and in context?). I think that is counter to the light!

Ben W

JCF,

Why am I not surprised? The issue is marriage, earlier people were criticizing the Africans because they allow polygamy, now they speak up and of course this is criticized!

On intention, do you think Jesus was also out of line in making reference to God's intention? Or does it matter to you?

Ben W

RIW,

It would be helpful, for people who gave themselves trying to meet the challenges of their day, to keep some fairness and humanity in conversation about them. The denigration goes on. . .

Ben W

What disturbs me most about this story is how the extra wives are abandoned without support with their children automatically given into the father's custody.

It reminds me of how native "country wives" were abandoned by white fur traders when the missionaries arrived with Governor George Sinclair of the Hudson's Bay Company. The new governing establishment refused to recognize customary marriages which preceded the frontier Church of England in Canada, because they hadn't been consecrated in a church. This resulted in great misery for the abandoned country wives.

Ken Kuhl
London, ON

"And after more than 30 years of this issue being fought over in the Church in one way or another, I'm still mystified why this issue and not others (lay presidency at Eucharist for example) is a church-breaker." - counterlight

Yes, I'm wondering about lay presidency at the Eucharist. It's closely tied, in the Sydney case, with the ordination of women. And I suspect that there is more than a hint of memorialism in that idea.

Of course, Sydney won't admit it, but lay presidency is far more church-dividing, for it smacks, as a friend of mine and I agreed over the weekend, of reducing clergy to a group of people with managerial roles that can be "delegated." And clergy as "managers" is a new, modern, kind of clericalism.

What about the establishment of a charity,

"One Man, One Woman"..dedicated to fighting Nigerian polygamy in all Christain denominations and aiding Nigerian women to gain some platform within their Churches.

Then we could have a Conference in Jerusalem next year.....

Ben W, for some reason what Jesus said about marriage- and we both know that he held strong opinions on the subject - is something the majority of "Scripture First-ers" unblushingly jettison for the sake of convenience - frequently their own - while, as has often been noted here before, holding rigidly to a "scriptural" view of homosexuality, about which He said nothing whatever.

Ben
do you really think that citing Merseymike, who has left the Anglican Church and no longer identifies with Christianity, proves your point against Ford?

Please, do engage properly. Setting up a strawman and then knocking him down just shows that you have no real answer to what Ford has said.

It would be more helpful if you engaged with the actual points Ford made, including commenting on the quotes of yours he cited, and which still need to be explained with regard to his question.

Erika,

First, it was not clear to me that MM had left. Second, the fact that he has left may be telling, in a setting where "much of this making it up" as you go goes on a person can lose direction and purpose. I gave specific examples of making it up, what more do you need?

I try to answer main points, but where I have already (perhaps earlier done so) I go to what I think still needs to be addressed. Did you think about main points I have raised here that are simply or largely passed by? (e.g. the question of "intention" in scripture as reflected in Jesus teaching on marriage - suspicion has its uses but good will comes first if you are going to understand somebody).

Ben W

Ben W

Since you do not understand my moniker, or its origins, I suspect your interpretations of the clear meaning of Scripture may be suspect as well.

Oliver Cromwell certainly took the Bible very seriously when he found the answer to the problem of Ireland's Catholics in 1st Samuel 15: 1-4. Remember how he applied that plain and clear instruction from God's Holy Word at Drogheda and Cashel?

In my own childhood experience, the story of Ham from Genesis was quoted at me repeatedly by good Bible believing Christians (a lot of them) to justify racial segregation. They had a point. It's right there in the Bible. If God said it (assuming God wrote the Bible like Muslims believe He wrote the Quran), then it must be so.

We shall know the tree by the fruit that it bears.

I've asked the question about why the gay issue above all others is THE church breaking issue for a long time, and I have yet to get any answer. I'm beginning to suspect that it's not an issue so much as a pretext.

As for there being no sanction in Scripture for polygamy, do you think Jacob should keep Rachel and dump Leah?
Imagine all the alimony and child support that King David will have to pay now!

Lapinbizarre,

At least you see that Jesus emphasized the character of marriage in the light of God "creating them male and female in the beginning."

If this order of male and female points to God's intention for the sexual relationship that says all that needs to be said. Just as when you send your child to to the store to get some sugar and some apples, you do not need to say don't get corn chips or all the other items in the store (to be clear - Jesus said no more about homosexuality than he did about polygamy).

Who would dispute that divorce has been destructive in different ways in this culture and people across the spectrum have known failure, but what is simply overlooked in this is the many good examples of strong marriages certainly among evangelical Christian people. So your regular resort to "well look at the ways in which they miss the mark" has become very stale, a way to divert attention and not deal with the point at issue - a much used tactic but that is all it amounts to, a diversion.

Ben W

"Jesus seemed to think it makes a difference (Matt 19:3-9)"

Jesus was referring back to Genesis 2.24 which comes immediately after the verse where the man's rib is removed and fashioned into the woman. What are we to make of that, in the light of scientific discoveries which disprove this actually happened?

Ben W, I *never* criticized the Nigerian Church for condemning polygamy: I honestly don't know where you got that one. (timing, context and stated rationale for said condemnation is another matter)

"On intention, do you think Jesus was also out of line in making reference to God's intention? Or does it matter to you?"

If I have to point out the obvious---that Peter Akinola (nor you, nor I) is NOT Jesus---I really don't the patience to continue this conversation.

Ben
to cite one single person as an example for making it up is not proving your point that most liberals are making it up as they go along, even if you don't know that that one person no longer identifies as Christian.

And even that one person isn't making anything up but has come to a different interpretation.
That's allowed, you know.

The big difference is that what you call "making it up" is what many of us call "interpreting". It would be really helpful if you could not only acknowledge it but even see it as a valid approach.

The acceptance that different interpretations are possible is, after all, the only reason I am able to take your slant on things seriously and genuinely accept that you believe them and are a true Christian, although I don't agree with most of your beliefs.

If only you could do the same for us!

Ben W interpreted Genesis 1:27 “If this order of male and female points to God's intention for the sexual relationship that says all that needs to be said.”

If this interpretation of Genesis 1:27 “says all that needs to be said” it is strange indeed that it cannot be found before 1978 – and in California at that. A book by one Don Williams: The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? It’s on Amazon but it seems few have read it. But see: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Journal/stories.aspx?id=75917

I have always found Matt 19:4 quoting of Genesis 1:27 (in the context of repudium!) to be extraordinarily incongruent, since neither Adam nor Eve are reported to have had any parents – so how could this piece of illogic ever have been thought authentic by the School of Matthew?

The answer to that question may be the 1978 date.

As to Don Williams novel Mandatory Fertility Cult Paradigm it’s late modern indeed ; = )

But the Ancient (as well as the 2nd Millennium Academic) Tradition of the Church was a call to Chastity for all and sundry (I remember it distinctly from my youth) – with (from Lateran II 1137 onwards) Mandatory Abstinence for the Ordained (argued with a (hetero-)sexualised re-working of 1 Thess 4:2-8 by the Parisian Versio vulgata used in the Church of Sweden for consecrations up to and beyond the new Church Order of 1571).

I do feel sorry for the kooks and conspiracy mongers out there who see every bit of news out of Nigeria as confirmation of their paranoid fantasies.

Alas, there is no new letter on polygamy from the Church of Nigeria or Archbishop Akinola. There is no new policy being offered here.

The original documents from which the Nigerian newspaper took its story ... and the BBC did a follow my leader story--and its "analyst" from Abuja showed himself to be au courant with the latest conventional wisdom in London--but not the news in Nigeria ... can be found at:
http://www.anglican-nig.org/Nnewi2008PASTORALletter.pdf since early April (page 2 and also paragraph 15 of the Nnewi Communiqué http://www.anglican-nig.org/Nnewi2008Communique.pdf. )

There was an ACNS press release containing these documents, and a story in the Church of England Newspaper on this issue at the time of publication.

Erika,

Have you thought your position through? It would mean that no could ever really be wrong, there are just different "interpretations."

The ideology of Hitler is as valid as the theology of D Bonhoeffer. And you talk about engaging properly! I have already referred to a number of people that are out there who tell you they reject much of the Christian faith (not just another "interpretation"), and I could list many more for you if there were a point to that, but you come up with something about "that one person" after all that has alredy been listed! Is there a possiblity we can advance in this conversation?

Ben W

counterlight,

One more eveidence that mere assumption controls interpretation.

The play I made on your name in making the point earlier had absolutely nothing to do with how your "moniker" originated or what you make of it, I simply used to say what I wanted to say. That is allowed.

Your reference to Ham etc has to be read precisely in larger context, in terms of what I have been saying about reading for "intention." I could give you many examples of the kind of misuse of scripture you talk about myself. One would be a woman alienated from the church who could not accept that God's love was for her because growing up she heard scripture texts (out of context) on judgement regularly thrown at her. Terrible use of scripture and disservice to her.

Ben W

Ben W asked: “Is there a possibility we can advance in this conversation?”

It belongs in the gutter.

Ben
Yes, I have thought my position through.

To equate Hitler, who was directly responsible for the death of millions, with a Christian martyr is silly. I'm not talking of being a criminal or not!

I'm talking of self identifying as a Christian but having beliefs that are not like many other Christians.

You have talked about people who YOU BELIEVE reject much of the Christian faith. They don't think they do, they think they interpret differently.
It is not up to you to judge them. All you can do is accept their sincerity while believing they are wrong.
That is absolutely not the same as claiming they're making it up as they go along to suit themselves.

But I think you have clearly proved Ford's point that you are not able to see the difference. Although you talk about accepting different views, in practice, every time someone DOES advance a different view, you criticise them for making it up. You only need to read through this whole thread here to prove that point.
Or can you show me a single instance where someone has held a different view that you actually accepted as sincere and not held simply for lesser personal motives?

So, no, I don't think we can advance this conversation. Not until you take the basic point that people can differ but still be sincere - not just in the abstract but with respect to actual people discussed and posting on TA.

Everyone should go to Virtue on line and watch a video of David Virtue addressing conservatives in Wisconsin. It was filmed in March and he says

" Polygamy is a myth "...he knows better than Akinola!

He talks about the centrality of sexuality to the crisis and yet never mentions divorce. Probablly most of his audience are divorced and their children too. As Doctor Toon ( American prayer Book society )says , American conservatives have not rejected the liberal revison of heterosexualmorality...contraception and divorce.

He mentions that there are over 100 common cause (outside the Anglican Communion ) bishops...presumably they are part of the 267 trumpeted for GAFCON attendance.

His talk about how his brother-in-law died about aids is quite moving. He did repent on his death bed you will be pleased to hear.

Throughout the talk he refers to Bishop Schorri as Mrs Schorri. He gloats at his ten year crusade about Bennison and a a loud laugh is raised in the audience when he talks of the death of a liberal bishop from an alchoholic related disease.

As with his blog, there is no charity and besides listening to St Paul on homosexuality he should look at this important area..this is will be the achilles weak spot of the conservatives, along with their division over women.

Ben: Genesis is a story. A fantasy. It never happened. Its just a pictorial representation of premodern ideas about the world. Its utterly irrelevant.

The problem liberal Christians have is that they are stuck with this faintly ridiculous book, most of which is best used as lining for the cat litter tray. Until they can actually be honest enough to say what I have come to realise - that Christianity itself is actually the problem and that it needs wholesale revision - then I would expect convoluted conversation to continue.

Erika,

Of course I was not equating Hitler with Bonhoeffer! You call for understanding and then you do this? The point simply is that there is a lot of ideology out there, of people coming up with things to serve their own ends apart from real interpretation.

Because conversation seems blocked I am not going on with this, only to say I accept that some on this list sincerely believe what they hold and I have expressed agreement in part at times (even when I disagree with some things they hold).

In one way the point I'm trying to make is again made by MM in his last post here. He has come to a certain view of scripture, from a place where he "reinterpreted" parts of it to where he is now (the path of "reinterpretation" that ends in outright rejection. He was certainly placing his own ideas above scripture and resorting to something else long before he reached this end).

Bren W

Afraid that I, too, as a believer or follower of Jesus of Nazareth stand - intentionally and with every ounce of educated discernment into which I have painstakingly lived as a modern global citizen - outside BW's basic stance. So far the BW stance comes across as a conservative realignment stance. Being welcome in our global believer conservations means, for Anglicans, being consistently subject to best practices tool kit scrutiny and investigation.

Nowadays in the realignment campaign, we get a newish conservative claim: My special revelation authority makes me exempt from investigation, scrutiny, and the like. My real love, real care in daily life for, say, uppity women who do not believe or agree with me, is simply not the test issue any longer, on behalf of showing my witness. The test issues now shift to: How awful and how ungodly those uppity women are. My sins are forgiven and erased, not hers. I know Jesus, she does not. She must repent, not me.

Is Romans 1 really about revealing that the queers are uniquely trashed before God as an especially dangerous class of awful sinners? Given up before God? Or, more likely, the scriptural author’s rhetorical preparation for a Romans 2 claim that we all stand unavoidably, before a hugely loving God in awe, obedience, fear, trembling, and just the sorts of blessedness that a (non-penal) divine judgment brings us, face to face, heart to heart? Fact is, real believers differ when they read these scriptures.

What if some conservative revelation special witness to God’s alleged intentions conflicts with tested and known empirical evidence? Do we then go blind and deaf and dumb, in favor of special religious revelation? Are thriving women inevitably subjugated properly to a particular real world man in their daily life, such that this subjugation blesses and grounds all possible thriving for all possible women?

Until special realignment conservative revelation claims can pass fair and solid investigation from any number of best practices tool kit angles, we are set up to shoot realignment fish in conservative barrels, intellectually. And emotionally, and spiritually.

Alas. Realignment Conservative Set Pieces have little or nothing to do with a modern person following Jesus of Nazareth. Better we reclaim a witnessing sense of our own historic meanness towards nearly everybody else? Better we repent of repeated false witness against all sorts?

"The ideology of Hitler is as valid as the theology of D Bonhoeffer."

"Of course I was not equating Hitler with Bonhoeffer!"

There you are! You did and you do. In short you are not aware of what you say.

["best used as lining for the cat litter tray"??? Merseymike, you're really not helping here.]

"I do feel sorry for the kooks and conspiracy mongers out there . . . their paranoid fantasies. Posted by George Conger"

:-0

Consider the source!

Out of context any state can be turned to mean anything ... (teh old example - "Judas went and hanged himself ... go thou and do likewise.")

In context: If yo ;make not distinction between ideology (Nazizm) and real interpretation Bohhoffer) then "The ideology of Hitler is as valid as the theology of D Bonhoeffer."

Ben W

Ben ; I don't think that it is fair to compare my journey to others here.

I came to the conclusion that Christianity was inherently problematic. You should also know that I was once an evangelical, and long ago came to the decision that those beliefs were harmful.

I think it is very important to keep an open mind, and whilst I have very great respect for those liberals who wish to seek change - for it is certainly needed - my own thinking led me to humanism. However, I think there is absolutely no reason why other liberal Christian should follow that path. Our personal journeys are just that - personal - and as an evangelical I am surprised that you don't understand that.

My path of reinterpretation did not 'lead' to rejection. I simply recognised that I no longer believed in God

Ben W. is assuming a dichotomy, that there are only two sources of opinion:
1) Scrpture = the thought of God
2) All other sources of opinion (science, philosophy, theology, empirical observation, whatever) = the thought of individuals making it up as they go along.

I find this dichotomy unconvincing and unhelpful.

The news item is not new.
Polygamy amongst Nigerian Anglican clergy is a myth
The Church does not encourage divorce
Converts with multiple wives are advised not to take any more additional wife
Any members who takes an additional wife is not welcome to the Holy Communion
Such are not allowed to stand for elective leadership positions in the Church and they also cannot even dream of being ordained deacons not to mention becoming Bishops.

The Church’s position has not changed. Polygamists cannot be Christian role models. What happened in Nnewi was after consideration of reports that some wealthy and influential polygamists were being allowed to hold some lay church positions. The reference to global issue is to that which seeks to make a practicing homosexual a role model of Christianity

“Fact is, real believers differ when they read these scriptures”
Amen!

“Realignment Conservative Set Pieces have little or nothing to do with a modern person following Jesus of Nazareth”

I think this is only half right. There are two kinds of modern people, and the current crop of Consevos is one of them. They claim a literalism and objectivity for the Bible it hasn’t had before the Enlightenment. Only in response to science’s claim that many things mentioned in the Bible are “not true” did Christians respond, foolishly, that they “are true”, instead of recognising that there are factual truths and mystical truths.

Faced with a confusing modern world, one group of people always responds to fear by clinging to ever tightening certainties, to the extent that they cannot even allow others to live with uncertainty because it’s too threatening. Claiming to want to go back to an original truth, the conservatives are the modern flip side of the liberals they so despise.

Karen Armstrong (The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam) traces this beautifully and convincingly.

Ben

"In context: If yo ;make not distinction between ideology (Nazizm) and real interpretation Bohhoffer) then "The ideology of Hitler is as valid as the theology of D Bonhoeffer."

And in the same context I replied that I had been talking about self professing Christians, not any ideologues. And that I had not been talking about criminals.

I then clarified why I thought your statement had been wrong, because it exaggerated something I hadn't said or intended. You now tell me that you had never intended make it sound as though you took the juxtaposition of Hitler and Bonhoeffer seriously. ... well, I certainly never proposed it!

I suppose this is another instance of “I am telling you what I think you believe and if you tell me that you don’t, I tell you that you’re wrong”.

Anthony,

I make no such assumption, in fact I think for instance science in the study of matters in creation can point people to God.

The great work of John Polkinghorne at Cambridge is as an example of this. But I do think if Jesus Christ is Lord that means other things are evaluated in this light. Therefore not only do "I find this dichotomy unconvincing and unhelpful" (your words above) I find it rediculous.

So much for your assumptions - why not engage actual thought instead of these empty assumptions?

Ben W

Erika,

I am simply trying to make the point that there is difference between ideology that can take little or much of scripture to serve one's own ends, and real interpretation intent on actually hearing the scripture.

All I ask is that you attend to the point and not go off on some tangent about criminals (that was never the point). If you find that an impossible distinction let us leave it there.

Ben W

MM

It is right that you seek to be as clear as you can on your journey.

And I know that is different for different people. I guess in the end I'm not sure why you find the term "rejection" a problem? I understand that you did not simply wake up one morning and say "I reject the Christian faith." In the context of my post, the point simply is you once accepted the faith now you don't (for a complex of reasons).

Ben W

Erika,

There is something I believe to the distinction you make of cons and liberals as two types of modern reaction affected by the Enlightenment.

But in terms of what we are actually talking aboupt here, it is diversion. What have I been saying here that represents this "fundamentalist literalism" you speak of? An example once more of "take a brush and tar everybody you do not agree with." Do you want real conversation?

Ben W

I wonder who gets to determine what is the "correct" way to interpret Scripture and why should anyone listen to them or believe them?

As I recall, the rabbis spent the whole Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds arguing over this question.

Until, only very recently, good Christian people fought wars and killed each other over this question.

And why is it that over the last 2000 years so many people could read the same text and come away with so many conflicting conclusions about what it really says?

So much for "the clear meaning of Scripture."

drdanfee,

A few things:

1. You call for proper respect for people, you will take swipes at me here and talk about me, but not even speak to me directly as one human to another!
2. You talk about respect for women but ignore everything I have said about this and simply attribute what is not true in word or practise (what kind of respect is this!?).
3. When have I said that homosexuality is a special sin above others? (In Rom 1 I think it is clear the apostle is making a main point in ch 1 followed up with another main point in ch 2; in any case it is clear ch 2 is not a denial of what is said in ch 1). And you talk about trashing people - but to disregard, to disrespect, to misrepresent is all in order when it comes to your cause?!

Ben W

"You call for proper respect for people, you will take swipes at me here and talk about me, but not even speak to me directly as one human to another!"

There is a notable difference, however. No one is calling for legal penalties (including prison) for Ben W. No one is demanding that he be prohibited from holy orders, or to be excommunicated from the Church. I don't even see anyone demanding his expulsion from this blog. Nor should they.
Archbishop Akinola and Bishop Venables advocate precisely those things for a lot of us who post here and who read this blog.

Small wonder then that some of us take this conflict very personally and can get very passionate.

Ben: you appear to think that my rejection - which I have no problem with - was an outcome of interpretation. It wasn't.

The position I take now is definitively different to the one I took then.

Well BW, Thanks for reading at least.

I am speaking of/to the range of views in the realignment campaign within which you seem to fall, read somewhat in partial context. If you in fact are not even partly a realignment conservative believer, then my apologies for mistaking you for that side of Anglican beliefs and manners and methods.

Fact is, IF you are a conservative Anglican who would find the realignment campaign most welcome - not least because of its penchant for threatening and coercing the rest of us who are not yet properly conservative - then so far as I can tell, you are participating in a campaign that preaches some very hardline, strict views - in my discernment, mischievous and wrong-headed views - about both women and queer folks in the modern world. And pursues a dubious and careless manner of reading scripture in many instances, because it tells us, Just read scripture like you read your morning blog post?

Re: trash talk, the realignment campaign regularly indulges in falsehoods via Akinola-like name calling - saying queer folks are lower than dogs, saying leadership from queer folks or educated women somehow threatens us, saying liberals are a cancer on the body of the faithful, and that sort of thing. A favorite biblical word among many conservatives in the USA bible belt, for example, is simply Abomination.

Re: Romans, I take your assertion but still disagree. Clearly Romans 1 is making a preparatory rhetorical thrust that culminates in Romans 2. The versification that divides one from the other is externally imposed via the translations done from the original or at least from the most ancient copies of the original to which we have access. Hence, my disagreement, despite the plausibility of your views taking the translated text on its face (like a newspaper?) according to a standard conservative believer reading.

Last hint: I am not asking you to step away from the Lord's table at any of our local Anglican/Episcopalian churches though I radically disagree with much in your views. I would let you teach my children in Sunday School provided we could find an agreed lesson plan; but then only if you promised me ahead of time not to trash talk their two daddies, or the several sets of two mommies with which the two daddies are family friends, either in front of them or their classmates or other parents?

Erica B thanks loads for the Karen Armstrong reading reference. I highly recommend it to all conservative Anglican posters on this blog, if any of those folks/believers wish to understand part of our hot button issues from anything but a conservative framework that is closed to non-conservative believers/outsiders.

"there is difference between ideology that can take little or much of scripture to serve one's own ends, and real interpretation intent on actually hearing the scripture."

Ben, whether or not you realize or intend it, much of what you say indicates that your base assumption is that those who do not agree with your position are making it up as they go along. Many of us could apply the above statement to Conservative Evangelicals. You repeatedly claim this impression is inaccurate. Fine. I accept that. So why is it that, every time someone tries to point out to you HOW what you say gives that impression, you defend your statements and accuse everyone of misrepresenting you rather than re-examine your statements to try to understand why people would feel this way? You may not actually think like this, but you certainly appear to, and you don't seem at all interested in correcting this false impression that you yourself are giving people. If you want to make your point, why are you not interested in doing so in a way that people can hear rather than defending behaviours that you are clearly being told are shutting people's ears? You need to realize that many of us, through long experience, are very suspicious of Evangelicals. I really want to see in you an Evangelical who is different from what my 45 years of experience tells me the majority of Evangelicals are like. But you need to realize that you casually say things that indicate otherwise. You need to do more than publically "affirm" some position or another. Anyone can do that, it has little meaning. You need to show that you actually do not have those basic assumptions. Your casual statements about, for instance, people "making it up as they go along" suggest otherwise.

I have stated the view clearly enough that in loyalty to Christ as Lord (in the light of scripture - that can be used "ideologically" or interpreted for it's intended/real sense) we evaluate other things.

Clearly there can be common confession of Jesus and yet there may be serious differences. The matter of Christian participation in war is one of those. I do not think this is a trivial matter (by the way something not as clearly or consistently expressed as God's intention in sexuality and marriage). People may sincerely disagree, one person will stand for peace and non-violence in light of the gospel, another person will give priority of allegiance to nation (and scripture may come to be used "ideologically" to uphold the view).

Ford: the fact is there is ideological use/abuse of scripture, that has nothing to do with whether someone agrees with me or not (and many people do "make it as up" as they along). Further, I know you find it hard, not to say "impossible," to hear this. If you simply refuse to accept, well, we will go on. Beyond that, what I have attempted to speak to is evasion - not speaking to the point, generalizing, or misrepresenting what has actually been said - often simply on the basis of assumption and attributing positions and views - in other words the regular resort to diversion.

Ben W

Persecution and segregation of sexual minorities definitely fall into the category of "ideological abuse" of Scripture as far as I'm concerned. It ranks right down there with racial segregation, and it is striking how congruent are the language and reasoning used to defend both of them are.

Dan Free said:

Re: Romans, I take your assertion but still disagree. Clearly Romans 1 is making a preparatory rhetorical thrust that culminates in Romans 2. The versification that divides one from the other is externally imposed via the translations done from the original or at least from the most ancient copies of the original to which we have access....

This is precisely the point James Alison made in a commentary on the first part of Romans which one can find here.

counterlight,

At least you recognize that there is such a thing as "ideological" use/abuse of scripture.

Persecution is one thing, the idea that respect for another means approval of all the other person does is another matter (since I have spoken up about the use of the language of hate against one another - goes both ways - I certainly stand against persecution of any group).

As Walsingham indicated here on another thread, the importance for understanding arises precisely in the case of deep disagreement. When there are no serious differences we need not be so much concerned about understanding the other, the challenge to understanding and fair interaction arises precisely in the case of strong disagreement. Instead of understanding we dismiss the other, mock the thought of the other, speak for the other, put the other down (the list goes on).

Ben W

Ben W. is right that I don't understand what he is saying. I went back and reread most of his comments. The more of his comments I read the less clear it is what he means to say. He uses many abstract terms and I find it hard to know what they refer to. I don't know if other people understand him, he seems to think they mostly do not. I think I will have to give up on this.

Ben W wrote: "I have stated the view clearly enough that in loyalty to Christ as Lord (in the light of scripture - that can be used "ideologically" or interpreted for it's intended/real sense) we evaluate other things."

Really?

What Counterlight said.

Ben
"At least you recognize that there is such a thing as "ideological" use/abuse of scripture."

We all do that.
You're talking in the wishy washy abstract again where everyone can cosily agree.

But what we talked about in this thread is that "liberals" as a group do not abuse scripture, but sincerely read it differently.

I know, I know.... you keep saying that people just make it up as they go along...

Thankfully, you're not our judge.
We can sleep in peace.

Oops! Here's the link to the Alison commentary:

http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html

My point that Ben W is facing no risk of legal penalties, prohibition from holy orders, and excommunication for his position still stands. The segregationist spiritual leaders are calling for those very things to be applied to LGBTs.

And after 2000 years of people fighting over the same Scriptural text, what makes Ben W's understanding of it any more compelling or authoritative than anyone else's? I agree with conservative claims that this conflict is all about authority. It's a crisis created by the abdication of such through so many centuries of hypocrisy and crime.

Pardon my American pragmatism, but my 2 guides through all the tangled and conflicting doctrinal claims are Our Lord's counsel that good trees bear good fruit, and the motto of the State of Missouri, "Show Me!"

I came to this list wanting to understand more clearly the "contrary" position, and with the aim of real conversation. That means for me at a minimum trying to understand what the real issues are and not simply defense or denigration of others. I think, as Walsingham has recognized here, that sometimes with some people deepens further the chasm between people and I do not want to be part of that.

Counterlight exemplifies in part what I am trying to say, "after 2000 years of people fighting over the same Scriptural text, what makes Ben W's understanding of it any more compelling or authoritative than anyone else's?" True, in our present context there are people who come with a variety of assumptions about scripture and about the good God intends in our creation and in our redemption in Christ (to some who still use these Christian terms this has become just "pious" language). There is certainly great confusion, all the more reason you would think for clear purposeful conversation! So I realize I need to make a place with some patience for people who disagree.

The fact is if it were not for the massive changes in thought and sexual behavior I doubt that we would be talking about this as something contested in scripture itself. Historically was there ever much doubt or question about God's intention in this matter? So counterlight paints the picture with his "ideological" colours, it is not an issue merely of my interpretation, it has been and still is largely historic Christian teaching. I leave you to it.

Ben W

"... it has been and still is largely historic Christian teaching."

It's late Modern, Ben W, late modern anti Modern Social Politics.

Just that you know.

"Historically was there ever much doubt or question about God's intention in this matter?"

Yes, there was.
Did you the James Alison article to which Ren Aguila posted a link here?

http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html