Ephraim Radner, who once resigned from the Global South web-site because of his contrary views to what was being expressed therein, emphasizes the cautious tenor of the ABC's final address to the Lambeth Conference. It seems that this moderate evangelical voice from the G.S. entity is hopeful of some positive result from the work of the Windsor Continuing Group and it's insistence on the 3 moratoria; agsinst the ordination of gay bishops, blessing of same-sex unions, and the continuing activities of para-provincial jurisdictions by African and South American prelates.

The parties who will suffer the most from the proposed moratoria will undoubtedly be the gay people of the Churches in the USA and Canada (and their counterparts in all other provinces of our Chuirch), while the African and South American prelates have already said they will not comply with and ban on their actitivites in foreign jurisdictions.

This would seem to be an impasse from different perspectives - on the one side; insistence on the
perception of moral sanctions from the Bible; and on the other; a refusal to withdraw from what is perceived to be a Gospel imperative for the inclusion of gays within the Body of Christ - as fellow sinners and pilgrims.

If we could all only agree that we are, indeed, all sinners whom Christ has already redeemed; perhaps we could agree to live together - not as a Mausoleum for Saints, but as a Hospital for Sinners, justified, not by our own holiness, but by that of the Incarnate Word.

For God so loved the world - not just the Church!

Guys, Ephraim and Graham are the voice of moderate conservativism.

Many people express much stronger rejection of what has been going on ( rejecting the clear teaching of the Bible, blessing sin, conflating love and approval, etc etc)!

It is interesting that Ephraim Radner's comments about me, that seem a bit odd somehow, have become a source of humour at Stand Firm. I can't quite work out why. It is interesting to note that they have little faith in the Anglican Communion and wonder what the "theological left" have to worry about. Well I am no spokesperson, but because I happen to give Rowan Williams more than the benefit of the doubt and believe what he says, that he would have others sacrifice a section of churchgoers looking for stability in their lives in order to have international coherence in a manufactured Anglican institution. The theological left, interested in response and fluidity, rather thinks he wants to close things down in the direction of biblical fundies and ecclesiastical castle builders.

I sparred with Susan Philips in the Irish Times this morning: http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1219243761310

Yes, well SoVII, Messers Radner and Kings may be less hard-ine than some, but the are still wrestling with the issues within a scriptural framework. Your point in the Irish Times about being consistent in one's liberal or conservative attitudes, rather than being consistent with a proper interpretation of the teaching of Christ and the Apostle, is either shockingly simplistic, or it illustrates the non-scriptural framework you are thinking in... "be like us or be like them".

And I had wondered where Fr Joseph O'Leary had gone to! Well sparred, Spirit!

The only way to come up with a single, coherent framework that univocally reads the scriptures is to bring something of one's own to them, as carefully and as conscientiously and as openly as possible. Not even the four canonical gospels agree in every detail, as if they were journalistic or historical research reports.

The simple-mindedness of those who are loudly asserting so-called plain approaches is no more, no less than other competing and equally simplistic approaches.

So far as honesty in methods go, it amounts in the end to a reader's honesty in reading.

Few of the simplistic approaches bother to admit that they stand in any a priori hermeneutic framework, let alone spell their hermeneutics out in key detail, let alone subject their chosen or preferred hermeneutics and details to any range of modern, plausible, separate best practice tests.

Oh, and it strikes me as rather disingenuous to participate in a conservative realignment campaign which pushes us onto either of two gapped camps - rights vs lefts, then turn around and call somebody on realizing that the big tent is being collapsed by just this effort. Far better to talk about how weaponized conservative doctrines are being deployed in nearly every instance at nearly every level of global Anglican conversation.

Not even Rowan Williams can speak a word of welcome to progressive Anglican believers these days. Certainly neither Radner or Kings can speak welcome to progressive believers.

The preachment these days is always something like: Hello, welcome. You know, progressive believers are a really big problem and if we are not careful, progressive believers will sink the holy Anglican ship, because of their innate propensities for mischief and because they are immature and irresponsible. Now sit down and shut up while you watch us really big conservative believers show you how you ought to be.

But I weighed all that while growing up in the USA Bible Belt - now there is conservative religion for you, if you like. VGR is not an indelible sign that the global Anglican Commuion is broken, just a sign that Akinola did not get a vote in electing the bishop in New Hampshire, any more than New Hampshire got a vote in Akinola becoming Nigerian archbishop.

"wrestling with the issues within a scriptural framework."

If one is trying to understand homosexuality in the context of "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God", and "Love one another as I have loved you" and "Bear ye one another's burdens and so fuilfill the Law of Christ", how can such a person be said to NOT be wrestling with the issue in a scriptural framework? Besides, do we limit the process of discernment of where God is calling us to what is in Scripture? Had we done that for the past 2000 years, Christianity would look much different now than it does. You won't find much evidence for the Trinity in Scripture, after all, nor for invocation of the saints, veneration of icons, the threefold order of ministry, the sacraments of confirmation or reconciliation. You won't find any support for usury either. Thing is, these people are "wrestling" in a scriptural framework, but they have a particular understanding of what that framework is, and one of their biggest errors is the idea that anything that ISN'T in Scripture is not valid. Another is that they see Scripture as the Word of God, shifting the emphasis from God as revealed in Christ to God as "revealed" in Scipture. Scripture isn't God's self revelation to us, Christ is. Scripture merely explains some aspects of that self revelation.

Davidwh:

And what makes you so certain that YOURS is the "proper interpretation of the teaching of Christ and the apostles"?

Concerning moratoria, liked just fine by both Radner and Kings, we might hear another voice, taking our real world TEC history into account, and weighing the lessons from another moratorium whose effects on TEC were profound and continue to the present day, long-lasting.

See: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/anglican_communion/moratorium_not_again.php

Dear Pluralist,

I read your post and have followed the various threads related to it with interest. I think where your analysis (and that of many others on the left and on the right) of Rowan Williams' call for a "generous initiative" goes off the tracks is in re-interpreting it to mean "[scapegoating] sacrifice." My own analysis, along the lines of self-giving (nonviolent kenosis) may be found in five inter-related posts on Generosity found here:

http://communioninconflict.blogspot.com/search/label/Generosity

I'd be happy to get your take on them.

Ephraim Radner's continued legitimacy in his new Canadian setting requires the adoption of more moderate public positions. Whether they are heartfelt and sincere is not discernible.

In Toronto, his present level of moderation still looks pretty outrageous. More doctrinaire positions might make him far less credible.

He is not in Toronto because of the weather, but because from Wycliffe College he can influence the next generation of Canadian clergy and current pro-gay theological trends.

His former ideology is unintelligible to the Canadian Church. Table stakes at the Canadian poker game require a more nuanced discourse than is needed elsewhere.

“Ford Elms wrote: “Another is that they see Scripture as the Word of God, shifting the emphasis from God as revealed in Christ to…”

May I suggest “words”?

"May I suggest “words”?"

Indeed you may, Goran. We share an affinity for this kind of obscure, and I might suggest, nerdy, wordplay. I wish I could do it in Swedish. I have called Scripture "The Words of God" in the past as well.

More discussion in The Irish Times this morning: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/0822/1219331408168.html

Ford,

I know we keep going around in circles on this one; yes, do think about the the teaching of Jesus on loving your neighbor as yourself and so on, he also affirmed marriage in male female terms (both are valid). As for the Bible coming before Jesus or replacing Jesus that is NOT the issue - rather what is the place of scripture in witness to Christ in the context of the church?

So I am not going to get into this with you except to refer you to the recent statementof N T Wright at Lambeth '08 that looks at both sides of this. He begins: "Debates about the authority of scripture have tended to get off on the wrong foot and to turn into an unproductive shouting-match. This is partly because here, as in matters of political theology, in the words of Jim Wallis ‘the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn’t get it’. And sometimes the other way round as well. We have allowed our debates to be polarized within the false either/or of post-enlightenment categories, so that we either see the Bible as a holy book, almost a magic book, in which we can simply look up detached answers to troubling questions, or see it within its historical context and therefore claim the right to relativize anything and everything we don’t immediately like about it. These categories are themselves mistaken; the Bible itself helps us to challenge them . . ."

Ben W

"Ord" on Swedish is the same in singular and plural...

; = )

"We have allowed our debates to be polarized within the false either/or of post-enlightenment categories, so that we either see the Bible as a holy book, almost a magic book, in which we can simply look up detached answers to troubling questions, or see it within its historical context and therefore claim the right to relativize anything and everything we don’t immediately like about it. These categories are themselves mistaken"

Not only are the categories mistaken, T Wright is too. You may recognise your side in the conservative caricature. I do not recognise mine in the liberal one.

Liberals do not claim the right to relativise anything and everything we do not like about Scripture, and the longer this slander persists the longer this conversation is going nowhere.

Are all of you who persist with these lies really and truly incapable of understanding that we are genuine in our reading of Scripture but that we interpret it differently and give it a different weighting, in accordance with the Anglican method of Scripture, Tradition and Reason?
It's not that difficult to understand!

You don't have to accept it, you don’t have to go along with it, you don’t have to use the same formula. But, really, how much talking does it take to understand the basic principle, which is quite simple after all?

The evangelical Bishop Alan of Winchester wrote on his blog during Lambeth:
“I have not met anyone here of whom it would be true to say simply that they do not believe in the Authority of Scripture. How we believe in what kind of authority are other questions”

You can read the rest on http://bishopalan.blogspot.com Wednesday 30th July 2008 “How Anglican use the Bible”.

A grown up conversation about this is really possible, let Bishop Alan show you the way.

"we either see the Bible as a holy book, almost a magic book, in which we can simply look up detached answers to troubling questions, or see it within its historical context and therefore claim the right to relativize anything and everything we don’t immediately like about it."

Ben, I actually agree, but there doesn't seem to be much appreciation from conservatives that THEY do the latter as well. I would take exception that either side is totally guilty of it, which is why I continually challenge the conservative use of words like "orthodox" and the continued accusations of faithlessness and seeking the approval of the world. We are indeed divided on what we understand as the Bible's role in witness to Christ, and in deciding doctrine. One side has a tendency to emphasize that cultural context in which the texts were written, and some do go overboard with that. To the other side, this is called "rejecting Scripture", which it is not. Yet the first side is willing to continue in communion with the other side, despite having great difficulty with some of the things the other side teaches, so cannot understand why the other side is not willing to extend the same courtesy. It isn't as if the problems that I, for instance, have with conservative Evangelical theology aren't big issues. I'll be honest here, I think that if someone denies baptismal regeneration or claims the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is to be found in the fellowship of the believers celebrating it, that person is seriously misguided as to the nature of redemption, of the Incarnation, and of the Gospel message as a whole. I believe, as I have said, that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is near blasphemy. Yet I am still willing to remain in communion with those who believe strongly in these things. So if I am willing to remain in communion with those who I sincerely believe are close to slandering God Himself, why can they not remain in communion with those they sincerely believe are blessing sin? Am I just confusing laxity with Christian love and tolerance? Ought I to be trying to kick them out of the Church?

That's a circular argument, Ben. To allow such a challenge involved giving the bible an authority which it does not merit.

Of course I didn't mean WInchester in my last post, may Bishop Alan of Buckinghamshire and everyone else who noticed forgive me!

I thought you were referring to the old diocese of Winchester in about 1092, Erika, in which case you would be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Oxford

Ben W.

In your determination to set words in Scripture higher than the Word of God-made-flesh in Jesus, I wonder if you could give me your take on the 'words' spoken by 'The Word' in the context of Jesus' exhortation to his disciples on the subject of human relationships, contained in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, verse 12:

"There are eucnuchs born that way from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by men and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom".

We all have a good idea of what Jesus was talking about when he mentions the second and third categories of eunuch, but who are the first? Do you think it possible that they may have included homosexual people?

Perhaps, before you rush to reply, you might read Professor Michael King's article from his scientific perspective, as Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry at the University College Medical School, London, and posted elsewhere on this site.

Ron Smith,

Do you want to say "eunuch" = homosexual? Words can mean whatever ...?

On Dr King's piece, in sum the best you can do is to say it is not simply genes and it may not be only environment. The point I have made here from the beginning. The main point that I hear also from Christopher Shell as well as providing some context on this.

The other thing here, we have talked about the relation of the Word and scripture. In your terms, you call for listening. I have been clear about the order and relation of the Word and of scripture, not to speak of the longer article by Wright which I cited. Still you go on and repeat your line, "In your determination to set words in Scripture higher than the Word of God-made-flesh..." until you indicate that you mean it about listening what is the point? Conversation cannot go anywhere.

Ben W

".....it is not simply genes and it may not be only environment."

Ben, this is the point coming from science as well. The only people who talk seriously about a "gay gene" are those conservatives who are anti-homosexual, and then only to snort derisively at the idea. I'll let christopher speak his own position, but in my discussions with him, the origins of homosexuality have seemed far down the list of his points.

Ben W., you still have not answered my direct question to you - about your take on the words of jesus from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 19, verse 12. Do you actually have an opinon which is at all helpful? Or will you accept that Jesus just might have been referring to those people we now know as intrinsically homosexual?

Ron Smith,

I see you do not make a point of the Word in relation to scripture again. It would be encouraging to know that one has been heard, and that we can come to understand together instead of just going from one thing to another.

But let me speak directly to your question, I did not think Matt 19:12 was a significant question related to the issue of same-sex relationships. The "eunuch" condition comes up in various places in the OT (e.g. Deut 23:1). Generally it refers to the condition of one who for one reason or another emasculated (and by extension one kept from exercising the sexual capacities). One might be born with this limitation, or it might be imposed on a person (as for instance with slaves taken for certain purposes), or a pesonal discernment and gift for the sake of the kingdom.

Jesus does not command marriage or celibacy (either can be a gift from God as Paul also seems to recognize, 1 Cor 7). It can therefore be a gift for some to recognize the meaning of celibacy for service in the kingdom (not required - marriage and celibacy can both be a state in which to serve God).

Ben W

Ben W;

Just another obscure uncertanty then, which can be defined only in your own terms?

Note, that I only asked if, in your opinion, the category of 'eunuch' might, in the context of Matthew 19:12, be possibly construed as relating in any way to homosexuals; who may be unable, because of their sexual orientation, to contribute to the dominant culture of procreation?

Ben W wrote: “One might be born with this limitation, or it might be imposed on a person (as for instance with slaves taken for certain purposes), or a personal discernment and gift for the sake of the kingdom.

Jesus does not command marriage or celibacy (either can be a gift from God as Paul also seems to recognize, 1 Cor 7). It can therefore be a gift for some to recognize the meaning of celibacy for service in the kingdom (not required – marriage and celibacy can both be a state in which to serve God).“

Several distinct Ideologies and Ages here, I sincerely hope you don’t mix them but is able to keep them apart, Ben W!

“One might be born with this limitation, or it might be imposed on a person (as for instance with slaves taken for certain purposes), or a personal discernment and gift for the sake of the kingdom.”

“Imposed”, “for certain purposes” – interesting this sang froid, or whatever. Would you say the same about Pharaohnic circumcision of girls, Ben???

A No, to marriage and the subsequent praise of celibacy, was a sure sign of Sect in the Early church. Hellenism and/or Gnosticism. Obvious examples are Marcion’s congregation in Rome around 140, and the Montanists in Asia, 50 years later. Little to do with the Kingdom.

Matt 19:12 maybe isn’t quite authentic… (Matt as a whole sems to be 120 to 140, think Second Jewish War and illegality). Moreover, it’s depedent on the published Letters of Paul c:a 100 – as the Matthew evangelists often go in pairs with Paul a g a i n s t Mark and Luke!

The Idea of Mandatory Celibacy certainly isn’t found in (present) 1 Cor 7 – this interpretation, anachronistic as it is, is much, much later; post Lateran II 1139 (indeed some church provinces, such as Sweden-Finland or Island, never “bought” it, but Priests and Bishops remained married up to – and through – the Reformation ;=).

In Paul’s Time Rabbis were married. The first un-married (almost a) Rabbi was Simon ben Assai, a contemporary of “Matt” killed under Emperor Hadrian’s persecutions, that is 2-3 generations after Paul.

Remember what the Reformers said (not always equitably) about “the dirty Sins of Monastics”, and their subsequent praise of Marriage ;=) No “state in which to serve God “ there! The Idealization of marriage (innovative as it was ;=) is also the explanation for Dr Martin’s foul mis-translation of malakòs as “Knabenschänder” in 1 Cor 6:9…

Nothing new under the Sun! But it has precious little to do with Paul’s letters.

So, it is true, neither Jesus nor Paul “command” marriage or celibacy in Mark 10:2-12 or Matt 5, 19, or (present) 1 Cor 7:6, but what (at least) Paul expresses in (present) 1 Cor 7:2-6 is the ancient Jewish view of marriage: “Don’t refuse each other!” adding “… for you can’t abstain.”, cf Jeremiah 3 ;=)

This is arguably the antithetic to any Alexandrian Ideas of Celibacy and Abstinence ;=)