ACoC priest, Alan Perry, questions the ACNA briefing paper
Feb 5th, 2010 by David
c/p from here
Canon Alan Perry is challenging the accuracy of the briefing paper prepared by Lorna Ashworth for the Church of England’s General Synod next month. The motion is to “express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”.
In his challenge, Canon Perry makes a number of points; among them is this (my emphasis):
Only three former bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada have associated themselves with ACNA:
* Donald Harvey, formerly of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador
* Ronald Ferris, formerly of Algoma
* Malcolm Harding, formerly of BrandonNone of these have been deposed. All were already retired, and all three voluntarily relinquished their ministry pursuant to Canon XIX of the Anglican Church of Canada. This is the equivalent of Canon C1 (2) of the Church of England which makes provision for a cleric “voluntarily [to] relinquish the exercise of his orders and use himself as a layman.”
However, three former presbyters of the Anglican Church of Canada have recently been consecrated as bishops by ACNA: Stephen Leung, Charles Masters and Trevor Walters. This may account for the claim of six. (Also, Silas Ng was consecrated as a bishop by the Church of Rwanda.)
As of March 2009, 52 of the clergy (other than the six bishops) in ACNA were former clergy of the Anglican Church of Canada. The claim of 69 includes the newly ordained and possibly some other transfers.
The total of Anglican Church of Canada clergy as of June 2009 was 3861.
Not a single Canadian priest has been deposed for joining ACNA. The term is almost entirely unheard of in Canada. It is one of the penalties provided for in the Canon on Discipline. However, none of those who have left to join Rwanda or Southern Cone or ACNA have been canonically disciplined.
The phrase “relinquish license for ministry” is canonically meaningless in the Anglican Church of Canada. The correct phrase is “relinquish ministry” pursuant to Canon XIX, on “The Relinquishment or Abandonment of the Ministry” which states that relinquishment:
“removes from the [cleric] the right to exercise that office, including spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination.” (emphasis added)
Relinquishment renders the cleric unlicensable in any Jurisdiction. Relinquishment of ministry is reversible, but only in the jurisdiction in which ministry was relinquished.
The issue of whether a priest or bishop relinquishes his right to minister when he leaves the Anglican Church of Canada has come up before. In December 2008 Alan Perry wrote a letter to the Anglican Journal saying:
Is a bishop still a bishop after he/she leaves denomination?
Anglican Journal, Dec, 2008 by Alan T. Perry
Dear editor,
I am confused as to why you continue to refer to Don Harvey as a bishop, most recently in your news bulletin of Oct. 16 regarding four parishes purporting to put themselves under the “episcopal oversight of Bishop (sic) Don Harvey.”
Nearly a year ago, the Anglican Journal reported that Mr. Harvey had relinquished his ministry. The mechanism for relinquishment of ministry under our canons, to which Mr. Harvey will have repeatedly sworn an oath of obedience, is found in Canon XIX of the General Synod. The relevant section specifies that “relinquishment of the exercise of ordained ministry removes from the [cleric] the right to exercise … spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination.”
Thus, although the ontological effects of ordination remain, the juridical effects are rendered null and void. The perhaps more familiar Roman Catholic term for this is laicization.
Mr. Harvey has relinquished his ministry, and therefore ought no longer to be referred to by a clerical title.
He is, for all practical purposes, a layperson. Or are you implying that Mr. Harvey acted dishonestly, either when he relinquished his ministry or when he repeatedly swore an oath to obey the canons?
Alan T. Perry
The editor responded:
Editor’s response: Consulting with the chancellor, Ronald Stevenson, he writes: “In the relinquishment document prescribed by Canon XIX, the cleric says he or she has voluntarily relinquished the exercise of the ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada to which he or she has been admitted. The cleric does not relinquish his or her orders/ ordination.
“Although Bishops Harvey and Malcolm Harding (retired bishop of the diocese of Brandon) have relinquished the exercise of episcopal ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada, they may well be recognized and accepted as bishops in another church even though they ignore the traditional rule that a bishop does not minister or interfere in another bishop’s jurisdiction.”
Alan Perry is attempting to make out, both in 2008 and now, that the bishops and priests who have joined ACNA have no authority to minister. The response from the ACoC chancellor, Ronald Stevenson, is clear: they have. A priest’s relinquishing his license in the ACoC is not the same as relinquishing his orders, ordination or the right to exercise “spiritual authority as a minister of Word and Sacraments conferred in ordination”.
Obviously Alan Perry didn’t pay much attention to the ACoC chancellor in 2008; I don’t suppose he will now, either, but it does appear that he has got this all wrong.
214 Responses to “ACoC priest, Alan Perry, questions the ACNA briefing paper”
Your note is a trifle, shall we call it disingenuous?
Canon Perry was responding to a libelous document being circulated to members of the General Synod of the Church of England which falsely claimed that clergy had been deposed in the Anglican Church of Canada. Their canonical status should they join some new denomination (as is the case with Bishops Harvey, Harding and Ferris) is not relevant to the issue. Your new protestant denomination is welcome to recognize them as Bishops, as Pooh-Bahs as Flying Spaghetti Monsters as you see fit. The only issue Canon Perry is addressing is whether or not they had been deposed as bishops from the Anglican Church of Canada.
The fact remains (however much some may wish to misrepresent it) that these three gentlemen, and the assorted former ACoC priests who have joined them in “ACNA” are no longer bishops, priests or deacons OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA and that none of them were deposed by the Anglican Church of Canada.
Save your indignation for a real issue instead of trying to pretend that fact is fiction.
Malcolm, you are obviously irritated by this issue. You are awfully free with that charge of libel. Misinformation or poor wording is not libel. Should you not be more irritated that the ACoC has come to such a state that fine upstanding people find that they must leave the ACoC in order to realign with the Anglican Communion, leaving a province that has charted its own apostate course in defiance of the rest of the Anglican Communion? Does it not worry you just a little bit? Cause a seed of doubt that the ACoC direction is appropriate? Does the international support for ACNA rankle?
Are you scared that if the Church of England synod approves communion with ACNA that a trend toward revoking communion with ACoC and TEC might be next?
The possibility is a curious connundrum for Anglicans worldwide.
Malcolm [#1],
Since Alan Perry is challenging the accuracy of something, it behoves him to take the trouble to be accurate himself: he hasn’t. The section I quoted is intended to cast doubt on whether the priests and bishops in ANiC are genuine priests and bishops.
The chancellor of the ACoC says that they are, Perry says they are not. If he has that wrong, surely it casts doubt on his other claims - including his interpretation of “deposed”. You are familiar with the concept of interpretation, I imagine.
J.I. Packer was inhibited, and so was my priest. Is that not the same thing?
(Are you the same Malcolm+ who comments at Felix Hominum from time to time?)
We are not a new denomination, Malcolm+. We are still Anglicans. Seems to me it’s you pretending fact is fiction.
I just took a look at your blog, and I have to wonder why you seem to be so threatened by us. If what we are doing is of God, it will prosper. If not, it will fail. If what we are doing isn’t of God, I wouldn’t want it to prosper.
I am reluctant to comment without having read the documents in question. Have the texts of the ACNA briefing to English General Synod and Canon Perry’s critique of it been posted online anywhere?
Kate, you may have retained elements of the Anglican tradition. You are, nonetheless, a new denomination.
The clerics in question are no longer bishops, priests and deacons IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA. In the case of the thee bishops at least, this was at their own initiative. And curiously, despite the hysterical tone of the original post here, you aren’t actually denying tha this is so.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.
So, Malcolm, what is the “essence” of Anglicanism according to you? What are the “distinctives” that must be respected in order to have true Anglicanism? Can you explain it in basic terms to a simple man like me?
Is it possible that if Cranmer was to attend an ACoC service he might say:
Malcolm, it seems as if you represent your own opinions as facts.
The thing is, the Global South, GAFCON, ACNA etc have not left anything, we’re still very much here, and I suspect will be very much still here when those holding onto a bankrupt theology have dwindled into insignificance.
Wherin lies the heart of the Anglican Communion - a dying liberal political elite seeking to hold on to authenticity through manipulation of communion bodies (SCAC, anybody)? Or with a growing vibrant church represented by the Global South? I know where I’ll place my bet.
And yes, this indeed is my opinion.
#8 Touche, Warren.
Yes, the bishops left the Anglican Church of Canada, and were licensed under the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. That doesn’t change the fact that Canon XIX proceedings were brought against them, and that they, and we, are still Anglicans and have not started a new denomination.
I beg to differ Kate. We can call it the ANC as a term of reference, but ANC is not the ACC and is, in my opinion, not in Communion with Canterbury. It has been said time and again here that the ACC is heretical - if so, then why be alligned with it? The Anglican Catholic Church is not part of the Anglican Church. Rather they are some sort of quasi Anglican equivalent of the SSPX in the Roman church. Similarly, ANC is going down that same road.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be authentically Anglican but then be apart of the global communion. You cannot be one with the ACC but withhold your assessments?
Just curious, Eph 3:20, is your definition of Anglican, to be “in Communion with Canterbury”? Is that the heart of the matter, the true distinctive, the touch stone of authenticity?
I have no clue what this means:
Warren, you said:
“I have no clue what this means:
You cannot claim to be authentically Anglican but then be apart of the global communion. You cannot be one with the ACC but withhold your assessments?”
It means that the ANC has chosen to walk apart from the Anglican Church. It is a sect, a break away group if you like. It’s like any other religious group that splinters off from the mother church. The ANC is no different. The SSPX did it to the Romans in recent years, wit thew Church of England did it to the Romans some 450 years ago.
For all intents and purposes, the ANC is a new denomination with an Anglican heritage. You have the same traditions as most “Anglicans” - and I suspect your own divisions (e.g. Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, Protestant, high church, low church, etc.).
To be true however, it would be absurd for the ANC to claim, as many do, that they are part of the worldwide Anglican communion, but then do not operate within it.
All I’m saying is just acknowledge that you’ve formed a new denomination. There’s no going back - it is what it is. I’m not trying to create a curfufal, I’m just calling it as I see it.
“still Anglicans and have not started a new denomination.”
These are not equivalent, or mutually exclusive. Since it subscribes to Anglican doctrinal and liturgical formularies and was established last year, surely the Anglican Church in North America is both “new” and “Anglican.” There are many Anglican denominations outside of the Anglican Communion (although ACNA and TAC are among the most, shall we say, viable): they were new when they were founded, yet Anglican.
(The case of ACNA is of course complicated by its containing the Reformed Episcopal Church, which has been around for some time, although I gather that it has only recently begun to rediscover its Anglican roots, having essentially been Prayer Book Presbyterian for much of its existence).
#12 I don’t believe we have yet left the authority of Southern Cone, which was still in communion with Canterbury last time I checked.
Even once that ends, I don’t see it the way you do. In order to be authentically Anglican one must first be Christian, and I believe that the authority structures of the ACoC have ceased to be Christian. ACNA is the structure that has remained biblically faithful, it is the ACoC that has walked away and created a new thing.
Eph 3:20, maybe if you had said “apart from” in #12 instead of “apart of”, I would have understood your comment.
I will leave it to those much more qualified in the technicalities of ecclesiology than I to discuss with you the correctness of the gnat you are straining. I have read enough of these sorts of debates on Stand Firm and Titus One Nine to know that there are many who would say “balderdash” to your assertion.
Most common sense people - those who are not lawyers (my apologies to any lawyers in the crowd) - would say that a subgroup that has largely abandoned the doctrines and principles upon which it was founded and who thumbed its nose at all attempts from the larger organization, of which it is part, to bring them in line, have chosed to walk apart. As Jesus contintually pointed out to the Pharisees, it is not religiousity and outward appearance that determines true faith.
If the opinion of all individual members of the “worldwide communion” could be assertained, I wonder where the ANiC would stand in relation to the ACoC and TEC? I suspect that this is a place that the leaders of the ACoC and TEC do not want to go.
Your comments brought to mind a little story that I will close with; perhaps you know it. A large contingent of soldiers were marching through the streets of Halifax in WWI on their way to the harbour. The streets were lined with people cheering them on, including the mother of one of them. As the mother’s son marched by, she exclaimed, “look, my little Johnny is the only one in step!”
An⋅gli⋅can /ˈæŋglɪkən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ang-gli-kuhn]
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the Church of England.
2. related in origin to and in communion with the Church of England, as various Episcopal churches in other parts of the world.
3. English (def. 1).
–noun
4. a member of the Church of England or of a church in communion with it.
5. a person who upholds the system or teachings of the Church of England.
NA (#18), it’s been a while. How are you doing? The range of definitions you posted could be used to support or deny both postions - so we’re no further ahead. Where do you stand?
Warren #8, Well said! nothing like “going back” far enough to get at a truth. Now if only I could get you to go back even further regarding other truths we have spoken about.
Back to the stream - I have a piece of paper that says I was baptised into the Anglican Community here in Toronto. Any person saying that this limits me to the Anglican Church of Canada or that the marks that were Spiritually placed on my forehead are no longer valid, may have questions to answer at the opening of the book by the Great Lord of Lords. These questions may have to do with the inattention to unity or perhaps the heedlessness of the authority of the books author. In any event, in the name of Jesus, anyone thinking this should think again.
PS I mentioned I had a piece of paper, it is of course so much more, praise God …….so - much - more.
Noli [#18], as someone who has been a member of both the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Canada in the last decade, I can telly you categorically that 5 does not apply to the Anglican Church of Canada.
However, there’s another complication (at least on the West Coast). Section 6 of the Act incorporating the Diocese of New Westminster reads as follows:
“The term ‘Church of England’, ‘Church of England in Canada’ or ‘Anglican Church of Canada’ when used in this Act and in all deeds, documents, or writings that have heretofore or may hereafter be executed, shall for the purposes of this Act be taken to mean and include that body of Christians in Canada which is acknowledged by the Archbishop of Canterbury as a body in full communion with the Church of England, as by law in England established.”
This does seem to indicate that communion with Canterbury is the sole touchstone of Anglicanism, at least as far as New Westminster is concerned.
Where this will leave ACNA once it comes into Communion with Canterbury I leave to others, as it appears this definition will legally incorporate them into the Anglican Church of Canada.
Gordon #21: “Where this will leave ACNA once it comes into Communion with Canterbury I leave to others, as it appears this definition will legally incorporate them into the Anglican Church of Canada.”
As Hamlet would say: “There’s the rub.” The answer to your question is why we’re getting so much attention from the ACoC sphere on this post. For the ACoC it’s never been an issue of doctrine. The Lord Jesus doesn’t figure. It’s all buildings, property, money, power, Mammon.
Having said that, I’d be thrilled if Eph 3:20 and Malcom+ were to prove me wrong and write something passionate about the Lordship of Christ which, for me, is the crucial difference between the ACoC and the ANiC (frail as we are).
I’m rather hoping Cheryl Chang has an answer to this, as the situation may also occur in other dioceses…
Irena,
If you want something passionate I’ll give it to you. None of us here are baptized Anglican. We are batized Christian. That is the faith we profess - Anglicanism is the discipline by which we live out our Christianity. To suggest that the ACoC is not under the Lordship of Christ is nonsense. That would be akin to a Roman saying Anglicans of all persuasions are heretics and not under the Lordship of Christ.
I figure it rather arrogant on your part to presume knowledge of the extent of Christ’s dominion.
Eph 3:20 (#24), God is sovereign and has dominion over all creation. I suspect that what Irena is getting at is how many are willing to submit to the Lordship of Christ and subordinate their personal desires, wishes and prejudices to Him. You should probably put me in the “nonsense” camp.
@Kate (#16) Unfortunately there is no provision for a congregation to transfer from one province of the Communion to another while remaining within the bounds of the original province. There is only one recognized “franchise” of the Communion in Canada and it’s the ACoC. While I understand that its recent revisitation of the same-sex issue has caused much consternation to some, it can hardly be said to have “ceased to be Christian.” Certainly all of the bishops I have met profess the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds and continue the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments according to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, so unless you regard a negative view of homosexuality as a sine qua non of Christianity, your charge is impressive-sounding rhetoric, but of little substance.
In addition to which, everything in post #24.
Eph 3:20 is there something about this ANGLICAN ARTICLE OF RELIGION that you don’t understand?
XXVII. Of Baptism.
BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
While sitting here reading the blog in the midst of preparing a teaching on the spirit of deception I perceive that the spirit is still doing its work. To often we look at the legalistic circumstances instead of looking at the faith of our Fathers which is exemplified by the Creeds. Doesn’t God search the hearts of both the peoples in the ACOC & the ACNA? The shepherds that lead their flocks astray are the ones that may come under severe judgement whether they are ACOC or ACNA. When the establishment decides to leave the historical teachings of the Anglican Church I believe that God knows their hearts and is not pleased as hypocrisy rises when they stand up to say the creeds. Doesn’t belief in the creeds decide who can be a good Anglican.
Stuck,
Article 27 makes perfect sense to me, what is your issue? Is baptism in the Anglican discipline any more valid/or less a sacrament then in the Roman or Presbyterian or Anabaptist discipline?
The church is a body of believers. It is not a building. We are the church - all of us. It is the God of mission who has a church. And the church is spoken of as the totality of believers.
However, countless disciplines, have broken away from the original institutional church. Over time they have developed their own rites, interpretations, canons, doctrines, rituals that their adherents abide by. It not, they leave altogether or form their own discipline. There breaking away does make them any less Chrisitian or any less under God’s dominion. If they profess the ancient creeds and lead a faith committed to the teachings of Jesus, we loosely identify all of them as Christian - regardless of how liberal or conservative they might be.
God’s power working in us can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine.
God is active in the body, the church
26 Geoff - of course first, my 25!
For your edification the following is copied from the original text of the Didache and with highly respected notes on meaning.
11:10 And you shall not put to a test nor discern any prophet speaking in the Spirit;
11:11 For every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.
This is a startling interpretation of the mysterious unforgiveable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, mentioned in Matthew 12:31 and Mark 3:29. However one interpets this sin, it is obvious that the only unforgiveable sin is one that prevents a person from coming to the Lord for forgiveness. Thus it is clear that people who worry about having committed this sin have not done so.
If the ACoC is adopting procedures that will give authenticity, and the appearance of justification to the GBLT, as in so called “Gay marriage or SSB’s and IF such sexual practices as known to the GBLT are in fact sin and abominable and IF by doing so the ACoC keeps members of the GBLT from coming to a knowledge of the truth I believe that would most certainly place the ACoC and all supporting members outside the Body of Christ. But greater still, in possible danger of eternal damnation. If you re-read this last paragraph and remove the IF’s you will see how many in the ACNA feel and why we in Canada could no longer participate in the direction that the ACoC is being led.
Yet Stuck…
Why are you unable to reconcile GBLY blessings/marriage, yet Anglicans have no problem whatsoever with divorce. Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, but he certainly spoke about divorce. Now where is the sin being committed?
#26 Geoff, if you are a regular reader of this blog you will have seen many many examples of why the ACoC has ceased in substance to be Christian.
One example is Michael Ingham’s instance that Jesus is not the only way to God, and that he doesn’t believe in a literal resurection. He may recite the creeds, but he obviously doesn’t believe them. Further, the house of bishops’ refusal to discipline him for this is surely an indication that they are no longer defenders of the faith.
Warren wrote:
“NA (#18), it’s been a while. How are you doing? The range of definitions you posted could be used to support or deny both postions - so we’re no further ahead. Where do you stand?”
Greetings, brother. I’ve been lurking in the background off and on but have lately been preoccupied with family medical issues. Plus my Lutheran flirtation escalated so that I found myself worshipping regularly with an LCC congregation. Now that relationship has ended so I thought it would be less awkward for both of us if I resumed worshipping at my local ACoC parish.
So I’m back, and mildly surprised by how much I missed Anglicanism. I found that I agree with most of the Lutheran catechism and their liturgy is similar, but I missed Anglican choral music terribly. Also, I do like worshipping with my kids now and then but the boys seem to prefer drafty, leaky, victorian neo-gothic and absolutely refused to attend the Scandinavian modern Lutheran sanctuary, which they referred to sneeringly as “Church of Ikea.”
Regarding the “essence” of Anglicanism, each of the dictionary definitions is correct in its own way so it would be ridiculous uphold one over the others, just as it would be ridiculous to argue that violet is a colour against others who maintain that it’s a type of flower or a woman’s name!
#31 There are biblically defensible reasons for divorce. You can’t just say “but Jesus never said”. Paul’s writings are also part of Scripture.
In #31 Eph 3:20 wrote:
Would you stop it already with your generalizations.
Geoff (#26), it probably doesn’t fit with this thread, but I would be interested in discussing with you sometime how you define the essentials of Christianity. Also, what it would take for you to consider that a line has been crossed and that the term can no longer be rightly applied.
Kate (32) In a previous post on the blog, Lorna Ashworth is quoted as saying that the Anglican Churches in Canada and the United States have “reject[ed] historic teaching in relation to the Authority of Scripture, the Unique Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Biblical teaching on marriage.” This is the kind of statement I find problematic. Given the timing of ACNA’s formation it’s clear what the precursor issue was - if you were against the ordination of women, you’d have left in 1976; contraception, in 1930. Yet you happily accommodated these changes but drew the line at homosexuality. Fair enough, I suppose, but it’s interesting how your apologists, presumably aware of the esteem in which their views on the subject are held in larger society, always feel the need to throw in a few other vaguer, more damning-sounding, and harder to substantiate claims in front. I am unaware of any statement by General Synod reneging on either the authority of scripture or the lordship of Jesus.
Rather, ACNA folk seem to use “authority of Scripture” in the same way the Elizabethans used “atheist” (which often meant, not someone who does not believe in God, but someone who does not believe in *my* God). Those who have found the “traditional” interpretation of Biblical teaching on the matter at hand extremely problematic on theological grounds are simply “apostates” (!) who “deny the authority of Scripture.” You’re welcome to believe that, but to use it as a premise in the argument is to beg the question.
There is no statement from General Synod, but my point still stands. Ingham is a bishop who has denied the unique lordship of Christ, and he was allowed to continue as a bishop. It seems to me that is a pretty clear indication of what the ACoC leadership really believes, no matter what General Synod says. The same sex blessing issue was the proverbial straw, the presenting issue. The deeper issue is authority of scripture - which means precisly what it says - scripture has authority, and we are to allow it to shape us, not try to shape it.
Kendall Harmon did a marvelous talk about this, but I can’t find the link to the video. Anybody else know where it is?
Geoff (#37), I can’t, in good conscience, speak for anyone else, but your characterization poorly describes me. False teaching is rarely obvious or plainly stated in contrast to orthodox teaching. It wouldn’t propogate if it was. It is candy coated.
Found it, it is called “The Iceberg”:
http://www.anglicandecision.com/
#31 Eph, You said “yet Anglicans have no problem whatsoever with divorce.” Maybe not in your paradigm (if your Anglican) but in my world Divorce is wrong.
You also said “Jesus never spoke about homosexuality,”. Of course he did!
Also - “but he certainly spoke about divorce. Now where is the sin being committed?” You had better review your facts, Ephram - Divorce is not a sin.
Geoff 37 You said “if you were against the ordination of women, you’d have left in 1976; contraception, in 1930. Yet you happily accommodated these changes but drew the line at homosexuality”
Wrong again Geoff, the line was not drawn AT homosexuality, Heck Geoff I only know of three people that immigrated from Canada ever since Pierre’s Charter started the ball rolling. you see it was the church that decided to BLESS homosexuality and MARRY homosexuals. THIS even was not the cause in total. It was a realization that many suttle and confusing issues over the past century made it possible for this final change. The ongoing attempt to cater to cultural demands at the expense of truth finally became a clear black and white issue. To put it another way The hand of the prince of this world was revealed as it never has been before.
Stuck,
I will say it once again, Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality directly. I incline you to find the precise biblical quote where he did.
In Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus says:
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”
Jesus was also very clear about the concept of sexual immorality been an evil thought from within one own heart in Mark 7:21: “For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery”
Alternatively, Jesus was uneviquivocal about divorce in Matthew 19:6.
For the record I am completely against divorce.
BTW it’s not Ephram it’s Ephesians
For those confused by the problem of so-called blessing of same-sex unions and/or the practice of homosexuality, I urge you to purchase and read the book, “The Bishop or the King” by the Venerable Ron Corcoran. Indeed Scripture speaks very clearly on the subject but the apostates within the ACoC - politely but mistakenly called liberals - refuse to acknowledge same.
If the ACoC continues in its direction of apostasy it will quickly fade into the woodwork. It can no longer claim to be a Christian church when its leaders either deliberately “spit in God’s face” or sit back and allow others to do so.
Eph 3:20, I think it would be helpful for you to listen to Dr. Gagnon:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28124/
I suspect we agree on divorce.
#42 Eph 3:20: You challenge my brother with the words “Jesus never spoke out against homosexuality directly.”
This way of handling the Word of God is what has got the Canadian church into trouble in the first place. To divide off the quoted words of Jesus (his direct speech) from the rest of Scripture which the Lord Jesus himself strictly upheld is a false step of logic and a deliberate suppression of God’s Word.
It smacks of a certain person in Genesis who wheedled: ‘Did God really say?” and reminds us that the problem of the Canadian church really is much bigger than same-sex blessings.
Elegantly put, Irena.
In response to my own question #6 above, the text of Lorna Ashworth’s background paper to English General Synod can be found online here.
The text of Canon Perry’s rebuttal can be found here.
stuck in toronto (41) wrote:
“Wrong again Geoff, the line was not drawn AT homosexuality”
Well, this is merely counter-assertion, so there’s nothing I can really do with it. If not, then I repeat, where was the Network in 1930?
“It was a realization that many suttle and confusing issues over the past century made it possible for this final change.”
Examples?
Kate (38):
“It seems to me that is a pretty clear indication of what the ACoC leadership really believes, no matter what General Synod says.”
I hardly think it’s fair to infer from a lack of prosecution that the bulk of the “ACoC leadership” (whatever that could mean) is on side with Ingham’s theology. Spong and Jenkins were never tried, but I can’t see that translates into “apostasy” on the part of their provinces (which, pace Frank Wirrell, is a very specific charge of renouncing one’s baptismal vows, and not merely a nice-sounding slag at someone who doesn’t share one’s perspective on same-sex unions).
In #48 Geoff wrote:
They share in his theology through their silence. If they truly believed that his teaching was false, and held any real conviction of their own to the contrary, they could not be silent.
For Geoff & Eph 3:20
First for Eph 3:20. If you really believe that Jesus never said anything directly about homosexuality I would urge you to read the book I suggested covering this and many other issues.
If the Primate and the House of Bishops were not on side with Michael Ingham and his crowd they would or should have made their position known and that would include removing him and his colleagues from their group.
As to what is required to be an Anglican only two requirements are necessary and that is to believe fully in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and to accept fully the authority of Scripture. Being tied to Canterbury might be desirable but it is definitely not a requirement.
#49 Exactly.
Warren said:
“They share in his theology through their silence. If they truly believed that his teaching was false, and held any real conviction of their own to the contrary, they could not be silent.”
Similarly, does that mean that I share in the state’s anti-life inclination if I choose to stay in this country? Does tacit consent go that far? I think for many Anglicans there is an assumption that the faith is rather ambiguous. One thing the Anglican church seems to pride itself in is a “big tent” sort of theology. While this might get us into trouble I think it helps explain why there is great reluctance to censure opinions that might be contrary to our own.
BTW… Ingham only acted after Diocesan Synod voted to approve of the blessing. And the first time round he rejected it.
No, but I think that if you never say anything about it at all, you do. If you were a Member of Parliment and stayed silent, you certainly would (and that is the more valid comparison in this instance).
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. The basics, what Lewis called “mere” Christianity, are not ambiguous at all, which is something that many of the mainline churches seem to have forgotten.
Eph (52) writes: “And the first time round he rejected it.”
First two times, if I’m not mistaken.
For Eph 3:20
It really does not matter whether Michael Ingham waited for a majority vote or not. His agenda was quite clear. Further you should be well aware that the authority of God’s word is not subject to any majority vote and definitely not subject to the approval of any clergy including so-called bishops.
If you really believe the ACoC is Christian, then you should ask yourself why the Diocese of New Westminster has moved and continues to move to seize properties paid for and maintained by the members of those parishes. Michael Ingham clearly denounces both the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture which clearly places him outside the scope of Anglicanism and/or Christianity. Anglicanism might indeed by a “big tent” but there is no way that orthodoxy and apostasy can live in the same house.
Eph 3:20, you’re comparing apples and oranges; confounding spiritual matters and temporal matter. Go back to Scripture and study the weighty responsibility put on those in positions of spiritual leadership.
I agree with this statement:
This is especially true of the ACoC and TEC; in fact, they have crossed the line of reasonableness and taken the “big tent” idea to a ridiculous and ungodly extreme. They’ve definitely gotten into trouble and are resolutely pressing forward. Damn the torpedoes!
Eph 3:20, one other thing I forgot to mention: although I can’t say this with certainty, I suspect the “big tent” idea would be very foreign to Anglicans from 200 years ago. The idea likely gained increasing traction coincidental with the liberal theology than began gaining sway in most mainline denominations early in the last century.
Warren,
The “big tent” idea goes back to Elizabeth I. She didn’t care whether people held catholic or protestant opinions, so long as they all submitted to the discipline of the established church and royal supremacy.
(”we shall not make windows into men’s souls” is the famous quote)
The “Big Tent” is collapsing ,soon to be a tattered heap.In the diocese of BC results of this mushey headed theology is especially clear, Under Bishop Cowan’s watch ,19 churches on Vancouver Island are scheduled to close, Victoria, once the bastion of Anglicanism in the west will loose half of it’s churches. On the upside, the selling of all that pricey real estate will continue to pay the wages ,pensions and percs for the remaining revisionist priests for a long time to come. But hey! you can get on the ferry and go to the Island of Lesbos (formery Galiano) and have your gay inclinations affirmed in the little church there, or go to Parksville and have a gay wedding if you are so inclined. How cool is that?
Yes - but I dare say she would cared a great deal if one of her priests had said that he didn’t believe in a literal resurection. The big tent idea goes back a long way, but the meaning of it has changed drastically.
Jim (#58), are you referring to the reforms mentioned in the following quote from Wikipedia:
I honestly don’t see a parallel between Elizabeth’s actions and how the ACoC is using the term “big tent” today. Also, how welcoming was the CoE of the Scottish reformers, the anabaptists, or the congregationalists in those days? Perhaps all were welcome so long as they kept their mouth shut about what they really believed?
Given the dwindling number in the ACoC, the term “big tent” appears to be a misnomer. The reality seems more like a pup tent into which the leaders are trying to cram as many diverse perspectives as possible - but there’s a sign on the flap that says orthodox doctrines and beliefs not welcome.
#48 If you are in discernment for the priesthood, and don’t know what Anglican Church of Canada leadership means, I think you have a bit of a problem! Maybe you should go read the cannons and the 39 articles again.
@Kate - Given that the word “Anglican” has a number of meanings, there is no real point in denying that some of those definitions apply to ACNA. That does not at all touchj on the indesputable fact that ANCA is a different denomination than ACoC - and a denomination of new creation. Or, to be concise, a new denomination.
@Irena - I refuse to play your silly game. I could write a wonderfully passionate an wholly orthodox explication of my faith and you’d sit and fling rocks. I’ve gotten drawn into that sort of silliness before, and I decline. (Now you go ahead and post how this “proves” I don’t really love Jesus.)
Malcolm+ - I dispute that. New structures, yes, that is true. However, it is not ACNA that is reinventing theology, and doing a new thing.
#63 Malcolm+: Not sure why you would consider speaking about the Lordship of Jesus Christ as a silly game and I assure you that I won’t be flinging rocks at someone who would speak about my Lord with honour and passion. I’m now quite puzzled by the + after your name.
At least Eph 3:20 has the courage to engage in theological discussion here. I applaud him/her even if I don’t agree with him/her.
Malcolm (#63)
While it is hard to agree with your one main and frequently repeated point (Argumentum Ad Nauseam) that the ACNA is a new denomination, is it very easy to agree with you that the ACOC is a different denomination. Indeed, in view of the fact that ACOC has made theological changes inconsistent with world wide anglicanism, therefore walking apart from the world wide anglican church, one can conclude that ACOC has made itself into a new denomination!
Eph 3:20, Geoff, and all - Have you noticed how easy it is for us to argue? (I’m no exception) But distance does lend perspective, so I stepped back to look for commonality. We all use the name of Christ. I believe we do so within acceptable, simplified, parameters. So where do we begin with that commonality. Can we agree that we all have the potential to become Sons and Daughters of God, in doing so can we also recognize the capability of becoming brother with the Lord that is Jesus Christ. I am sure every answer is yes! If there are any no’s it’s back to Sunday school (fundamental simplicity) for you! However…..But……..Does it not stand to reason that before we can claim Brotherhood (That which we are called to love!) we must first be practised and accepting of the necessity of that brotherhood in the church. After all, according to our Lord’s somewhat cryptic analogy the Church plays a vital role in the final unity between God and man and we play a role as bridesmaids. so…. where does that leave us here this morning. Continuing the arguments? ad infinitum….now this one cracks a looseafurion smile cause he knows the time is short and would like nothing better.
No….. may I suggest that we place our differences on the left and on the right we choose to practice the two great commandments with each other. There is more but I need to see where this leads.
Good grief. Most of us weren’t born yet. You’re going to have to do a bit better than that. The same sex blessing issue was the straw, that’s all. Go take a look at the Kendall Harmon video I linked to, for a clear explanation.
@Kate - Twenty years ago, there was an “Anglican Church of Canada.” There is still an “Anglican Church of Canada.” There is institutional continuity between the former and the latter. Twenty years ago, there was neither an “Anglican Network in Canada” denomination nor an “Anglican Church in North America” denomination. You are welcome to claim some sort of theological continuity with things which existed previously. But the fact of the matter is, despite all your protestations, that you have created a new denomination.
@Irena - Yes, Irena, I’d love to believe you. But I don’t. If I write you a nice little treatise on the Lordship of Christ, I quite expect either some nitpicking objection that I don’t conform to some obscure doctrine of Calvin or (more commonly) the bald assertion that I simply don’t believe what I wrote. I don’t play that game. Sorry. I believe the Nicene Creed and can say the whole thing without crossing my fingers once. That’s all that’s required, and if that isn’t good enough for you, it’s your problem, not mine.
Well, I’m not going to convince you, obviously, and you aren’t going to convince me. What matters to me isn’t institutional continuity, but theological continuity, and on that score, the fact of the matter is that it is the ACoC that has created a new thing.
But how many of your bishops can, Malcolm, and why are you content to stay under the authority of bishops who can’t - or even under the authority of a house of bishops who won’t discipline those who can’t, or won’t?
Continued -
For example, here is a quote from Michael Ingham’s book:
Jesus Christ is our “one Lord”, through whom we are to be saved. How can he write the above and then say the creeds without crossing his fingers? And doesn’t the house of bishops’ inaction indicate at least tacit approval?
Malcolm (#69), I’ll leave the finer points of denominational discussion to those more qualified than I. However, as shown by the lives of George Whitefield and John Wesley, God sometimes bypasses existing structures and moves in new ways. Regardless of what labels are used, what really matters is whether the lost are being reached with the gospel.
55 Frank Wirrell
There’s a great deal of the Anglican Church of Canada outside of the Diocese of New Westminster.
@Kate
You may not have been born at their inception (nor was I), but they have been options all along. Indeed, when the ACNA story first broke one of the bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada wrote an op-ed in the Post scratching his head at the need for a third Anglican jurisdiction when their outfit was set up for those who believed the ACoC to be drifting from orthodoxy more than 30 years ago. As to Ingham, the passage you cite jives more or less with what I was taught in CE classes with the Prayer Book Society: only through Christ do we have God’s assurance of salvation, but we cannot know that he does not bestow grace through other religions.
Sorry to double post, but I realized the above might sound vague: what I mean to say is that every generation has its hot button issue and every time there are those who consider it “the straw.” In the 70s those who believed the ordination of women to be the straw left. Those who are only now forming the Network and Coalition apparently did not consider it “the straw.” Before that there was controversy over racial integration (giving us the Anglican Orthodox Church [Holy Roman Empire?]), ritualism (producing the Reformed Episcopal Church), and biblical criticism/evolution (the soi-disant Church of England in South Africa).
Regarding my #67, I am dissapointed but not surprised as my last sentence attests. Does anyone out there hear Jesus…………
“O ye of little faith”.
I’m not sure what your point is, Geoff. Have you taken a look at the Kendall Harmon video? My point is that the real issue is the authority of scripture. There are biblically valid arguments on both sides of the WO issue; because of that, I don’t think the WO issue is a scriptural authority problem, it is a problem of discerning what scripture is telling us. The same cannot be said of same sex blessings.
Then your prayerbook society teacher was wrong, if by bestow grace you mean salvation. There can be good in other religions, but Jesus told us that “the only way to the Father is through me”. To teach anything else is to endanger people’s souls. (What does CE stand for, by the way?)
“It’s often the gay Anglo-Catholics who kick up the most fuss”
The Anglican Catholic church wouldn’t have a whole lot of room for low church me, I’d wager.
Geoff (#73 & 74), with long threads, it is often easy to lose track of the issues being discussed. Am I correct in summarizing your position as follows:
- those under the ACNA umbrella cannot properly call themselves Anglicans;
- ACNA has no legitimate case for arguing that it should be recognized as a full partner in the Anglican communion; and
- all is good with the ACoC (and presumably with TEC as well) and nothing has occurred or is occurring that should in any way call into question its orthodoxy or standing in the Anglican communion.
Did I miss anything?
#77 Beg pardon? Not sure what your point is, could you elaborate a little bit please?
In #63 Malcolm said:
On his own blog he said:
I could care less what you write on your own blog, but it’s rather rich for you to lecture others on flinging rocks.
Just clicked onto Geoffs name/blog and that jumped out at me, lovely photos on the link. Moments of beauty in a not so pretty world.
re#77 Kate (82)
I just discovered this blog run by a guy in my Church History class:
http://ianaministry.com/
I’m not sure I’m called to follow in his footsteps, and his boldness is a little jolting to me as a Canadian, but he definitely doesn’t have much spare time to worry about things like denominations. He’s a really nice guy in person.
Kate (76)
“There are biblically valid arguments on both sides of the WO issue… The same cannot be said of same sex blessings.”
Says you. Moreover, I fail to see how the unique divinity of Jesus precludes his choosing to save adherents of other religions. We cannot know the mind of God. Even the Roman Catholic Church no longer holds to a strict reading of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”
Warren (79);
No, yes, and no. ACNA is certainly a legitimate Anglican outfit, as are TAC and the rest. However, to have two coextant provinces in the Communion based on theological differences is not an option in our ecclesiology, (cf. the hardly encouraging noises from ABC re: recognition of ACNA). I certainly don’t believe that the ACoC or any church is without problems. Our doctrinal fudginess has been a long-standing part of our “patrimony” - sometimes it works for us, sometimes it ends up yielding bishops who don’t believe in the resurrection. Even the Roman Catholic Church, now being touted as a beacon of stability for disaffected Anglicans, has their “Womenpriests” and kindred lunatic fringe. Our discipline may be woolier than theirs: I am not at all convinced that is on balance a bad thing.
Geoff (#85), although I may not fully agree with your position and use of “interesting” adjectives , I thank you for the clarification.
Brilliant comeback. Good grief.
We can know that part of the mind of God that is revealed to us in scripture, and we can know that Jesus said that the only way to the Father was through him. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that Jesus saves through other religions.
Do you not have a problem with that? A man charged with defending the faith denying a basic part of it? If you don’t believe in the resurrection you aren’t a Christian, and any “patrimony” that gives us bishops who aren’t Christian is profoundly broken.
In #85 Geoff said:
And, to be fair, I think even you would have to admit say the vast majority of all Christians worldwide and for the entire history of the Church. Even in North America, I suspect that the number of Christians who believe that there are valid biblical arguments for same sex blessings are a trivial minority. North American Anglicans sometimes forget that, in terms of Sunday attendance, they are a drop in a sea of evangelicalism. For the sake of principle, however, I will admit that trivial minority does not automatically equal error (although in this case I believe it does and that the proponents for SSB would mostly vanish if secular society held a different view).
A very well known scripture verse indicates the inclusiveness of God’s gift of Love ….. I guess it is so common that it’s meaning has been missed. John 3:16.
Could someone give me a “Biblically Valid argument” for WO or SSB’s I am very familiar with the against side but unfortunately have never heard adequately from the “for” side, except for the Mary/Martha fight over doing the dishes. Who likes doing dishes? Jesus said “Mary has chosen the better part” OK, but note, Mary was only listening.
Come on, Stuck - I know you know how to use Google. Do some of the heavy liftin’ yourself.
@ Warren (72) - I don’t disagree that God can and sometimes does act outside of existing structures. That does not change the fact that new structures are new structures. No Methodist will deny that Methodism is not the Anglicanism from which it sprang.
@ Kate (76) - 30 years ago, opponents of the ordination of women said, just as passionately, that there was no legitimate interpretation of scripture in favour of it. 150 years before that, supporters of slavery denied, just as passionately, that there was any legitimate interpretation of scripture to support abolition. 250 years before that, opponents of the charging of interest denied that there was any legitimate argument in it’s favour.
As to the uniqueness of Jesus - would St. Paul be wrong as well in Acts 17?
@ Warren (81) - I believe I have stated the legal position clearly and fairly. The continuing institution owns the property. In having made offers for purchase in several cases, decamping groups have essentially conceded the point.
Now tell me, if a parish priest and congregation in, say, Nigeria / Uganda / Rwanda were to decide that they don’t want to be joined to a bishop who supports the judicial murder of homosexuals and therefore decides to affiliate with the Diocese of New Westminster, will Akinola / Orombi / Kolini let them keep the building?
You know what the answer is.
Malcolm,
Surely you are not using Paul’s reference to the Athenian’s worship of the unknown god as Biblical evidence that Jesus is not unique, are you?
You are not a lawyer or a judge; you are an ACoC clergyman with axe to grind, so the fairness of your belief is, to say the least, questionable; the ownership has not been finally decided by the courts yet.
At least one diocese has made a counter-offer; by your reckoning that means they have conceded that they don’t own the buildings.
Care to provide a link to a statement by a bishop that supports that inflammatory comment?
I don’t, and neither do you: you know what you would like the answer to be.
Malcolm (#93), yes, I know what the answer is. Strawman.
As you may have gathered, I’m not real fussed about denominations.
With respect to #81, I spoke about “flinging rocks” and you responded about legal positions. I don’t get it.
I have a hard time dispassionately considering your arguments because of your penchant for peppering your comments with inflammatory adjectives (I’m sure you can find examples where I do the same, although I hope not nearly to the same degree).
#93 With all due respect, that’s irrelevant. The soundness of the argument is what matters.
Paul used the “unknown god” to lead people to the unique Jesus, so no, he wasn’t wrong.
Article XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
There’s not much wiggle room in there. There is a little; “Lewisian Universalism” in The Last Battle, in which the syllogism is that a honorable worshiper of a dishonorable god actually worships the unknown God, thereby Aslan/Jesus.
Nonetheless, we should all be very careful about telling God what He’s not allowed to do. God may save whomever it is in His Sovereign Will to save; we have a particular promise on which we can rely; others are not ours to judge.
#89 Warren: that North American “sea of evangelicalism” is more of a small lake; the sea is non-practicising at best, and non-believing more often than not. They’re not anywhere on Sunday morning except in bed (or at a hockey arena.)
@87 Kate.
“Brilliant comeback.”
The antecedent wasn’t much to work with, to be perfectly frank. It’s fine for you to believe the historic position is the better one, but if you believe that it’s the only one, then I guess we really can’t persuade you to be in communion with us. It’s unfortunate though what it does for the name of the Church when others see us going into schism over what our fellow Christians do in bed.
@91 Stuck in Toronto
Tobias Haller’s “Sex Articles” are required reading for the same-sex issue. I now have a policy of refusing to debate the subject with anyone who has not read it, as it inevitably fails to move beyond Leviticus and pseudo-Aristotelianism. It’s linked from the bottom of the sidebar on Br Tobias’s blog.
Sigh. It is about the authority of scripture. Looks like we are talking past each other at this point.
I think that the Diocese of Niagara’s actions are doing more serious damage to the name of the church, in any event.
Good point with Article 18. I guess the big tent isn’t really very Anglican, is it?
We are not telling God what he is not allowed to do. We are relying on what He revealed to us that He would do. If it was in His plan to save through other religions, why is the Great Commission in the bible? Why did Jesus tell us that the only way to God was through Him?
Our situation is different. Yes, our structures are new, but we are not a new denomination. We are Anglicans. You can keep the old structure, I’ll keep the old theology, and we will see where we both are in 20 years.
Henry (#98), I concede the “small lake” point with respect to Christians (or claimed Christians) who truly practise their Christianity. However, surverys and polls in the US show that a much greater percentage of the population claim to be Christian. I suspect that the majority of these would self-identify as evangelicals - even if they haven’t darkened the door of a church for a long time.
@David (94) -
1. No, David. Like Paul, I am raising the possibility that God in Christ may act outside the Church as well as in and through the Church.
2. No, I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. But I can tell right from wrong. Anglicanism is not congregationalist, and therefore the argument that congregations can unilaterally decide what denomination they belong to or what bishop they owe canonical obedience to is an ecclesiological absurdity. Thus, property is vested in dioceses, not congregations.
3. In fact, the diocese making a counter-offer asserts quite unequivocally that the property is theirs to sell.
4. You may want to follow the sad and distressing tale of the current bill in the Ugandan Parliament which several Church of Uganda officials have endorsed. (In fairness, SOME have called for the death penalty to be removed from the bill.)
5. I’m pretty confident in my answer. If a parish in Nigeria declared itself to be part of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) wouldn’t allow it for a second. Nor will the Church of England when the schismatics carry through the threats that Reform released yesterday.
@Warren (95) -
1. Not a straw man at all, Warren. The scenario is precisely analogous to what is happening in Canada and the United States. It seems the schismatic approach to the law depends, not on the law, but how one feels about the litigants.
2. If one isn’t fussed about denominations, then what is the resistance to admit that this structure you’ve created is a new denomination (even if, arguably, it has continuity with some previous denomination)?
3. Considering some of the things I read on conservative blogs, I find the charge of inflammatory language a trifle amusing. Certainly I’ve never implied that firearms should be used against any Anglican primate - unlike certain reasserter blogs. (Not, to my knowledge, this one.) I feel quite passionately about the issue of schism and theft.
@Kate 101 - Despite the overblown rhetoric, it is simply false to pretend that one side acknowledges the authority of scripture and the other does not. These are differences of interpretation, exegesis and application. While it is convenient to pretend that all “reappraisers” deny the authority of scripture (though some, perhaps, do), it is no more true than if I calimed that every “reasserter” was a violent homophobe (though some, certainly, are).
@Kate 103 - New structure, hence new denomination. QED. Looking at the past history of Anglican schisms both here and elsewhere, I suspect that 20 years hence the ACoC and the ACNA will both still be around - and that the small band of marginalized irreconcilables in ACNA will be busy encouraging the newest set of irreconcilables within ACoC to draw the line over whatever the issue is come then. Of course, I could be wrong. But not, I don’t think, this time.
With reference to #91 and 100, here’s a link to Tobias Haller’s essay and a response from Dr. Ashley Null:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1855/
The following presentation by Dr. Robert Gagnon at the recent Mere Anglicanism conference is a strong refutation of arguments in favour of same-sex unions:
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28124/
Malcolm #105,
You have meandered from your point in #93: “As to the uniqueness of Jesus - would St. Paul be wrong as well in Acts 17?” God working outside the church has nothing to do with denying the uniqueness of Christ. Do you deny the uniqueness of Christ?
The issue is a still legal one that has yet to be settled. The final legal decision could, from a moral perspective be right or wrong. Your saying that you can tell right from wrong doesn’t hold much water since others who also can tell right from wrong have reached the opposite conclusion. As I said before, you are an ACoC clergyman and, therefore, partisan.
You are assuming their offer is to “sell”; it is an offer to settle which is quite different.
In which case you should have little difficultly supplying a link to a bishop supporting the judicial murder of homosexuals - your original point.
That obviously settles it, then.
Well, on this blog, you are using inflammatory language.
In #105 Malcolm said:
Had you not started by accusing Irena of playing “silly games” and “flinging rocks” I wouldn’t have brought it up.
My sense is that many who have left the ACoC, recently and in the past, are willing to give up their Anglican affiliation - if that is what it takes to follow Jesus. It would sadden them to lose the Anglican affiliation, but, if necessary, it is a price worth paying. If forced to do so, they are also quite prepared to give up their buildings. It appears to me, though, that the ongoing affiliation of the ACoC (and TEC) with the world wide communion is the bigger question.
@107 David
“God working outside the church has nothing to do with denying the uniqueness of Christ.” Thank you, this was the point I was trying, and failing, to articulate earlier with respect to Michael Ingham.
#109 How so? They are two different issues. The point I was making with regards to Ingham is that he has denied the uniqueness of Christ, which is a basic part of the Christian faith, and the fact that this was ok with the house of bishops indicates a huge problem with the ACoC.
Malcolm - New theology, hence new denomination, QED. What is more important, structure or theology? God in Christ can of course act outside the church - to bring people to Christ, not to confirm them in whatever they happen to be doing at the time.
What do you mean when you say “authority of scripture”? I mean that we should let scripture form us and our culture, not let culture inform our interpretation of scripture.
Malcolm #105,
You have missed the point. Those who uphold the authority of Scripture maintain that there is an objective meaning in the language of Scripture that was put there by God: it is a propositional revelation. Our job is not to “interpret” but to understand it. Once understood we view the universe by the light of that understanding.
The fact that you use the word “interpret” implies that you are attempting to confine God’s revelation to the myopic preconceptions of your cultural biases, not allowing it to speak for itself. Perhaps you believe Scripture is largely man-made, making it malleable to contemporary prejudices such as the determination to legitimise same-sex blessings.
Maybe Malcolm needs to define what he means by “authority of Scripture.” I suspect his definition is very different than mine. Since I’m not smart enough to come up with a definition on my own, I just point to the Chicago Declaration on Inerrancy.
It is perfectly orthodox to maintain by way of apophatic theology that we cannot that Christ can`t both be “the way and the truth of the life” and also as such bring non-Christians to himself. He is God, after all, and can to whatever he wills.
(I apologize for the typos in the above).
You know, if you want to have a real discussion, and not a flame war, you’d be wise to drop language like pretending. Pretending implies deliberate falsehood, not difference of opinion.
#113 He brings non Christians to himself by making disciples of them. That is what scripture tells us.
But it isn`t a matter of opinion. We are here. We are professing are belief in the authority of Scripture. As Warren has noted, we may have differing definitions. But that we in principle acknowledge that Scripture is the first authority is easily verifiable: just ask us. If you`re going to accuse us of misrepresenting our own position from the first premise, then how can we even enter into the argument?
Apophatic Theology
[ap-uh-fat’-ik thee-aw’-luh-jee]
(Greek apo-, “other than” + Greek phanai, “speak” = apophasis, “to say no”)
Theological methodology which starts with the ineffability of God, believing that God’s infinite nature cannot be contained by finite men through finite language. The best way to describe God, therefore, is through way of negation (via negativa). In Christianity, apophatic theology is often associated with Eastern Orthodoxy and is foundational to much of the conversation of the so-called emerging church in Protestantism.
#85, #87, #90, #98 etc. It’s not about who God wants to save and how he wants to do it. God loves everybody and wants to be in communion with everybody. There are however certain Spiritual Laws that can not be simply set aside, just as there are Natural Laws which can not be set aside. God is Holy and perfect we can not exist in his presence due to our own sin. Spiritual Law says atonement must be made in blood, for our evil. The ancient Jews were instructed in how to do this with animals, it was however an imperfect and temporary solution to the problem which is why God came to Earth in the person of Jesus. Jesus was able to be the perfect and permanent atonement for that sin. The means to enter into communion with God was provided through the blood of Jesus, but it is still our choice whether to accept the offer and enter into that communion. In addition, you may wish to enter into communion with God but it is only available through the blood.
I will not argue what happens to people who have never heard about the blood of Jesus, there is no way for us to truly know, to say everybody will be saved is just wishful thinking. To be on the safe side I will assume they are tragically, eternally separated from God and with therefore support Evangelism. Those that have heard this message don’t have this excuse and must make the choice for themselves.
I am not sure what comment #117 is in response to?
If we are meaning different things by authority of scripture, then we can’t enter into argument. Words have meanings - one cannot redefine them at will and expect to be understood.
Here is the Webster’s definition of authority:
What I mean by authority of scripture is definition 2a, which David elaborated on in #111. What do you mean by authority of scripture?
If someone claims to be a Marxist, and then says that private property is a good thing, you would know immediately that he isn’t a Marxist. If someone claims to be a Muslim, and then says that he believes in the Trinity, you’d know that whatever else he is, he’s not a Muslim. What should we think of an institution that says that it believes in the authority of scripture, and yet allows a bishop who says that he doesn’t believe in the resurrection to remain a bishop?
Malcolm, the link to Louis Crew’s web site on your blog must give schismatic thoughts to at least a few of your dwindling parishoners.
http://queereye4lectionary.blogspot.com/
I missed this bit:
Really? Can you name one Canadian ANiC leader who has said or done anything to indicate that he or she is a violent homophobe?
So many rocks tossed, so little time.
The suggestion that one can apprehend the meaning of scripture without interpretation is simply absurd. Scripture was written in a particular context and it is interpreted in a context. In my experience, those who claim there is no interpretation involved are merely asserting the priority of the context of their own interpretation.
Scripture isn’t the least bit ambivalent about the charging of interest, yet somehow we have managed to interpret that absolute prohibition away.
Now, the “conservative” will argue - and quite rightly - that there is an inherent danger involved in that the interpretation may be subordinated to the context. I would suggest, for example, that in the case of Calvin’s reappraisal of usury in the context of the rise of the mercantile class and the emergence of a capitalist economy, there is a very good argument to be made that scripture was subordinated to context.
Therefore, it certainly could be true that the current reappraisal of sexuality could be another case of the subordination to the spirit of the age.
However, it is also possible (surely you can at least concede this as a hypothetical) that the absolutist resistance to any movement represents the subordination of scripture to the spirit of a previous age.
The fact of the matter is that every Christian interprets scripture and it is simply silly to suggest otherwise.
(BTW, inerrancy is really quite alien to the Anglican tradition.)
Kate, note the involvement of the Primates of Nigeria and Uganda in the appallingly oppressive anti-gay legislation in their respective countries.
Re: Nigeria:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003697.html
This legislation was so vile that even the Mullahs were appalled. Homosexual acts are already criminalized in Nigeria. The proposed legislation would have established lengthy prison sentences for such things as suggesting that perhaps jailing gays wasn’t a good thing.
Re: Uganda:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004142.html
and today’s (rather incoherent) statement which appears to support virtually all aspects of the bill except. (Can’t find the online version I read earlier.) The only change in the legislation they expressly call for is to exempt clergy from the threat of a three year sentence for not ratting out gays. Some commentators have interpreted the statement to oppose the inclusion of the death penalty in the legislation, but that is, at best, far from clear.
Malcolm,
By not stating what you believe the nature of Scripture to be, you are still dodging the central issue . Everything you have said suggests that you do not believe that the Bible is God revealing himself to us using language; I do. Without agreement on that, attempting to discuss what we think the Bible is teaching is fruitless.
I used the word “understand” rather than “interpret” because I anticipated that when you say you interpret Scripture you are consciously starting with the assumption that your own cultural perspectives shed light on its meaning – something I view as temporal arrogance - rather than the reverse.
We have not “interpreted away” the charging of interest, it was civil matter and no longer applies to Christians (at least, from the Anglican viewpoint, anyway):
I said ANiC leaders in #123 Malcolm. I’m not surprised you dodged the question, because the answer will be that there aren’t any. ANiC was under the temporary oversight of Southern Cone.
Malcolm (#124), we inhabit different forests and, when we step back, we see different trees. On the face of it, I agree with your comments about interpretation and could use them in the forest I inhabit without strong objection. However (and this is a huge however), our starting presuppostions are different. When I say “authority of Scripture” it means something different than when you use those words. Accuse me of flinging rocks if you will, but I believe you are seeking to force Scripture to accommodate or support secular agendas to make your Christianity more acceptable to the society around you.
#124 Malcolm: I think the situation in Uganda has been misunderstood. I read a letter from Archbishop (?) Orombi describing what is truly happening and I think the death penalty has something to do with rape of children. However, as Kate says, you are dodging the issue by looking so far afield that the facts won’t be properly understood. Let’s stay on Canadian home turf since it is ANiC you are trying to discredit.
1. David, do you believe that there is a dome above the earth holding up a great mass of water? That is what scripture - unvarnished and uninterpreted - clearly says. Do you believe that snakes used to have legs? That is what scripture - unvarnished and uninterpreted - clearly says. Do you believe it is an offence against God to charge interest? That is what scripture - unvarnished and uninterpreted - clearly says.
Or is the issue here that you and yourn are allowed to interpret and the rest of us are not?
2. Kate - you prove my point. In a particular age, people wished t be no longer bound by a clear and unequivocal rule in scripture so they produced an interpretation which said it didn’t apply.
Why is it okay for 16th century reappraisers to set aside a clear and unequivocal pronouncement of scripture but it is an abomination for 21st century reappraisers to do exactly the same thing?
I mean, besides the fact that one was 450 years ago and the other is today. And besides the fact that you like collecting interest and you don’t like gay sex?
3. I never said that any ANiC leaders were violent homophobes. Nor did I say that any of you were violent homophobes. I said that there are reasserters who are violent homophobes. That is certainly true, given the death threats against Gene Robinson (and others) and the implicit threats to shoot the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church posted to the “Stand Firm” website.
My point, of course, was that the mere existence of such people does NOT mean that every reasserter is like that.
Just as the likelihood that there are some reappraisers whose theology is heterodox does not mean that every reappraiser is heterodox.
(And, just for the record, one doesn’t have to look that hard to find the odd bit of heterodoxy from reasserters either.
4. What I mean is that scripture has authority. What you appear to mean, Warren, is that scripture is inerrant. Given that the Church has acknowledged from the start that at least some parts of scripture are to be undestood allegorically, the idea of inerrancy is a recent innovation - mid-1800s. A more recent innovation than charging interest. It is also an innovation that has never been mainstream in the history of Anglicanism. As to the rest of it, see para 1.
5. The Ugandan bill provides for the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” a term that is never defined. But tell me, Irena, why should the sexual abuse of a boy by a man (or a girl by a woman) be punishable by death when the rape of a girl by a man is not? After all, the vast majority of sexual abuse of children is adult men molesting girls.
And do you believe, Irena, that all HIV / AIDS work should be put at risk by threatening to jail people for three years if they don’t turn in a person who is homosexual?
Or do you believe, Irena, that people should be subject to seven year prison terms for publicly stating the belief that homosexuality should not be criminalized? That would have been the effect of the bill that Akinola of Nigeria enthusiastically pushed last year.
Ironically, though we’ve been told that the North American Churches’ moderation on homosexuality was causing problems with Nigerian Muslims, the leading mullahs came out against Akinola’s bill on the grounds that it was too extreme.
Malcolm,
Your last comment is such a muddle it’s difficult to extract anything sensible from it.
You still have not stated what you believe the nature of Scripture to be and I can’t see much point in wrangling with you about its meaning until you do. That being said, from your remarks it seems clear that you regard it as man-made. I am at a loss to understand why you read it all, other than as an arcane curiosity, perhaps.
Then you say this:
From everything else you’ve said, for example,
It’s obvious that you don’t believe Scripture has authority. That last statement I quoted is so perversely bizarre, I can’t believe it came from a clergyman; do you think an age that doesn’t want to be bound by a command not to murder should reinterpret the fifth commandment?
The Uganda homosexuality remarks seem to be a diversionary tactic: you began the wild goose chase by referring to a bishop who supports the judicial murder of homosexuals and have yet to point to statement by a bishop that supports killing homosexuals. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand – the ACNA briefing paper.
You seem to have made up the words “reasserter” and “reappraiser”; although their meaning can be gleaned from their context, it doesn’t help people wade through your tangled comments.
#129 Malcolm:
The death penalty will be applied also for rape of little girls. It was specifically mentioned in Orombi’s letter because, he says, some believe that sex with a virgin will cure you of AIDs. Horrible. I didn’t mention it as I’d like to keep the discussion from ranging too much. You seem intent on bringing in world-wide political and judicial problems in order to muddy the waters of this discussion.
Yeah, I thought I’d made that pretty clear by now.
Given that modern textual criticism and liberal theology began to emerge at roughly the same time (likely a bit earlier), could it be that the trustworthiness of God’s Word, which had been largely assumed as a given up to that time, needed to be stated more plainly in order to counter the efforts of academics to erode confidence in the Bible? When Article VI was written (In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.), do you think the authors had a view of authority more like mine or more like yours? Your comment on charging interest is irrelevant and also inaccurate (unless you interpret the term “charging interest” differently than most):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
It would appear that you’re parroting an oft repeated line - one that is contested:
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2007/05/anglican-inerrancy.html
Although I don’t consider him inerrant, it is interesting to juxtapose your views of biblical authority with those of J.I. Packer:
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_views_packer.html
Once again, I’m reminded that we inhabit different forests.
#130 David: I ended my last post with a comment about ‘reasserter’ and ‘reappraiser’ but deleted it before I sent it off! What ever happened to that glossary of Anglican terms you were working on once?
Irena,
What ever happened to that glossary of Anglican terms you were working on once?
I don’t think that was me; I quail before such an ambitious project. I don’t think the two “r” words are Anglican terms - I could be wrong, though, there are an awful lot of them.
David, reasserter and reappraiser are terms that I believe Kendall Harmon coined. They are used extensively on Stand Firm.
Um, No. The civil and dietary laws don’t apply to Christians because Jesus ushered in a new law. I was merely quoting an Anglican source for this. It’s not a matter of setting scripture aside at all, which I think you probably already knew. It is a matter of seeking to submit ourselves to God’s word, not a matter of “producing an interpretation that we like”. That’s the ACoC’s area of expertise.
It seems to me that you are pretty blinded by your anger towards ANiC, considering the half truths you have published on your own blog. Maybe you should take a deep breath and count to ten before you post.
Kate [#134],
Thanks - I find them profoundly irritating, but maybe that because of the current context.
David / Kate,
Does my comment in moderation have too many links?
Yes, that’s why it was held. I’ve approved it now.
Well, I knew we’d come to it eventually.
Scripture is divinely inspired. Therefore scripture has authority. However, scripture was written in a context and must be interpreted and applied in a new context. The Church has constantly, throughout her history, inculcated the authority of scripture into its particular national and temporal context. I maintain my earlier point - that scripture has always been interpreted by the Church and to suggest that scripture is not interpreted is entirely absurd and historically false. You are appealing to a historical constant that simply does not exist.
So, I don’t agree with how you interpret scripture (which is what you are doing), so therefore I don’t take scripture seriously - the slander to which reasserters always seem to return.
Reasserter and reappraiser, as Kate mentioned, were coined by Kendall Harmon - an Anglican from your side of the aisle, btw. I use those terms because most any other set of terms is either pejorative or inaccurate. Resserter and reappraiser - ie, one who wants the Church to reassert the traditional position and one who wants the Church to reappraise its teaching - are not, of themselves, pejorative and describe the two sides of the debate in terms that are honest and accurate.
Several CofU officials have endorsed the Ugandan bill as it stands (in among charming references to other human beings as “cockroaches,” appropriating the language of those who perpetrated the Rwandan holocaust). Orombi’s generally incoherent statement calls for only one change - which is to exempt clergy from similar provisions. And no, Irena, the death penalty is not for child abuse, but for “aggravated homosexuality.”
The refusal to deal honestly with the usury issue is telling.
At no point does the New Testament suggest that Jesus or the early Church set aside the Old Testament prohibition on usury - which was charging any interest at all. Indeed, the Church and state maintained that as law until well into the 16th century. Your claim that Jesus set it aside has no support in scripture or history.
It was only with the rise of mercantilism and the early advent of capitalism that revisionist theologians - the reappraisers of the day - decided that the prohibition wasn’t really a prohibition at all.
Again, I realize that facts are inconvenient to you all, but that is a fact nonetheless. The Church always and everywhere was agreed that lending at interest was prohibited to Christians. Then, one day, some cleric in Geneva decided to reinterpret what scripture plainly and unequivocally said.
The difference between the usury issue and the present issue is that you like collecting interest while you don’t like gay sex.
Malcolm,
You seem to be operating under two opposing principles.
You say “Scripture is divinely inspired” and “The Church has constantly, throughout her history, inculcated the authority of scripture into its particular national and temporal context”. An orthodox believer reading that would conclude that you are taking an objective message with an objective meaning that God has given in Scripture, and are applying it to your life today. He would probably have little to argue with.
However, when you say “In a particular age, people wished t be no longer bound by a clear and unequivocal rule in scripture so they produced an interpretation which said it didn’t apply” as you did in #129 your meaning is quite different. In this case you seem to be saying that there is no permanent objective truth in Scripture and, therefore, when we apply it to our lives today we can ignore passage we don’t like.
To put it another way, you seem to believe that Scripture only has meaning in a temporal context. Thus you feel free to “interpret” out the passages forbidding homosexual activity. If that is your position, I submit that your understanding of “Scripture is divinely inspired” is flawed to the point of being without meaning.
The usury argument is an old chestnut that is always dragged out and dusted off in the homosexuality debate, but it really isn’t relevant.
In #139 Malcolm said:
I know you’ve heard this before, but a definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results?
Did I have a conversation with you on this blog a year or so ago? I have this deja vu feeling I’ve heard your arguments before. Maybe I had the conversation with someone who graduated from the same seminary?
This part baffles me:
Was this directed at me? You say this after my comment in #127 where I said, On the face of it, I agree with your comments about interpretation and could use them in the forest I inhabit without strong objection. To use your own words:
Why not engage with someone like Packer regarding inerrancy and the authority of Scripture. Why not take his essay apart piece by piece? Either you’ll change your mind, or you’ll be able to present your argument in a much more persuasive and coherent manner.
I have no idea where you’re going with the usury thing. Even though I doubt I agree with your interpretation of Scripture (yes, I used the word “interpretation” without cringing), you seem to be suggesting that two wrongs make a right. I get the impression that what you would really like to say is: “Since you reasserting fools hypocritically ignore one part of Scripture you have no excuse for not ignoring another part. Get with the program!”
Malcolm,
I disagree with you profoundly, yet appreciate that you’re apparently approaching this authentically, and from a place of orthodox Christian conviction.
The examples you provide in your posts assume a difference between legitimate interpretation and casuistry, and thus imply that not all interpretations of Scripture are equal. But how, under your theological rubric, are we to determine which interpretations are legitimate? Are all reappraisals merely self-serving? If so, then they all should be condemned. For even if I grant, for the sake of the argument, your assertion that previous Anglican reappraisals were casuistic concessions to culture, by no means does that justify, let alone mandate, subsequent error. There is no evangelical proposal to bless usurers, or to celebrate divorce or abortion or contraception. To the extent that most conservative Anglicans have (often tacitly) accepted these things, so too have they overwhelmingly accepted same-gender sex: as a manifestation of sin in the world that can in good conscience be tolerated as a reality, but not blessed by the Church of Christ.
Further, your very post-modern claim that all readings are interpretations — acknowledged as such or not — assumes additional premises that most on this site simply don’t grant: that we read and understand Scripture the same way we read other literature; and that the context in which the human authors of Scripture wrote overwhelmed them to such a degree as to influence their transmission of spiritually and morally significant truths.
Holy Scripture, the Church teaches, is revealed; thus, it imparts understanding and interprets itself (scriptura scripturam interpretatur), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Although some things are hard to understand in the Bible (not very many), it is mostly abundantly clear, which is why we can speak of the “perspicuity of Scripture”. If, however, it is unclear in one place, we can look to see what it says in another. In the rare case of competing claims about the guidance of the Spirit with respect to our understanding of unclear passages and any ethical dilemmas that might follow, we should look first to what Scripture says in other places about similar matters, and then to the early church and the Christian tradition. It is impossible to argue in this way for the blessing of same-sex relationships. That the leadership of the ACoC will not and can not offer positive Christian justifications for their move to bless what God has proscribed indicates that they are only nominally Christian, which is why the existence of the ACNA follows from this issue and not others.
How then should we understand Jesus’ parable of the talents in Mt 25 and Lk 19, where the master says that the lazy servant should have deposited his talent with the bankers to receive interest? There were obviously, then, bankers paying interest in Jesus’ day, and he didn’t condemn them, nor the one receiving it.
Even in the OT, the prohibition on usury was not absolute. Deut 23:20 says,
You see, there are scriptural points for discussion on this subject, as there are, for example, on other issues such as women’s leadership roles in the church, but nowhere in Scripture can one find a refernce in favour of the acceptance of homosexual sexual activity.
I’m not surprised that many here will pretend the usury comparison is irrelevant. It is deucedly inconvenient for you to admit that, at a particular time and place, te Church set aside both the clear injunction of scripture and her own constant teaching to put in place a new thing. Nonetheless, there is an exact parallel between our present conundrum and that one.
Redcrosse Knight, at least, is prepared to deal with this a little more honestly.
I would agree with you that the fact of the Church once “changing her mind” does not necessarily say that either she was correct to do so in that case or that she necessarily should in another case. The usury comparison is not an argument that the Church SHOULD reassess her teaching on human sexuality and homosexual relationships. It does, however, make the point that there is precedent for a radical and even wholesale revision.
Determining if a particular amendment to doctrine or practice is proper requires discernment - prayerful and patient discernment. There are many on BOTH sides of the present debate who have tried to work their way through the issue with prayer and patience. There are others - on BOTH sides - whose behaaviour has been entirely reactionary, unprayerful, impatient and uncharitable. As one friend of mine (from your side of the aisle on this question), discernment is not a quick thing, nor an easy thing.
On the interpretation of scripture, I’m amused to see how much people are prepared to read in because they can’t actually find it in anything I’ve said. At no point have I said that scripture contains no objective truth. What I have said (and what I think RK has fairly tried to represent) is that the application of that truth in different cultural contexts requires discernment and interpretation. And sometimes it requires us to be open to the possibility that, up until now, we’ve gotten it wrong. When we sent people into space and discovered no giant bowl of water, it suggested that perhaps an inerrantist approach was problematic and that perhaps the relevant bits of Genesis should be interpreted allegorically.
Our Roman friends know for certain that scripture establishes Peter’s successors as Bishop of Rome to have supreme earthy authority in the Church. We know with the same certainty that scripture does no such thing. Charles the Martyr-King knew for certain that scripture established the authority of kings answerable only to God while the Calvinist Cromwell knew quite the opposite just as certainly. People interpret and apply scripture to their lives and to their cultural contexts. Indeed, it is difficult (and perhaps impossible) for most people to leave their cultural assumptions behind. And even when approaching scripture prayerfully and with great integrity, some people get it wrong.
On this issue, perhaps it’s me.
Or perhaps not.
Malcolm, I’m still waiting for you to explain why you said this:
When I am quite sure that no one on this thread has suggested that Scripture “is not interpreted”. Do you ever retract your inflammatory and false statements, or is your motto always “full steam ahead?” You certainly have a novel approach for someone who is a pastor.
#144 You are conviently ignoring John K’s comments. How about a response to them?
1. Warren, you may want to check back over David’s coments where he specifically rejected the word interpret. You, by contrast, reject the concept of interpreting scripture except in terms of the allegedly plain meaning of the text.
2. It is something of a stretch to say that the parable of the talents approves of interest. The most generous interpretation might allow it as second best to putting the money to actual use. In fact, since the parables are not to be taken as literal events, the comment is a literary device by Jesus. The OT text is interesting, but the 16th century reappraisal allowed Christians to charge interest from other Christians. Finally on that particular, you still all refuse to acknowledge that the Church made a radical revision of her teachings in the 16th century based on a new and novel interpretation of scripture.
3. There are several problems with the proof texts usually offered up regarding homosexual acts. Some are based in translations that build in modern assumptions. More commonly, the problem is that the texts are addressing a specific issue - temple prostitution - thus dealing with relationships that were inherently unequal and abusive.
Usury at one time was considered a distasteful profession, which is why the Jew were the ones lending money. Some of the Jews started getting rather wealthy and a bunch of Europeans wanted in on the action. They pressured the state and church to let them do it. It had nothing to do with spiritual issues, it was economics, just as eating fish on Friday was economics. As for lending money at interest I haven’t devoted huge amounts of time thinking about it but I do think there is something there. Credit card bills with interest rates so high you will never be able to pay them back, a collapsing housing market are consequences of how we handle money.
This is however the society we live in and just at slave owners and slaves at one time hand to reconcile their Christian lives with the facts of the society they live in we must do the same.
#147 point 3. Paul was not talking about temple prostitution.
Malcolm: If you do not stop assuming that the commenters here are dishonest and acting in bad faith, or that we haven’t done our intellectual homework before coming to the positions that we hold, you will be put on comment moderation. This would not be a banning, but your comments would be have to be approved by a moderator before they appear. This will be your only warning.
In #147 Malcolm said:
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. You apparently know my mind better than I do. Would it really be so painful for you to say something like:
I’m sure you’re not so insufferable in person.
I am not so sure..,
Malcolm [#144],
I take it, then, that you concede that Scripture does contain objective truth. When I say that, I mean that the Bible contains truth that exists independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions, including conceptions derived from cultural biases.
Given that, Scriptural truth may be applied to fit a particular cultural context; the truth itself should not be changed, though. To ignore the truth because it is inconvenient or, worse reverse it, is not interpreting or applying Scripture: it is distorting it. It seems to me that that is what you are doing when you seek to legitimise same-sex blessings.
(#147)
To which temple would you say was God referring in Lev 18:22, given when the Jews were wandering in the desert?
This is going to be a long one . . .
Malcolm, although I have a definite interest in theology, church history, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc., I am a layman and I am also interested in the practical matters of church life and Christian living. You are a clergyman in the ACoC, and I would like to ask you a few pastoral questions. Although tough, these are questions that I would expect any pastor – whether he claimed to be conservative or liberal - to answer in a forthright and unambiguous manner. In your case, I want to know if the comments you have made on this thread reflect your true belief, or if you are trying to provoke readers into considering other possibilities and are using hyperbole. Do you carry out your pastoral functions in a manner consistent with your hermeneutic? I hope you will humour me (I have not provided answer options that clearly seem opposed to what you have presented in your comments).
1. You are teaching a group of junior high school kids at your church and the topic of sexuality comes up. Do you teach them that:
a. heterosexual and homosexual unions are equally acceptable to God and that they should not be afraid to follow their natural urges; or
b. homosexuality seems to be approved of in God’s Word but the more usual pattern is male-female unions; accordingly they should proceed cautiously; or
c. other?
2. Do you give the same message to the parents?
3. An 18 year old girl, the daughter of two of your parishioners, comes to you for counselling. She tells you that she thinks she is a lesbian and wants your advice on what she should do. She says that she has not yet “experimented.” Do you tell her to:
a. not be afraid to enter into relationships with other girls but to refrain from sexual activity; or
b. not be afraid of experimenting, including touching of genitalia, but to refrain from full contact as that should be saved for marriage; or
c. not hesitate to engage in all forms of sexual activity as she should be sure of her sexual orientation before committing to a long-term relationship; or
d. other?
4. The girl engages in a relationship and returns three years later with her lesbian partner and says she would like to be married in your church. Your province and your Diocese permit same-sex marriage. Do you perform the marriage?
5. Let’s assume that the young woman gets married – either in your church or elsewhere. A month after the marriage, the young woman returns to your office and breaks down in tears. She tells you that she thinks she has made a terrible mistake and that she really isn’t a lesbian. She also realizes that she really wants to be a mother. Do you:
a. tell her that marriage is sacred before God and that divorce is not an option except for infidelity; or
b. tell her that she and her spouse should undergo counselling and make every effort to make things work because divorce is frowned upon by God, and that she should investigate adoption options; or
c. tell her that they should give it a bit more time and try to make things work, but that divorce is also an acceptable option and that God will not judge her is she goes that route; or
d. other?
6. How do you apply the “weaker brother” passage in your pastoral ministry in the context of sexuality?
I am confident that every pastor I have sat under (and there have been many) could answer all of the above questions in a consistent and forthright manner.
Further to #147, my point was not to claim that Jesus approved of the charging or payment of interest. He could very well have been, and I suppose was, neutral on the matter. And the fact that he mentioned it in a parable is irrelevant. The fact that he mentioned it in a parable merely demonstrates that the practise was taking place in his day and in his society, and yet he did not condemn it, He had the opportunity to, because he mentioned it, but he didn’t.
On the other hand, a favourite liberal argument is that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. Well, first of all, that is an argument from silence, and as you would know, that is about the poorest of all arguments. And, of course, it’s completely wrong. Jesus spoke a number of times about sexual immorality, and that, in the context of first century Judaism, would have included any and all sexual practises forbidden in the Jewish law.
Which brings us to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Gentile believers were, in effect, released from keeping the requirements of the Jewish law except for four requirements, one of which was to refrain from sexual immorality, which again would have included any sexual activity prohibited in the OT.
@Cathy (148) - This is most frustrating because you are all doing on the usury issue exactly what reappraisers today are doing on the sexuality issue. Which is, of course, my point.
FACT - there were scriptural injunctions against charging interest.
FACT - For 1500 years the Church consistently taught that Christians must not charge interest.
FACT - For the very cultural / contextual reasons you cite, Cathy, the Church (over time and with some controversy) set aside those scriptual injunctions and that 1500 years of consistent teaching.
The ONLY objective difference between the usuary issue and the sexuality is that one happened 450 years ago and is now a settled question, whereas the other is happening today and is not yet a settled question.
You all can’t have it both ways.
(All of which, I admit up front, is not an argument that the Church SHOULD do the same on any other issue, merely that the Church has the capacity to do so. To argue that the Church does not have the capacity to do so on another issue, one must agree that the Church had no capacity to do so with regard to interest.)
Your fish on Fridays comparison is bogus. There was never any scriptual injunction against red meat on Fridays, the Church never held that it was a matter of doctrine and the particular discipline was never enacted in Spain or Portugal.
@Kate(149) - There is quite a body of scholarship that says he was talking about temple prostitution - as well as other abusive sexual relationships common in Hellenic culture.
@John(154) - The desert is quite irrelevant. Temple prostitution refers to prostitution in pagan temples. Temple prostitution was not a feature of Israelite worship before, during or after the temple.
@Warren(151) - I thought I was fairly interpreting your earlier comments. If not, I apologize.
So, how DO you interpret scripture?
@Warren (151) and Sandra (152) - I can be every bit as insufferable in person. Especially when I believe that people are blind to things that are indisputable facts.
@Kate(150) - I would appreciate the same respect. I have received it from some - but not consistently.
@David(153) - The fact that scripture contains objective truth is one thing. It does not necessarily follow that we have always apprehended that truth correctly. I agree that we should not bend scriptural truth to conform to cultural biases. However, we must also have a care that we are not merely conforming to cultural biases of a previous age. BOTH of these are possible errors.
The old saw that “the Church which is wedded to the age will be a widow in the next” applies equally in reverse. The Church which is wedded to the previous age is a widow in this.
Will you agree that it is POSSIBLE that on some issues, the Church’s teaching may have been incorrectly conformed to the cultural norms of a previous age?
@Warren (155)
1. I tell them what the Church has traditionally taught while acknowledging that there is significant debate on the question. To the degree it is appropriate in the context, I would outline the issues.
2. I give the same consistent message to anyone who wants to ask.
3. I’m not a big fan of directive pastoral counselling. Telling people what to do isn’t particularly useful and can be very damaging - even if you are telling them to do the right thing.
I would speak to her about what the Church teaches on sexuality - including the fact that there is significant disagreement on some of these points. I would also explain that sexuality is powerful precisely because it is so intimate and that decisions about sexuality need to be considered in a spiritual light. I would counsel prayer. I would also acknowledge that, as an adult, she has autonomy and free will to make moral decisions.
4. If same-sex marriages are canonically authorized, I would perform such a marriage. Currently they are not authorized nationally, provincially or in this diocese, so I would not.
5. See 3 above. Plus I would acknowledge that many LGBTQ couples have children and that many lesbian couples bear children via AID or other means.
6. I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Those who conscientiously dissent on this issue need to be treated with respect. I don’t think that means that nothing can ever happen so long as anyone conscientiously objects.
@John(156) - For 1500 years the Church did NOT interpret the Council of Jerusalem as having exempted gentile converts from the prohibition against usury. Yet here we are.
WRT your comment that Jesus comments on sexual immorality would necesarily include any sexual prohibition in the law of Moses. Possibly. But it is still a matter of interpretation. See also my earlier comments about the interpretation of some of those texts.
Malcolm [#162],
Certainly; if that were the case, of course, then the cultural bias of the previous age would have been distorting the Scriptural truth.
Now, will you concede the possibility of this:
Over a time span of 2000 years encompassing a large selection of cultural perspectives, at no time has the church interpreted the Biblical prohibition of homosexual activity in the way you would like it to today. Moreover, the vast majority of the Anglican Communion today does not agree with your interpretation.
The only part of the Anglican Church that is pushing for legitimising SSBs is a small minority in the West, a minority that, strangely enough, has a high proportion of practising homosexuals in it.
That looks suspiciously like a 20/21stC bias that is colouring Scripture to suit itself.
I will certainly agree with that
No we aren’t. The point has been made before, that gentile believers are exempt from the rules that the Jews had to follow, except for the specific rules stated in Acts 15.
Therefore, there is a scriptural argument for setting aside the rules on usury. I am not arguing that the church can’t interpret (read learn from) scripture. What I am saying is that I think that the interpretations that argue for SSB’s are very weak, and frankly wrong.
Malcolm (#163), thank you for your candid response. My intent was to more clearly understand your stance - not pillory you.
From #162:
I agree with this. Hopefully you would agree that the Church should not be wedded to any age at any time. We are to be in the world but not of it. God’s truth and promises are timeless, and man’s sinful condition and need for redemption have continued unchanged since the fall; and will remain unchanged until the end of the age.
I’ll get back to you on the interpretation question this evening when I have more time.
In #100, Geoff mentioned Tobias Haller as required reading to understand the same-sex issue. For what it’s worth, here is a recent review (9 Feb 10) by Ephraim Radner of Haller’s book, Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/2/9/building-on-a-tissue-of-maybe
Malcolm, my previous point regarding usury was actually an attempt to, at least in part, agree with you. Yes the church has made large changes in it’s policy in the past and may do so again in the future. That is now way a judgment whether the change was correct, just that they happened. My example of eating fish was and example that sometimes the church has made decisions which were politically and economically motivated rather than spiritually motivated even if thinly veiled in spiritual talk.
Yes the church has made radical changes in its teaching on some issues over time and some of these issues are still being dealt with. Slavery still exists in many 3rd world countries, some first world countries don’t ordain women, the verdict is still out in many areas on manifestations of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues or being slain in the Sprit.
I don’t think anybody denies that change happens, sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad. What we must examine is whether the change being proposed at this time is for the good or the bad. Is it a scripturally motivated change or is a political / economic change being cloaked in spiritual language. St Paul said that all thinks may be permissible, but not all things are to my benefit. He also talked about eating meat which had been sacrificed to gods being ok, but to do so would harm other people. So we need to ask, if SSB were scripturally sound, is how we are going about this to our and our brethren’s benefit?
Malcolm (#159), I will not get into much detail, but I will give a brief overview of the approach I have been taught (and accept) to apply to biblical interpretation. I must first state, however, that one of my starting presuppositions is inerrancy (as per the Chicago Declaration). I believe that God has been faithful to preserve His word and that any errors that crept into the text through copying of manuscripts are trivial and do not affect any significant doctrines or teaching. I think the historical and textual evidence for this position is solid, but I also know that various textual critics – many of whom were likely not even believers – have suggested dramatically different views over the past 200 years. Here’s the approach to interpretation I try to adhere to (step should be followed in the order shown):
1. Exegetical statement: what did the text mean at the time it was written to those it was written to? Considerations include: historical interpretation; grammatical interpretation; contextual interpretation; and literary interpretation. I know that the Bible contains several literary genres (history, poetry, prophecy, letters, etc.) and that this must be borne in mind when considering the meaning of a text.
2. Theological statement: what is the timeless truth taught? This could be considered the “analogy of Scripture.” Considerations would include: tradition; experience; emotion; and reason.
3. Homiletical statement: how does the text apply to us? Contextualize and extract principles for today.
Ideally I would do my study in the original languages. I have studied neither Hebrew nor Greek and am unlikely to do so at this point in my life. I try to read from the Bible every day and admit that, because of my haste, I likely do not apply the above-stated principles consistently. Hopefully I do better when I examine a doctrine or teaching in greater detail.
Here are a few other considerations:
- Jesus and the writers of the NT often quoted from the NT. Even though the passage they quote may have been written more than 1000 years earlier, they didn’t seem very fussed about trying to “update” and reinterpret the meaning of the passage so that it would make sense in their cultural context. Accordingly, I am not impressed with arguments that, if Paul had only lived in our day and age, his writings would have been much different. Some consideration of culture context is valid, but many take it to a ridiculous extreme in order to justify a position they hold dear – rarely do they reach a conclusion that drives them away from those things they hold dear.
- Although I hold to verbal-plenary inspiration as the most likely theory for inspiration, I do not wholly reject the possibility of mechanical dictation. A sovereign God could have chosen this form of inspiration had He wished. I reject all theories of inspiration that do not accept that, ultimately, God is the author of the whole Bible. Accordingly, I view the gospels and Paul’s writings to be equally inspired and equally worthy of our attention.
- Your comments about usury and divorce are meaningless to me. That the church has failed is of no relevance to the truth and trustworthiness of the Bible (and yes, the church has failed). I am probably more cynical about the state of Christianity in North America than you are. Although I am an evangelical, I believe that evangelicalism is in a mess and that what is needed is purging and purification. Idolatry and false teaching run rampant, and the word holiness is rarely heard. Despite this, I am called to not forsake gathering together with my brothers and sisters in Christ. My Christian growth would be stunted without community. The ACNA is flawed as are all denominations and churches. Why I have hope for the ACNA is that it understands it is sick but desires to become healthier. The ACoC, on the other hand, is on its death bed, but fails to see its condition and is recklessly pursuing those behaviours that put it there in the first place.
@David(165) - Certainly. I have no reluctance to admit that (exactly like usury 450 years ago) this is a call to reassess the Church’s teachings. I also have no problem admitting that, at the end of the day, the Holy Spirit may lead the Church in any of three directions: 1) to establish the reassessment as the accepted teaching of the Church; 2) to reassert the traditional teaching; 3) to find a via media on the issue.
It is worth remembering, though, that the Holy Spirit is not always found in the majority vote - as Athanasius shows.
@Kate(166) - What you have done is taken the arguments of 16th century reappraisers and treated them as established fact. The arguments you present to justify the change in usury were as scandalous in 1500 as the pro-SSB arguments are today. Perhaps some hundreds of years from now, the reasserters of the age will quote the pro-SSB apologia to say that the Church’s movement on that issue was completely unlike whatever it is they’re arguing about then.
@Cathy(169) - “Is it a scripturally motivated change or is a political / economic change being cloaked in spiritual language.”
That is indeed the question. The second (and less obvious question) is this: Are objections to the change scripturally motivated or are political / economic privilege being cloaked in spiritual language. We have, after all, seen religious / spititual language used to justify some pretty horrific things on all sides.
Discerning God’s will is no simple thing - and no quick thing. Martin Marty apparently said something to the effect that the Church hashing things out can take 200 years.
I agree with a reasserter blogger that, when God is done with this question, the answer won’t look like what either side expects.
@Warren (170)
As I have mentioned before, inerrancy is a recent development with little root in the Anglican tradition. It is not a doctrinal innovation I care to adopt.
The three steps you decide are reasonable regardless of how one views issues like the nature of inspiration.
That said, history makes clear that determining what scripture is actually telling us is fraught with problems. (I must admit to getting quite annoyed when things like Pat Robertson’s delusional ramblings about Haiti get passed off as the position of “all” Christians.) God has given us tools to use in interpreting scripture - most particularly the other two legs of Hooker’s stool, tradition and reason. Neither the Church nor the Bible has anything to fear from a challenging discussion about what scripture is telling us today.
Jesus did have a habit of applying OT (I assume you meant OT) scriptures in - shall we say - unexpected ways, including an idea of messiah which was quite unlike what contemporary Judaism expected. Paul as well spent a lot of time contrasting the new revelation with the traditional interpretations of the old.
I categorically do not agree with a mechanistic concept of scriptural interpretation.
On usury and divorce, the interesting question is this: is the Church failing now or was she failing then? Either is possible.
I think your desciption of ACNA and ACoC are both caricatures. Doubtless there are particular congregations in each that would match your caricature. But there are equally many that would not. There are ACoC congregations vitally engaged in discerning God’s will for them in their place and time. There are ACNA congregations that long for the museum piece Anglicanism of their youth.
I think you are making assumptions about causes that owe more to your own views than to objective evidence. Personally, I have seen vital, growing and thriving congregations of both progressive and conservative bent. And I’ve seen stuck and dying congregations both progressive and conservative.
In my observation over 25+ years since my ordination, progressive / conservative or reappraiser / reasserter or whatever label you want to use is no reliable indicator of the health and vitality of a parish. Neither (perhaps ironically) is the commitment to congregational growth and development. More reliable, in my experience, is a congregation’s engagement with the needs of its community, its ministry outside its walls, sacrifically offered with (at its best) no expectation of anything in return.
In #173, Malcolm said:
I may not fully agree, but you make valid points.
Malcolm, if I may offer a small admonition, with Sunday morning not far away, you owe it to your parishioners to be spending more time in the Word than on this blog.
#172 Well, perhaps they were right? The strength of their arguments is what matters, today or a few hundred years ago. As I have said before, I think the strength of the scriptural arguments for SSBs is very weak. At the Ottawa synod that discussed (and passed) “affirming the…sanctity of same sex unions” (I forget the whole motion), the majority of the people who argued for the motion were arguing from experience. The phrase “the Jesus I know” was used quite a bit, from the reports from synod that I saw. How do they know that the “Jesus they know” is the real Jesus unless they submit themselves to his word? If the scriptural arguments for SSBs are so strong, why didn’t the majority of the speakers at the Ottawa synod use them?
I should add, I do accept that each culture, each time, has to learn from scripture in its own way, and in its own context. (Just as it must be presented to other cultures in a “culturally sensitive” way. Paul did this with the “unknown god”, Hudson Taylor did it in China, etc). But, we must do it with humility, and we must be prepared to accept that God’s word must form our culture, and not the other way around.
I don’t think you are correct about that. Could it not be that it only appeared in sermons and writings (historically) recently because before then, it was so accepted it didn’t bear mention? I used to be a member of an historical reenactment group, and my husband and I did a lot of research into medieval cooking. It was exceedingly frustrating, because nobody wrote the simple things down. Nobody wrote down how to make bread, for instance, because it was assumed that everyone knew how to do it.
Furthermore, without innerancy, how can we be sure that we know the real Jesus? Would a God who wants to be known (as much as we are able) by us leave us hanging without a reliable way to know Him? I don’t think He did.
Kate (#178), you’re right; only the word is relatively recent. The sort of questioning of inspiration that has ocurred in the last 200 years would, I’m sure, shock most believers from earlier centuries. Jesus and the writers of the NT books had full confidence that the words of the OT were truly from God; a confidence that liberals today, in their “enlightenment” don’t share.
Perhaps they were right, Kate. Perhaps they were wrong. The fact that the Church has expressed (so far) no further need to revisit the question suggests that perhaps they were right.
But it is still an example of a radical change in scriptural interpretation and doctrinal teaching by the Church arising out of a cultural context and using arguments which were, at the time, deemed scandalous and unscriptural. Which was my only point in bringing it up. I’ve already said that it does not constitute an argument that the Church SHOULD change her mind on any other question, but merely that the Church MAY do so and HAS done so in the past. And new reappraisal will stand and fall on its own merits.
It is intellectually and morally inconsistent to claim that a given teaching cannot be questioned while accepting without demur such a previous radical revision.
I will agree with you that arguments based only on experience are weak. Not all of the arguments being presented fall under that rubric.
In suggesting that inerrancy was a new docctrine, I am not arguing from the newness of the word. We see examples in the writings of the Fathers and the Doctors which reject or set aside literal interpretations.
@Warren (179) - Jesus spent an awful lot of time offering up radical new interpretations of scripture. The whole idea of the messiah as something other than a conquering military hero, for example. Paul carried that forward. That new ideas are “shocking” is quite beside the point, really.
That was supposed to be:
ANY new reappraisal will stand OR fall on its own merits.
In #180 Malcolm said:
I never said he didn’t. That was not my point at all.
Malcolm [#180],
Not really. The New Testament is largely silent on usury. Up until the 4C, usury was viewed as “contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man.” Anselm changed the church’s thinking to equating it with theft and Calvin permitted interest to be earned. And there have been numerous variations on the above through the last 2000 years.
To equate the church’s hazy and variable understanding of how to apply Scriptural injunctions on usury to the homosexual debate is misleading; up until now there has been no question of what Scripture’s clear teaching on homosexuality means.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question: if it could be demonstrated to you beyond all reasonable doubt that Scripture does forbid homosexual activity regardless of cultural context, would you then agree that SSBs should not be performed by the church?
#182 Malcolm: “@Warren (179) - Jesus spent an awful lot of time offering up radical new interpretations of scripture. The whole idea of the messiah as something other than a conquering military hero, for example.”
I think we have to be careful with a statement like this. I think I know what you are saying and agree. However, reading backwards into the Law and the Prophets, it is amazing to see that what Jesus’ society would have seen as a radical ‘new’ interpretation was the true intent of the words all along. There is nothing that Jesus teaches that contradicts the Law and the Prophets. It only fulfills them, and in such a way that underlines the eternal value, truthfulness and wisdom of God’s Word.
Irena (#184), you are right about Jesus fulfilling the law and prophets, but I can also accept the word “radical.” This definition for radical:
probably did seem true to many who listened when Jesus expounded the Scriptures - especially the Pharisess and Sadducees. What Malcolm has omitted to mention is that Jesus’ interpretation of the OT was often more demanding than customarily believed. Whereas some may have believed that they had a chance of satisfying the law, Jesus made it clear that it was absolutely impossible to do so.
Some 25,000 words have been expended on this thread and I am more convinced than ever that the matter of the authority of Scripture is at the heart of all disagreement within the Anglican communion. On one side we have those who say, “did God really say?”, and who are not wholly convinced that the Bible, in its entirety, was really inspired by God and is completely trustworthy and true. These doubts open up to them avenues and possibilities of interpretation that must be rejected by those who don’t share these doubts.
It is unfortunate, but authority of Scripture and one’s view of inspiration and infallibility (I’ll not use the word inerrancy for Malcolm’s benefit) is a chasm that divides those who accept the teachings of liberal theology and those who hold to an orthodox view. No amount of argument, debate or reasoning will bridge that chasm. It is ultimately comes down to a matter of faith - faith in God’s Word and His promises. This faith must be a work of the Holy Spirit and cannot be brought into being simply through reason.
Well, I agree with David on the radicalness of that “revision”. That having being said, I’ve never made the above argument. The church is a human institution, and can make mistakes. Any church teaching can questioned. That is why it is so important to affirm the inerrancy of scripture. We must study the scriptures to see if current innovations are from God, or not. I don’t believe that current innovations in the ACoC are from God.
Most of the ones I’ve seen have. The arguments that I’ve read that actually appeal to scripture haven’t convinced me.
Jesus was, and is, God.
We are not
@David (183) - It isn’t about persuading me. It’s about the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determining what to do.
And btw, I don’t think your presentation re: usury is quite accurate. There are more - and clearer - injunctions against usury than against homosexual acts.
@Irena (184) - Which reflects the simple reality that the community of faith can get it wrong. The fact that the vast majority of God’s people have thought for centuries that he means x does not necessarily mean that they were correct. (Though such things should be taken seriously.)
@Warren (185) - I don’t think the word infallibility is any better, applied either to scripture (as our Protestant friends) or to the teaching office of the Church (as our Roman friends). I think either error detracts from the sovreignty of God.
I will agree that differences over how to interpret scripture lie at the heart of this. I cotegorically reject your return to the old refrain that those who disagree with your approach to interpretation of scripture therefore reject the authority of scripture. Repeating the charge does not make it true.
@Kate (186) - You are welcome to the novel doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. Traditional Anglicanism has always depended on tradition, the teaching office of the Church and reason as essential to the process of interpretation.
In time, we will know whether the “current innovations” are or are not of God. But I fail to see how walking out of the room advances honest discernment.
@Kate (187) - Fair enough. Some of the controversialists on your side of the aisle, though, keep repeating the canard that arguments re: scripture have never even been made. It grows tiresome.
@John (188) - Yes, He is. And we would ALL do well to remember that.
What’s more, he sent the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. We must avoid the parallel arrogances of a) presuming that the Holy Spirit is now finished and that what we now have is the fullness of God’s truth and b) presuming that every meandering we take is necessarily following the Holy Spirit. Neither is respectful of the Third Person.
That’s a non sequitur, and you haven’t addressed my point, which was that it is not a novel doctrine. Furthermore, relying on tradition and reason to enable us to understand scripture doesn’t mean that scripture is not inerrant.
Nor does repeating your objections. Have you actually answered the question “How do you define authority of scripture”? I can’t recall, and I don’t really want to wade through the whole thread again. If you haven’t, could you please answer it? I truly think that we aren’t talking about the same thing when we use the phrase. Some clarification is probably in order.
In #189 Malcolm said:
I really didn’t expect that you would like the word “infallibility” any better. That’s my whole point and why I argue that those who hold to such a view will not find a home in the ACoC. I, for one, could not sit under your preaching for a minute knowing what your presuppositions are. To suggest that the concept of inerrancy is “novel” is a fabrication. History does not support your assertion.
Malcolm says that inerrancy is a “novel” doctrine (a word I’m sure he chose deliberately for its negative connotation). I have said that he is wrong and that, while the word may be relatively recent, the concept behind it is not. Also, that it has been the majority position of the orthodox church. Malcolm also rejects the idea of infallibility and, although he has not said so directly, will likely contend that it does not reflect the orthodox position of the church. Again, I say balderdash. We can’t both be right.
As supplementary reading for the church history course I’m taking, I signed out a multi-volume work from my church library called History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaff. First published in 1858, it is still looked to as a seminal and exhaustive treatment of the subject. After I wrote my preceding comment (#191) early this morning, I read a few pages from Schaff’s work and these words jumped off the page at me (the emphasis is mine):
These words are truer today than when they were first written and the only disagreement I have with Schaff is his failure to predict the extent to which the historical and critical approach to God’s Word affected the seminaries. Generations of clergymen (and women) have been produced who have profound doubts that the Bible is really God’s Word and that it is trustworthy and true. Even though modern archaeology has shown many of the theories postulated in the 1800s to be untrue, these theories persist in academic circles. Liberal control of the seminaries has negatively and profoundly affected Anglicanism and other mainline denominations. The effect can also be seen, although to a lesser degree, in evangelical denominations. Men and women stand before the body of Christ every Sunday morning and teach from a position of profound doubt and scepticism. The old heresies are alive and well.
I am a small mind and relatively unlearned person in this discussion. As I did in #141, I again challenge Malcolm to engage with the writings of J.I. Packer and to show, point by point, why Packer’s argument for inerrancy is false and damaging to the church.
I’ve already made reference to the fact that the Fathers and the Doctors frequently departed from literal interpretation to support the contention that inerrancy is a novel concept of the last few centuries. Of course, you are welcome to accept this novel doctrine, and accepting it are unlikely to find a comfortable ecclesiastical home in any Church in the catholic tradition - including Rome and Orthodoxy.
Kate, I’ve answered the question repreatedly. The problem is that I won’t sign off on your newfangled ideas of inerrancy or literal interpretation. I don’t believe that there’s a bowl in the sky full of water. I don’t believe snakes had legs until one afternoon God took them away. I don’t believe in creation over 144 hours. I don’t believe that Genesis 1 (where man and woman are created concurrently) and Genesis 2 (where man and woman are created sequentially) can both be literally true. Nor will I concede that Irenaeus, Ignatius, Augustine or Aquinas.
Nonetheless, your oft-repeated claim is a baseless ad hominem. It does NOT follow logically that I do not believe in the authority of scripture simply because I don’t agree with your literalist approach. It is morally no different than if I argued that, because you disagree with me about sexuality, you must therefore nat believe that gays are human. I haven’t made that argument (and I won’t) because it’s manifestly idiotic.
In #193 Malcolm said:
The following is an extract from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (emphasis is mine):
Malcolm, you are repeatedly pushing the message that those who believe in biblical inerrancy also take all Scripture literally and throw the idea of interpretation out the window. Either you are refusing to acknowledge what people are saying on this thread, or you are deliberately conveying falsehoods to satisfy your agenda. I suspect it is the latter.
Are you working on your refutation of J.I. Packer’s essay?
BTW, you may all want to give up on the whole Anglican Communion - or at least the Church of England - because apparently they don’t accept your narrow and novel literalism either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/12/general-synod-science-religion
Quotations of particular note:
“Christians with scientific backgrounds – including two bishops with science degrees – told the General Synod in London that many Christians accepted scientific theories, including those of evolution and the age and origin of the universe.”
Dr. Peter Capon - “Many Christians have been stung by criticisms which attempt to associate them with American fundamentalists who have waged a high-profile campaign in the US in favour of Creationism, or so-called Intelligent Design theory.”
Capon - “I am not suggesting that we should take the Bible, the inspired word of God, with anything other than the utmost seriousness and reverence. But we make a category mistake if we try to read it as a modern scientific textbook.”
Dr Tom Butler, the bishop of Southwark “Since the Enlightenment, science has been dramatically successful in extending human knowledge and understanding of the universe and has changed every aspect of human existence. Theology, the queen of the sciences of past ages, is now tolerated … as a private preference but in no way has the authority of the true sciences.”
“The synod voted by 241 votes to two that it believed in the compatibility of God and science.”
With all due respect, you haven’t answered the question. I don’t believe in a young earth or a necessarily completely literal interepretation of every word in the bible either, (you are putting words in my mouth that are not true, there) but I do believe what the bible says about itself, that all scripture is God breathed and comes from Him; I do believe that I need to allow scripture to form me, and not seek to bend scripture to mean what I want it to mean.
You insist that you don’t reject the authority of scripture, but you haven’t yet told us exactly what you mean by authority of scripture, so I reframe my question: How does scripture have authority over you, in your daily life? What do the words “authority of scripture” mean to you, practically speaking?
I am probably going to let this comment be the last one I write on this thread, except to say, that folks who have been reading it might be interested in listening to the sermon that was preached at St. Alban’s this morning, called “Listening to Jesus on The Bible”. The sermon and some study questions on it will probably be up on our website later on this evening:
http://www.stalban.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=42&Itemid=42
Malcolm [#193],
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, among other things, this:
The list of signatories is here:
As you can see, there are many theologians who don’t think that biblical inerrancy is a recent “novelty”.
Malcolm [#195],
You really should stop putting words in people’s mouths; no-one but you has mentioned “literalism” other than to deny conforming to your caricature.
Malcolm [#189]
I think the difference actually lies in a disagreement over the nature of Scripture, not its interpretation.
I notice you didn’t answer the question I posed in [#180]:
You are under no obligation to, of course but the fact that you haven’t leads me to assume that nothing that Scripture says could sway you from your opinion that SSBs are a legitimate activity for the church - which to my mind is tantamount to a denial of the authority of Scripture.
Malcolm, I must grudgingly admit respect for your ability to “stay on message.” You can effectively ignore most of what is being said and relentlessly pursue your goal. You’re also very effective in painting a picture of someone and their beliefs, that has little basis in fact. Are you also in politics?
How’s that refutation of J.I. Packer’s essay going?
WHOOAH! I got #200 and I wasn’t even trying!
Warren gets the prize: a dinner for 2 with Malcolm.
:-O :-O :-O
That’ll teach me to go to church on Sunday morning! Everyone, forgive me for going back to Malcolm’s post in #189 but, Malcolm, I think you skipped past some important points rather too glibly.
The subject on the floor was interpreting Scripture and you had brought up the example of Jesus. You said, “Jesus spent an awful lot of time offering up radical new interpretations of scripture.” (180) As I said in #184, in this area we need to tread carefully, especially as you seem to want to use Jesus to justify “radical new interpretations of Scripture” in our day. Here are some points that I think need a second look:
1. In my post (184), I was trying to focus on the idea that Jesus handled Scripture in a way that never contradicted what was written (not a ‘jot or tittle’) but rather he taught the people by ‘opening the Scriptures to them’. À propos, I’d be much more comfortable with our using the biblical expression ‘opening the Scriptures’ in this discussion as it does not produce the unbiblical thought of theological innovation that the word ‘interpretation’ does.
2. Warren pointed out (185) that when Jesus handled the Scripture he actually ‘raised the bar’ in its understanding, and taught that it “was often more demanding than customarily believed”. For example, Jesus extended the meaning of adultery and murder, past the actual deeds of adultery and murder, to include how we treat our neighbours in our hearts. So, we can conclude that Jesus helps us to discern that the meaning and claim of Scripture extends deeper than we might humanly understand. By contrast, many of today’s Scriptural ‘interpreters’ try to shrink the value of Scripture either by straight out contradiction (which Jesus would not have tolerated) or by redefining words, ‘dumbing them down’ till they have no present day meaning at all. In this they remind me of the New Testament religious establishment of Jesus’ day. Remember the lawyer who sought to justify himself, asking Jesus, “Tell me, teacher, who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:22) The lawyer wanted a limited and manageable definition but Jesus instead gave him a mirror in which to see his sin problem.
3. Finally, and I loved the pithiness of this post, John (188) pointed out that Jesus is God together with the corollary that we are not. Of course, we all affirm this truth: it’s part of our creed. But, this truth is crucial in the present discussion in that it reminds us that we are under God’s word, not over it. We cannot make little gods out of ourselves as we interpret and reinterpret, throwing out this verse and reshaping that one. The Word which comes from God has an authority under which we, as his creatures, need to bow.
So, the example of Jesus gives us the following truths which all need to be honoured in any Christian interpretation of Scripture:
1. Jesus’ example does not allow us to contradict Scripture in any way. Nor does it permit us theological innovation.
2. Jesus’ example does not permit us to diminish the meaning of his Word. On the contrary, he wishes to apply its full value to our hearts in a way which will bring us to repentance.
3. Jesus’ example is a unique one. Because Jesus is God, he is the ultimate authority over his Word. As his creatures, we have no authority over it; rather it must have authority over us.
So, Malcolm, a question for you: Would the ‘radical, new interpretations of Scripture’ you are envisioning satisfy the above conditions which Jesus’ example commands?
Malcolm In keeping with the pithiness (darn lisp) you said ” I don’t believe that there’s a bowl in the sky full of water.” You must have been quite concerned when NASA sent a 60 million dollar rocket into the moon looking for water.
Actually, David. I did answer that question.
“@David (183) - It isn’t about persuading me. It’s about the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determining what to do.”
I’m sure you don’t believe my answer or consider it inadequate. But the fact is, I don’t decide about SSB or anything else. The Church does.
Stuck in TO - NASA wasn’t looking for water in a giant bowl.
Kate et al - abandoning literalism is to abandon inerrancy.
Irena - I think you are rather passing over what Jesus did. Several of you here have pointed to Jesus actions in Acts when (in a revelation to Peter) he set aside much of existing scripture.
I’m not interested in playing silly word games over the term “interpretation.” You can call it “opening the scriptures” if you prefer. It’s still an act of interpretation. As would be the decisions Kate or others may make about what is literal and what is not.
All of us interpret scripture, and to suggest otherwise is beyond childish.
Kate, I’ve answered the question repeatedly. You just don’t like the answer.
But, being a trifle boneheaded, I’ll try again.
You said: “I do believe what the bible says about itself, that all scripture is God breathed and comes from Him; I do believe that I need to allow scripture to form me, and not seek to bend scripture to mean what I want it to mean.”
If one adds one simple proviso, I’m perfectly happy with that definition. Here is my proviso: “I must be open to the possibility that God may correct our understanding of scripture from time to time - as has happened in the past with issues such as usury, slavery and the role of women.”
Well, one other proviso. I’d have probably written that in the first person plural since it isn’t about individual interpretation, but about the community of faith, the Church. It is a tendency to rampant protestantism which has led people to think they should start a new denomination every time there is a disagreement.
Only if your caricature of our position was reality. Did you not read this?
That is not a description of literalism. One doesn’t need to believe in a young earth, or water in a giant bowl, to believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God.
.
No, you neatly avoided his question . You reworded it to produce a question that you wanted to answer. How about answering the question he actually asked. All it takes is a simple cut and paste.
David asked:
What would you do?
When I say that I believe that what the bible says about itself is true, I include inerrancy in that. Here are some examples of scriptures that teach inerrancy:
Matt 7:24-29
Matt 24:35
John 14:15-24
John 17:8-17
2Peter 1:16-21
2Timothy 3:10-17
2Peter 3:14-18
Matthew 7 teaches that Jesus’ words have authority. Matthew 24 teaches that Jesus says that his words are enternal. John 17 teaches that Jesus’ words are God’s words. 2 Peter teaches that scripture is a lamp for us in darkness, and is not the word of man.
So, I do think that we don’t mean the same thing by authority of scripture.
Malcolm [#206},
Umm, let’s see. Question:
Answer:
You answered the question: “who or what is the final authority on whether same sex blessings will take place in the church”. Your answer – in précis – “the church”.
My question was intended to find out what contributes to forming your opinion; you appear to expect us to believe that you don’t have one. A bit of a waste of the last 25,000 words, don’t you think?
Only in your caricatured version of inerrancy.
Did you read what Warren said in #194?
Are you actually reading and understanding what anyone other than you is writing?
This is becoming an increasing waste of everyone’s time since you keep repeating what you have already said with no regard to responses, you dodge inconvenient questions and have a cavalier disregard of scholarship which refutes your position.
Maybe it’s time to give this thread a rest and get back to the real world.
Thank you, David!!
Malcolm;
#206
What actual scriptures did he set aside?
The Holy Spirit helps us understand God’s revelation of Himself to us in the word He has given us, but surely He will not flat out contradict it. If so, what’s the point? We are to be pitied above all men.
I think of the following;
I believe the most important word in this verse is, “but.” God had revealed Himself in the past through the prophets BUT His final revelation of Himself was in His Son, Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus had stated that same-sex sexual activity was now acceptable, there would be no argument from me. But, no, I don’t believe we still receive new revelation from God. This idea of, “progressive revelation” is a liberal innovation to justify whatever new idea becomes fashionable. We may have, “progressive understanding,” but any new understanding cannot contradict the revelation we already have — the revelation of His Word and His Son. That is the problem with this latest issue. It flatly contradicts what God has already told us, and there is absolutely no evidence from Him that He means to overturn it.
As I mentioned before, there are legitimate Biblical arguments for each of changes, and each of them could be accomodated and still be in line with Scripture. There may be others, yet unforeseen, in the future. But what Scriptures can be quoted in favour of same-sex sexual activity that would override the many proscriptions against it? In my opinion, advocates of ssb’s generally ignore Scripture, rather than try to reason from it.
I’m going to close comments on this thread. After 214 comments, we are just going round and round in circles. This one is done.