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.
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?