A perceptive article from Charles Raven. Read it all here:
Although not attended by great fanfare and ceremony, something quite remarkable seems to be happening in Singapore at the fourth Global South to South Encounter. We are seeing the emergence of a global Anglicanism of substance, displacing the shadow Anglicanism of institutional pragmatism. Institutions which until recently had the appearance of substance – the Anglican Consultative Council, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates meeting and the Archbishop of Canterbury himself – are now taking on an unreal quality as shadows of a discredited past while the GAFCON movement, dismissed by many at its inception in 2008, is turning out to have foreshadowed a fundamental realignment which is now beginning to express itself in new structures.
The shadow quality of the old order was inescapable in both the medium and the message of Rowan Williams’ address. Due to a ‘full diary’ his was a virtual presence by video and his message amounted to little more than yet another call to continue with ‘careful listening’. So it is not surprising that Dr Williams politely absented himself this time round since it is clear that he has nothing new to say.
At the previous South to South encounter at the Red Sea in 2005, the Global South primates held him to account for his well known sympathy for the homosexual agenda and when a private request to repudiate those views failed to elicit a response, it was reiterated in a public letter which also called on the Archbishop to be more decisive: ‘We are disappointed’ they wrote ‘with your deferring to “process.” You seem to keep saying, “My hands are tied.” We urge you to untie your hands and provide the bold, inclusive leadership the Communion needs at this time of crisis and distrust’. In response, Dr Williams reaffirmed the Covenant process as the only way forward and concluded rather crisply: ‘If this letter is a contribution to that process of debate, then it is to be welcomed, however robust. If it is an attempt to foreclose that debate, it would seem to serve very little purpose indeed.’
This persistent attachment to process is not simply an academic habit. It owes a great deal to Dr Williams’ Hegelian optimism that truth will somehow emerge through a synthesis of opposites and serves to downplay the biblical antithesis between the truth and the lie, creating a climate in which the previously unacceptable gains plausibility. In an interview for the current issue of The New Yorker magazine, questioned about resolving the seemingly intractable problem of women bishops in the Church of England, he observes “I suppose it’s by using as best I can the existing consultative mechanisms to create a climate” and “You can actually ruin a good cause by pushing it at the wrong moment and not allowing the process of discernment and consent to go on”.
Given that Dr Williams has consistently refused to disown those writings which provided a theological rationale for the gay lesbian movement within the Church from the late 1980’s onwards, referring to them as his ‘private’ opinions as distinguished from the ‘official’ position he is obliged to articulate in view of his office, it is reasonable to assume that TEC’s sexual agenda also qualifies in his mind as ‘a good cause’. That he can say in his Singapore address that the decision to consecrate partnered lesbian Mary Glasspool to the episcopate ‘cannot speak for our common mind’ is not contradictory; it simply means that given the current state of the ‘common mind’, this is the wrong moment to push the innovation.
[......]
Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini’s address on the following day set out the basis for new Anglican structures noting “We need a new way forward. We are no longer in communion with Rowan (Williams) or TEC or Canada. After all the biblical reflections we are still in a state of crisis, nothing has been resolved over the years. The Windsor Report, the Primates Meetings recommendations, the Lambeth Conference 2008 and the Windsor Continuation Group have all failed to bring any change in the drastic situation of the Anglican Communion.’ He proposed that the Global South should reconstitute itself to include all orthodox Churches and Dioceses with leadership focussed in a Council of Primates based on ancient Conciliar practice.
What does “arsenokoitai” really mean?
Nobody knows for certain.
“Arsenokoitai” is made up of two parts: “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds.”
Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.
Many sources have speculated about the meaning of “arsenokoitai:”
“Homosexual offenders:” The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked “heterosexual offenders” or “heterosexual sexual offenders.” We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse).
Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew “quadesh” in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to “arsenokoitai.” This passage referred to “male temple prostitutes” – people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers – a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.
Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which containe the word “arsenokoitai:” This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers “to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex).” 2 Probably “pimp” or “man living off of the avails of prostitution” would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that “Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai.”
Perhaps you could answer David’s question?
Your analysis of the NT passages, even if they were correct, leave out what the OT says about same sex sexual knowing. Please don’t trot out the shellfish argument – that’s a ceremonial law that doesn’t bind Christians. We don’t have to follow the ceremonial laws because of what Jesus did for us on the cross. At any rate, you seem to be under the impression that we are all obsessed with sex. Same sex marriage is only the presenting issue. Kendall Harmon puts it much more clearly than I can, you’ll find his video The Iceberg on this website:
http://www.anglicandecision.com/
Further, here is an essay by Robert Gangon, Associate Professor of NT studies at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He addresses most of the points you’ve made here. (Fair warning, it’s 30 pages long).
http://www.anglicannetwork.ca/pdf/case_not_made_062007.pdf
Your point in #51 simply isn’t accurate. Quoted from Gagnon:
Richard (#49), a quick Google search would suggest that you are cutting and pasting from various sources without attribution. Naughty, naughty. I find it interesting to note the character of the likely sources you pulled your quotes from. Here’s the “statement of beliefs” from the source I suspect you used:
And the source:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm