For some, this is a welcome development. They believe that those electing a bishop should seek the help of the Holy Spirit in choosing the candidate best suited to serve in that area, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability, and that the church should strive to embody God’s welcoming love which breaks down barriers and turns strangers into friends.
Others disapprove, but do not regard this as a church-dividing matter, recognising that Christians may remain in fellowship yet hold different beliefs on matters such as divorce and homosexuality. There are some people who disapprove, not because they believe same-sex relationships are wrong, but because they fear that such a move will be divisive at present and that there are other priorities. And there are Christians who are outraged, believing that choosing a lesbian as bishop goes against the Bible and church tradition.
According to Canon Kendall Harmon of South Carolina, a leading ‘conservative’, the election “represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching,” Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, would like Episcopal Church leaders to refuse to endorse Glasspool’s election, warning that choosing her “raises very serious questions” for the province’s “place in the Anglican Communion”, and claiming that “The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.”
Yet, insofar as it is possible to know the “mind” of a diverse Communion in which there is no centralised authority, the Episcopal Church leadership has made far more effort to follow this than the leaders of certain other provinces which have not been threatened with exclusion. And the notion that being a partnered lesbian goes against the Bible’s teaching is even more dubious.
Lambeth 1.10 was passed overwhelmingly and an increasing number within TEC has repeatedly taken action not simply against the “mind” of the Communion, but for a time in its own life (namely in the 1980s), against the express wishes of General Convention.
I love it that Canon Harmon is a ‘conservative’ in SCARE QUOTES.
This is complete drivel. Not at all sure why it was even posted. There’s nothing here but a rehashing of the same, tortuous, bankrupt liberal rationalization that passes for apologetics for them. Not worth the time it took to read.
Thanks for posting, Kendall.
Re #1 – to some of us, the resolution is interesting, but it’s not binding. It might have been if we were of the Roman tradition. Thankfully not.
The last sentence in the portion posted is telling.
Of course it’s not binding – if it were we wouldn’t be in this mess. It is however the best expression of the mind of the Communion.
Actually, Ms. Hensman correctly sees the facts on the ground, so to speak, that among Anglicans and Christians generally there are many who do not agree that all homosexual physical intimacy is “sin” simply because of the specific instances referred to in Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans. The Bible nowhere proscribes two people who care for one another with exclusive mutual loyalty to make a fully loving home together. There is nothing anti-biblical about The Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool’s history or her present way of life. Only unexamined cultural prejudice presumes to insist that God means more than what God has spoken, which is why Article VI of the 39 Articles begins “Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation:” and then goes on wisely and immediately to say, “so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the
Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”
And the serpent said to the woman, “Did God really say….?”
driver8: “Of course it’s not binding – if it were we wouldn’t be in this mess.”
Erm, no: we are in this mess because a completely unrealistic resolution was pushed through by [edited] Archbishop Carey, who was (and is?) simply unaware of the extent of gay people’s existence and ministry within the C of E. That is the problem: [edited]
[Edited by Elf}
[Comment refering to edited comment deleted by Elf – with apologies]
Maybe so, John Wilkins #4, but you’ll recall all bishops attending the last Lambeth Conference were asked to do so on the condition that they continued to uphold the restraint asked for by the Communion. So what does that make the bishops of your church – liars?
A couple comments. First, BlueOntario (#5) is right in calling attention to the very revealing last line in the exceprt cited by Kendall:
[i]”And the notion that being a partnered lesbian goes against the Bible’s teaching is even more dubious.”[/i]
Unfortunately, the author mere asserts that as if it were self-evident. She makes no attempt to support it by any argument. Nor does Henry Greville in his #7. Which is perhaps not an accident, since there are in fact no strong arguments for their position. Both of them are totally, unquestionalbly wrong.
What might have been more helpful was to call attention to the fact that lesbianism is mentioned only once in the whole Bible, in Romans 1:24-27, where of course it’s rightly taken for granted as completely [i]”contrary to nature.”[/i] But Romans 1 is simply the tip of a very big iceberg, in that homosexual behavior between any two persons of the same gender is consistently ruled out by the whole teaching of Scripture concerning
1. our being made in the image of God, as male and female, with that complementarity being essential to our humanity, and
2. regarding the sanctity of marriage, as God designed it, and
3. concerning the folly and danger of illicit sexual behavior.
And this clear and consistent biblical teaching applies to homosexual behavior until PROVEN otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the people involved are male or female, whether in a “partnered” or “committed” relationship or not, and not least whether their same-sex attractions are unwanted and seemingly innate or not. None of those things make any difference whatsoever. It’s simply and plainly ruled out, like all other forms of sexual immorality, as contrary to God’s good design for us all.
Second, now as for John Wilkins #4, I’ll take a different tack from driver8’s #6, although I agree with the latter as far as he went. My own response would be that our lack of a centralized authority with the power to make binding trans-provincial decisions in such highly disputed and contentious cases is a FATAL flaw in Anglicanism. Although there are both strengths and weaknesses to that glaring omission, I myself are totally convinced that the weaknesses far outweigh the strengths. We desperately need to CREATE such a centralized authority (starting with the Anglican “Supreme Court” I keep calling for). I’m all in favor of it myself, as long as it’s expressive of the orthodox majority of the AC.
Our problem in Anglicanism is NOT Roman style tyranny; it’s Protestant anarchy.
David Handy+
Re New Reformation Advocate’s #12 above:
Proving the negative – in this case, that the Bible does NOT proscribe the committed intimate partnership of two women – cannot be expected to require evidence, because the point having been made is that there is no specific evidence that supports such a proscription. Furthermore, who today can speak with authority about what was “taken for granted” by biblical authors? Finally, the Rev. David Handy may feel comfortable drawing his conclusions from his own inferences and generalizations about the meaning of scripture, but I prefer to be on the more solid ground of what the texts actually say – and do not say.
This author sure has a lot of non-knowledge. The only bit that is dubious is the author’s education in general and particular Bible knowledge. Romans 1 and 2 might help.
Henry (#13),
You have it backwards. I’m the one on solid ground, not you, precisely because of what the biblical texts actually say, or don’t say. The Jewish tradition was uniformly and vehemently opposed to ALL forms of homosexual behavior, without exception. That is a well documented fact. Just see the massive documentation in Robert Gagnon’s big book, [b]The Bible and Homosexual Behavior[/b]. There is NO contrary historical evidence. Zip. Zilch. None.
You’re continuing to make assertions without any arguments. Get serious, and produce some reasons or data to support your claims. Otherwise, they are worthless.
David Handy+
Perhaps I should add that there are a growing number of liberal scholars who frankly and honorably admit that there is NO biblical support for their pro-gay position. Examples include Walter Wink and Bernadette Brooten. I commend their honesty, while continuing to deplore their unwillingness to submit to the biblical teaching.
David Handy+
Where you and I most fundamentally disagree, Mr. Handy, is that you value “the whole of scripture” far more highly than I estimate the work of the Lord of Life who suffered death for the sake of the whole world. I suspect we each think the other a fool, so let us pray for each other and continue to be thankful to the Triune God for each breath we take.
NRA, in #12 you have, perhaps inadvertently, nailed the Anglican problem with authority. You are all in favor of a “centralized authority” as long as it’s reflective of orthodox belief. And who decides if the central authority is orthodox?
17, Jesus is revealed in the very Scripture you despise. If you reject Scripture you reject Jesus. But you are right there are two different religions here.
Phil (#18),
Fair question. The best answer to your question (Who decides?) is probably the simplest, the whole body of the faithful ultimately decides, the consensus fidelium. In the present divided state of the Christian Church, I suppose that would have to be all Anglicans around the world (ideally, whether in the AC or not).
I recognize the inherent problem, brother. My point, as you might guess, was simply to forestall and rule out in advance the possibility that the western liberal conolialists who currently dominate the international bodies of the AC could manipulate things to create a centralized authority that left them still in charge. That would naturally make things even worse, not better.
David Handy+
Henry (#17),
Thanks for an irenic reply. You’ve got yourself a deal. Let’s pray for each other, and be thankful for the precious gift of life.
David Handy+
#13. Henry Greville,
Help me understand something. In your comment (#13) you are addressing NRA’s comment he made in #12 yet your comment seems directed not to him but to the other posters on the thread. Is there some reason you are not addressing the poster himself with your response?
Br. Michael (#19): You infer that I despise scripture, but I never have said any such thing. I simply KNOW NOW PERSONALLY the Lord far better through prayer, contemplation, and holy communion than from reading and studying the contents of the Bible.
Dcn Dale (#22): Perhaps this explains for you why I do not debate any generalization about morals based on “the whole teaching of scripture.” I do not agree that there is such a thing. Rather, I believe Christianity is rooted in the original teaching and inspirational life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. As best I can, I follow the Lord and the memories of those who knew him and heard him in the flesh – memories found in some of the New Testament scriptures, but not all – and the opinions of the rest of the authors of New Testament scriptures, including Paul, are for me the opinions of others, like you and me, striving to be of good faith – which makes their opinions no better or worse than yours or mine. (I add that I respect Paul above all for his humble teaching to the Corinthians that the King James Version translators gave as “now we see through a glass darkly.” The Greek there is literally “now we see through a mirror in a riddle.” In other words, none of us is an expert about God!)
23, you are quite clear in how you look at Scripture, but that is not a Christian way of approaching Scripture and it is contrary to the official teaching of the TEC. Jesus himself is the author of Scripture, operating through the Holy Spirit. All Scripture is God breathed. Both the OT and the NT. When you set Scripture against Jesus you set God against Himself.
#24 Br. Michael says:
Isn’t that a little no-true-Scotsman?
This thread is getting more and more wacky. Br. Michael, the only teaching of the present Episcopal Church about the nature of Scripture that I believe can be cited as definitive for the Episcopal Church is in the 1979 Prayer Book Catechism, as follows:
Q. Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
A. We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human
authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.
Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?
A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of
the Scriptures.
I don’t see Jesus mentioned as the author of anything in there, or anywhere else in the Catechism. Again, I think your ideas of what is and is not Christian are a lot more rigid and detailed than what I was taught in a 1980 Episcopal Church confirmation class.
Regardless, I hope you experience a truly blessed and Merry Christ Mass, once it comes, and Happy New Year!
I was not aware that Jesus wrote any of the Scriptures. He wrote something in the dust (or at least made some marks) during the incident of the adultress, but that is not preserved, at least not in haec verba. It’s not that Br. Michael is “more rigid and detailed” than we were taught in Sunday School (no. 26). If he is saying that Jesus wrote the Gospels or Epistles, this is extra-textual and revisionist, I would think. It also very much distorts the context and meaning of Scripture to a point that significantly diminishes its value to mortals. We have been raised up with the Gospels and Epistles knowing them to be the works of inspired men. But to equate them with the direct authorship of Jesus makes Jesus contradictory, inconsistent and fallible, something that most of us traditionalists do not accept. The gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies are reflections of human imperfection, not the imperfections of Christ.
What we have are two different views of Scripture and we are not discussing Scripture on the same level.
All Scriptures are God breathed. They were written through human agency under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and accurately reflect what God wants to reveal to us. That is, God inspired them. Now who is Jesus? Just an ordinary Rabbi? Or part of the Trinity?
But then I don’t expect revisionists to grasp this.
I don’t see why Jesus cannot be a manifestation of the triune God AND the NT Scriptures, with all their rough edges, be the inspirational work of men. No. 28 posits that these two realities cannot exist simultaneously.
Pointless discussion. There is both Divine authorship and human authorship of the Scriptures. The human authors were inspired by God. That is where their inspiration comes from and is why they are called inspired. God superintends their writing. All revelation is sufficiently contained in Scripture (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church page 1402). That is why the TEC catechism,weak as it is, acknowledges that: We recognize the truths to be taught by the Holy Spirit [b]when they are in accord with the Scriptures.[/b] BCP 835
Because the Triune God is the ultimate author of Scripture, which provides our only source of special revelation of Jesus and Jesus is the second person of the trinity (existing prior to, during and after the human authorship of the Scriptures (Revelation 1:8 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” ) The Holy Spirit is not in opposition to Jesus but, in a Divine way that we do not fully understand they are one. Jesus cannot be in opposition to himself and Scripture cannot be set against Jesus.
That is why I reject statements such as: “As best I can, I follow the Lord and the memories of those who knew him and heard him in the flesh – memories found in some of the New Testament scriptures, but not all – and the opinions of the rest of the authors of New Testament scriptures, including Paul, are for me the opinions of others, like you and me, striving to be of good faith – which makes their opinions no better or worse than yours or mine. (I add that I respect Paul above all for his humble teaching to the Corinthians that the King James Version translators gave as “now we see through a glass darkly.†The Greek there is literally “now we see through a mirror in a riddle.†In other words, none of us is an expert about God!)” This states that the Scriptures were imperfectly superintended by the Holy Spirit (and by implication the Trinity to include Jesus himself) and are therefore imperfect guides in both knowing God and knowing what kind of holiness God expects from His people.
I must admit that I much prefer the forthrightness of our Questioning Christian who denies both the divinity of Jesus (Jesus was fully human and not divine) and the inspiration of Scripture (a wholly human book subject to human inaccuracy and in no sense authoritative.)
Henry and NovaScout,
It just seems that you guys have a very impotent God. Why is it so hard to say that God (via the Holy Spirit) acted thru the writers to give us Holy Scripture? If you all have a minute I am interested to know the basis on which you arrive at your conclusion of the true quality of Scripture. Would you acknowledge that your view is contrary to most Christians throughout the world? Henry, I know you mentioned what is stated in the book of common prayer. But even that does not justify completely doing away with the Pauline epistles. Just curious.
Jeff in Conway
This is the last post I am going to contribute to this particular discussion. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the Holy Triune One “who wert, and art, and ever shall be.” The Church is – we pray – God at work in God’s creation as we know it in space and time. The several different Bibles recognized as such by the different branches of the Church are different precisely because each branch in forming believed the Spirit inspired a different set of texts, and each branch of the Church still uses and teaches about its Bible in a different way. (For instance, there are differences between the contents of Protestant, Western Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox bibles, and further differences between those three widely used canons and the Syrian, Coptic, and Mar Thoma Christian Bibles as well. Furthermore, the traditions of scriptural interpretation are different from branch to branch and even within branches – just think how many different Protestant denominations there are on account of contention with one another over what scripture is and what it means.) Given so many differences within the Church on the topic of scripture, therefore, I think it absurd to cite any one Church branch’s tradition concerning scripture and then generalize that the same Church branch’s tradition is the truth of God for the whole Church. The Triune God is so almighty, wonderful, creative, and lovingly merciful in Christ and through the Spirit that no one Church branch’s canon of scripture can do more than serve as a powerfully inspiring signpost to God. I think it is too presumptuous to decide that we know everything of God from any one scriptural collection. I think it is too presumptuous to decide that any one branch of the Church “has everything right.” The glory of Anglicanism, for me, has been the humility that confesses our limited and corruptible natures while at the same time rejoicing to worship and honor the God of our salvation with the comprehansive attitude toward all of Christian tradition and thought that can be summed up: “If it’s true, we believe it.”
And now let us all pray for one another, the blind leading the blind who will yet in glory see, thanks be to God!
What Henry said.
OK, I can’t let it rest there. Jmm: why is my God impotent because I consider Scripture to be the inspired work of mortal man? I know that there are indeed Christians who believe, like Br. Michael, that Jesus is the “author” of NT Scripture. If I believed that, it would diminish my view of Christ. Scripture is a collection of writings by a number of believers. At its best, it provides profound insight into the mysteries of God and faith. Other elements, not so much. Paul’s seven epistles are of great value even if he never knew the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each element has to be taken on its own terms. I have no doubt that every author of scripture was attuned to the Holy Spirit in some way.
NoVA Scout,
My point was that if God can become incarnate and is and has always been active in the world, then surely he can preserve His revelation to us in Holy Scripture. While our Church is fragmented into many Protestant Denominations, Catholic and Orthodox we have always agreed on the canon of scripture set in the earliest councils. When we argue over interpretation, that is a man problem and not a God problem. We might argue over interpretation, but the words stand as a given.
I am not naive enough to assume that Scripture tells us everything about God. But, what he has revealed to us via the inspired writers is the Truth. I don’t see how we as Christians can pick and choose what we like and don’t like. I think we ignore revelation at our peril.
Just my thoughts.
Jeff
#34 jmmiller:
Of course God could have divinely inspired the collection of works known as Holy Scripture in such a way as to preserve it from all error. The question is whether God did do so. Personally, I see no reason to think that he has.
That doesn’t mean I scorn Scripture, or consider it a worthless pack of fairy tales, or whatever reasserters think reappraisers think of the Bible. But it does mean that I can consider the possibility that sometimes, Scripture might just plain be wrong.
Ross,
I hear you. On this we will just have to disagree. Once I start going down that road, where do I stop. You cannot use ancient church tradition to support your conclusion. You have to use our human reason to separate Truth from fiction or error. That seems like a fatal flaw. How do we rely on our reason when we are compromised by the fall? I guess you have to say that our reason is not compromised by the fall (or there is no fall). It seems like Christian theology (or at least mine) just falls apart and you are left with something diminished and not quite right by pursuing the path you suggest. How can we ever agree if we don’t have a standard, some steady unchanging truth to rely on? I guess this is the difference between taking Holy Scripture “seriously”, as it seems that you do, and taking it as the Truth the “revealed word of God” as I do. That is a pretty big difference. Unbridgable might be a good picture word for it. I have always been taught to match human decision making back to Holy Scripture. If it is in conflict, then you know which is correct. It’s Scripture. Without Scripture being the standard for Truth, what will the Church look like in the year 3000. Scares me to even ponder that. Thanks for the response.
Jeff
jmmiller — I understand your point. Human reason is obviously imperfect — even people who don’t believe in the Fall would have to agree with that. My position is, flawed as it is it’s the best game in town and we have little choice but to rely on it.
As for Scripture, even if it is “God’s word written” there is still the problem of interpretation — and that is a major problem, because people do in fact interpret Scripture in radically different ways. To pick one example — does Genesis require one to be a Young-Earth Creationist? I can point you to a great number of serious devout Christians who would answer that it absolutely does, and another great number who would answer that it absolutely does not. This is a fundamental fact about the universe we live in, and it appears that the words of Scripture can be and have been read in directly opposite ways.
Who decides what the correct interpretation is? If the answer is “everyone decides for themselves,” then what happens when they (inevitably) disagree? If the answer is “we pick somebody or somebodies who have the authority to decide,” what makes them more likely to be right than anyone else? If the answer is, “we go with the consensus of the majority of Christians,” then how many have to dissent before you no longer have a consensus?
If a text did not have to be interpreted, we would not need courts to rule on the meaning of laws.
Also, I have to point out that even if one accepts the premise “we cannot know anything for certain unless we have a source of infallible revelation,” one needs several more steps in the syllogism before one can arrive at the conclusion, “Holy Scripture is such a source.”
Ross,
I can appreciate your stance on Scripture even though I disagree with you pretty strongly on the issue. I believe it is from God and that it is self authenticating. Just the fact of there are different interpretations does not falsify the document. Treating the document as Truth does not mean being woodenly literal either. If you can suspend disbelief for a little bit I think you can probably see what a special gift Holy Scripture is to those of us who think it is all True. I guess that sounds crazy to you. It constantly amazes me as well.
Take care,
Jeff
“Self-authenticating” is circular logic. What it has to be, if someone is going to regard it as God’s Word written, is authenticated by faith… which ultimately means, “I know, in my bones and in my heart, that this is true.” If you have that knowing, then I’m happy for you; I don’t.
The fact that there are (profoundly) differing interpretations does not invalidate Scripture as capital-T-Truth, certainly; but it does make it rather less useful for that purpose. If one imagines that, if only we could all agree to regard Scripture as the ultimate arbiter of truth, then we’d at least agree on all the major matters of doctrine… well, that doesn’t seem to be the case.