The subject of Sunday’s sermon at St. Stephen’s Anglican Church was repentance, and the preacher found an obvious example of the sinfulness of contemporary culture within the branch of his own denomination an ocean away in the United States.
Criticizing the Episcopal Church’s embrace of gays and lesbians, the Rev. Samuel Muchiri told the 1,000 worshipers “we in Kenya feel this is not what God wants.” An usher advised a visiting reporter to “remember that Sodom and Gomorrah was demolished because there were homosexuals.” Another warned that the reporter could be assaulted if he asked worshipers about the issue, and said that America’s permissiveness toward homosexuality had led Osama bin Laden to attack.
Those sentiments have been building for years, and now a group of Anglican archbishops is attempting to plant the seeds for a new, conservative Anglicanism in North America that will either transform or replace the Episcopal Church.
“All these people brought Christianity to us, but now the church is growing here [in Africa] like wildfire, it’s spreading everywhere, while the church in England is withering, the church in the States is going completely, and there has been a cry, ‘Why don’t you come? You should have come here a long time ago to evangelize,’ ” said Archbishop Bernard A. Malango, the Anglican primate of Central Africa. “We need to send missionaries, even to Britain; we need to send missionaries to the United States, and we need to send missionaries to Canada, because those who brought the church here have lost what their intention was, and the same Bible they brought to us is being misinterpreted. We find it very odd.”
Malango was one of seven Anglican primates, as the archbishops of regional provinces of the Anglican Communion are called, who gathered in Nairobi last Thursday to consecrate as bishops of the Anglican Church of Kenya two former Episcopal priests, including William L. Murdoch of Massachusetts. Then, many of those same primates, from the developing nations of the Southern Hemisphere, went to Kampala on Sunday to consecrate a third American as a bishop of Uganda.
The significance of the consecrations is hotly debated…
Thought the article was a well balanced piece. I disagree with Mr. Jenkens in that if a second province is formed the impact on the average Episcopalian will be 1) attrition of his or her parishes conservative members to the new province’s Anglican church down the street; 2) likewise competition for those former Catholics who are joining the Episcopal church; 3) an exceleration of the leftward lurge by the Episcopal Church ie gay marrigae rites.
Transform the U.S. Church indeed, as reported by the UPI (http://www.upi.com/AfricaMonitoring/view.php?StoryID=20070902-831713-6007-r):
[Nigerian Bishop] Orama told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) today in Uyo, that the practice, which has worsened over the years, was “unbiblical and against God’s purpose for creating man”. Homosexuals – 2 “Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man,” the Bishop said. He noted that the Anglican Church in Nigeria had continued to lead the fight against the practice especially in the US where it led the opposition to same sex marriages. “The aim of such fight is to provide a safe place for those who want to remain faithful Anglicans and Biblical Christians,” he explained.
#3 This article is about Kenya & Uganda not Nigeria, you are off topic or are you attempting to say ‘they all look the same’ to you?
[blockquote]Another warned that the reporter could be assaulted if he asked worshipers about the issue, and said that America’s permissiveness toward homosexuality had led Osama bin Laden to attack.[/blockquote]
Wow. So opposing homosexuality puts you on the same team as Osama bin Laden. Not exactly the first teammate I’d be citing to a reporter.
“Transformâ€? Hardly through exerting pressure. “Replaceâ€? Well, not in the US. Is there a “substantial minority†in TEC opposed to the ordination of gays and lesbians? Perhaps, but I doubt there will be a mass exidous after these recent consecrations. I think that most of those who are so dissatisfied as to leave the Church have already done so, and that most will stay and work to change TEC from within instead of picking up their marbles and going elsewhere. I certainly hope so. Their voices are important to the Church’s ongoingconversation.
I have thought long before the Present Unpleasantness that some degree of Christian revivalism will come to the West from the third world. We’ll see how much and how successful it will be. Among immigrants from those provinces many are active in TEC and enriching it with their perspectives, worship, and culture. May there be more. A revival within TEC that broadens its view of the world would be most welcome.
I wonder how many Episcopalians who have left TEC since 2003 have joined the already present 20+ splinter Anglican groups like the OAC and the APA. How would those numbers stack up against those who have left to join any of the “missionary†dioceses of African provinces? It would be an interesting set of statistics.
It was good for an African primate and +Duncan to say openly what we have long expected to be announced: a realignment of Anglican dissident groups who wish to stay in the AC and as a new body replace TEC in the Communion. The only way that will happen is if a substantial majority of provinces vote to do so. At present, the only legal process in the AC where that could take place is in the ACC. Opponents would also have to convince the ABC, as one of the Instruments of Communion, to no longer recognize TEC and formally request the ACC to begin the process of removing TEC from its constitutional list of Communion members. Individual provinces may, as some already have done, break communion with TEC, but the Primates Meeting does not have the authority or power to boot TEC out of the Communion, however much a few of its members may furiously rage together.
I thought it was more interesting (and telling) that a reporter was warned of being assaulted by the members of the Anglican church he was reporting on. Transform indeed (#3).
Attempt to get back on thread:
Some money quotes are on page two & three such as:
[blockquote]”God cannot be mocked,” said Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya. “Here, in the context of Kenya, if we take somebody who is polygamous and we make him a lay reader or a priest, we would be doing the wrong thing. . . . If I know somebody is a homosexual, and I make him a lay reader, or I make him a priest, or I make him a bishop, I am sanctioning what he is doing as right. I am saying ‘no’ to this, and the church is saying ‘no’ to this.”[/blockquote]
On page 3 Duncan says plain and simple he’s taking his diocese out.
“We are realigning,” said Duncan, who added he would attempt to pull his entire diocese out of the Episcopal Church, a move that would raise an unprecedented set of legal and financial questions about the ownership of parish buildings and diocesan property.
“Only the most ardent homophobes are getting ready to bolt . . . and the separatist agenda is losing ground everywhere,” said Jim Naughton…..
4 years post Robinson’s election and they are stil clinging to this tired, innacurate and spiteful trope. Surely they can come up with something else?
Actually, KAR, the article is the Global South’s (since they quote Venables, too) work in the TEC in the U.S., something about which the quote I provided is directly on point, IMO. Is there some reason you don’t want to respond to what +Orama is quoted as saying?
#11 Because it’s off topic! You are trying to introduce something alien to this article, probably in an attempt to steer the conversation off course is the usual reason folks add unrelated links. There are two conversations about that article, one at FrJake’s and another at Stand Firm.
Perhaps, but I doubt there will be a mass exidous after these recent consecrations. I think that most of those who are so dissatisfied as to leave the Church have already done so, and that most will stay and work to change TEC from within instead of picking up their marbles and going elsewhere. I certainly hope so. Their voices are important to the Church’s ongoingconversation.
I’m glad you think so, Bob, but I haven’t seen any sign that the church does.
#12 so hate mongering against the orthodox and assaulting them in court and at conventions is “Christian”? No way!
I’m sorry, I’ve read the sentence several times, and I fail to see a reporter getting threatened. What I see is a reporter’s crafty twisting of a comment about how Western libertine attitudes have caused attacks on American soil. The sky is not falling, chicken little.
Subtle statement in there–the need to send missions to Britain. If the AC splits, the Church of England will have to face African evangelical missions at home, built around its sizable African expat population.
Heh.
My favorite line is Jim Naughton’s: “Only the most ardent homophobes are getting ready to bolt . . . ” ; > )
But the most shocking part of the story was the very last paragraph: [blockquote]”My best bet would be that individual Episcopal dioceses will carry on electing gay bishops, and that the Episcopal Church will be kicked out effectively or de facto,” said Philip Jenkins, a professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University. “In terms of the average life of Episcopalians in the US, the difference will be nil. But it will be important symbolically, and a big example for Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians, who are watching this closely.”[/blockquote]
I had thought that Jenkins was a liberal — quite liberal — apologist for ECUSA.
What’s the scoop here? Why does he think that ECUSA’s going to get booted??
At #9 John B. Chilton writes:
[blockquote]On page 3 Duncan says plain and simple he’s taking his diocese out.
“We are realigning,†said Duncan, who added he would attempt to pull his entire diocese out of the Episcopal Church, a move that would raise an unprecedented set of legal and financial questions about the ownership of parish buildings and diocesan property. [/blockquote]
Actually, John, +Duncan says no such thing. It is the reporter who puts these words into his mouth. Personally, I have my doubts that +Duncan would say such a thing. I mean, I would love to see Duncan take such a step (much as I’d love to see Peter Lee, my former bishop take such a step), but that doesn’t mean he actually said it. If he did, why didn’t the reporter actually quote what he said?
That is my problem with much of this story — it’s the reporter telling us [blockquote]Another warned that the reporter could be assaulted if he asked worshipers about the issue, and said that America’s permissiveness toward homosexuality had led Osama bin Laden to attack.[/blockquote] rather than letting the quotes speak for themselves.
If someone did tell the reporter “We will hurt you if you ask us about homosexuality” that would be reprehensible, but we don’t actually know what was said.
I’m not from Missouri, but you’re still going to have to show me.
Getting back to African bishops and what they say here’s a new one by a bishop in the Anglican Church of Nigeria
http://www.upi.com/AfricaMonitoring/view.php?StoryID=20070902-831713-6007-r
#23 –
This is already being condemned. See, for example, [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5598/#103278]Matt Kennedy[/url]:
[blockquote] No “yeah but†at all. If he said that, he should be disciplined to the full extent of canonical law.
And ++Akinola as his Archbishop is ultimately responsible for how this is handled. I pray he does the right thing. [/blockquote]
#23 You really have not been paying attention have you? See #13 above. You are merely trying to introduce some other topic into this thread to throw it off course. If you want my opinion, it’s rude and that bishop way out of line. Now PLEASE pay attention to what is being said on a thread instead of trying to take it over for your purposes. Kendall has not posted it yet but Stand Firm has one, FrJake and Susan Russel all are discussing your Nigerian bishop comments. This article is about Uganda and Kenyan ordinations, Africa is a big place, so big and diverse National Geographic did not even have a photo on the cover for the first time in years when the did a special issue. You really should watch lumping West Africa in with East Africa, it showing a racist basis, as Korea, China and Japan may all be in Asian but very rich and distinct cultures.
I agree with William Sulik that the quotes need to be there. However, since the claim has been made in a major newspaper, the Dioceses/+Duncan should make a denial.
Well, in order to believe what the reporter wrote about assaults, one first has to believe that the reporter:
1) Got the quote correct,
2) Has no personal agenda to advance while writing the story,
With regard to No. 1, I have been quoted 3 times by reporters, and each time they got it incorrect. More than that, they twice changed the sense of the quote to reverse the meaning of what I said. In short, I no longer believe reporters when they make statements that may be inflammatory.
With regard to No. 2, the fact that 80% +/- of the current crop of reporters, self classify as either progressives or democrats, my hunch is that there is an agenda at work here.
Can anyone reading this, really believe that two ushers warned the reporter of peril to his person, if he asked questions? The very thing doesn’t pass the smell test.
Who’s trying to transform what now???
Can you count the misstatements below?
“Only the most ardent homophobes are getting ready to bolt . . . and the separatist agenda is losing ground everywhere,” said Jim Naughton, a spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C. and the editor of a blog called Episcopal Cafe. “The idea that the average African is looking to cause a split over homosexuality is ridiculous. This is about a small coterie of leaders that over the years have received a great deal of money from American conservatives who are eager to push this agenda.”
1. “Only the most ardent homophobes are getting ready to bolt . . .
I guess Naughton hasn’t run into anyone like a number of folks who believe that the doctrinal errors from pecusa leadership are far worse than the sexual ethics problem.
2. and the separatist agenda is losing ground everywhere,” said Jim Naughton, a spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C. and the editor of a blog called Episcopal Cafe.
Naughton must be reading ENS and believing their only 45 parishes lie. The article quotes this number but adds that the African count is 250 including new church plants. Far from losing ground the realignment is gaining ground daily. Is Naughton really as misinformed as his words make him appear to be?
3. This is about a small coterie of leaders that over the years have received a great deal of money from American conservatives who are eager to push this agenda.”
Naughton must not be including the money that the Africans have lost by not taking what they deem to be tainted money from pecusa. Or maybe he believes that they are taking pecusa money “under the table,” as one bishop said to me.
Do the liberals really believe their progaganda or is it disengeniously put out there to influence those who can’t tell the difference between p.r. lies and the truth?
TPaine #19 Call it what you will a mugging is a mugging. And assault, at least in California, is to threaten harm with words. And battery is to follow through on those threats with deeds. I would say the liberals in TEC have assaulted and battered the orthodox for years; just ask John David Scofield. As to protecting the TEC’s property NOW that is a hoot. This protection will no doubt come to resemble the way they protected the Church of the Holy Communion in New York City which was sold and became a notorious disco and a some time public sex venue for the gay community. No doubt a lot of the 815 crowd frequented the the place more as “The Limelight” then they ever did as Church of the Holy Communion. That kind of protection assaulted and battered a great American family…the Muhlenburgs…who funded the church as a memorial and the many faithful people who worshiped there and consecrated it with their prayers. Lets all just stand up and cheer for the manifold blessings of TEC protection.
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
Hey people, please keep in mind what the Boston Globe is: A left-wing, pro-homosexual, pro-same-sex marriage, agenda driven bunch of elitists. Whatever you read in that paper on issues of Christianity, high morals, or ethics must be read with a skeptical eye. This paper is known for fabricating or distorting stories to fit their agenda.
If you really want the facts, you must refer to the original parties involved. Don’t take the word of a Globe reporter as absolute.
H
30. wamark, and others:
Come on people, ask the people in Darfur whether they think we are suffering for our faith here in America. Ask the Korean missionaries if our plight is just so terrible here in the U.S.
Why in the world do we need to use such extreme language. I am very willing to bet that people in truly and honestly danger filled places who have been truly and honestly assaulted, mugged, attacked, threatened with bodily harm, etc., for their faith would look at us rich, spoiled Americans and hang their heads in shame when we claim assault, battery, etc., because we don’t get our way.
Shame on us! Just because someone says something we don’t like or sues to retain property or express a different theology than ours, even strenuously, is not – is not – doing any more harm than hurting our feelings or inconveniencing us by making us worship in a different place. They, on the other hand, get killed, raped, maimed, etc. We really need to grow up!
#29: Is Mr Naughton right, or is he only whistling in the dark as he walks by the cemetary? Only 26 more days left and we can stop speculating, because the truth soon will make itself apparent… whatever it is.
My own speculation is that there will be some fairly large defections from TEC but I have to wonder how many Episcopalians actually really and truly CARE. Short term: Not too much hurt for TEC. Long term: an awful lot of damage done to the Body of Christ.
#32: Being led away from salvation is, to me, more horrible than rape, starvation, or murder. Sorry.
In faith, Dave
Will there be some large-scale defections from TEC? At least four dioceses seem to think so!
4, even 10, out of 70-some (?) isn’t THAT much. And there will be some more parishes leave or split up, and more individuals leave or die off. My guess is that at least half, maybe as many as 75% of current Episcopalians will stay; some will grumble and others won’t even do that, but they’ll stay. That’s a sad commentary.
Actually, I’m just speculating too. You may be closer to right than I, or I than you. However, beginning in 26 days we’ll strart finding out.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Church members will stay UNTIL they find themselves with an openly gay rector or bishop. Most assuredly, TEC will accelerate the gay representation in the episcopacy and clergy as quickly as possible. Then, TEC will start bleeding members again as church members are increasingly faced with living with the fruits of their acquiescence or blindness. And asked to stage Gay Pride events.
[blockquote]Church members will stay UNTIL they find themselves with an openly gay rector or bishop.[/blockquote]
So “teatime” at least believes the threatened split really is about opposition to gay folks and not about other theological issues. Thanks for the honesty!
#36 teatime:
I don’t doubt that will be the last straw for some church members. But my parish had an openly gay interim rector for two years, and so far as I know only one family left because of that. People were a lot more upset when he left than when he arrived — we’d gotten quite attached to him in two years. An occupational hazard of interims, I suppose.
Americans PRIDE themselves on their libertarian open-mindedness. How many Episcopalians even know at this point that there’s an important scriptural issue involved? The ones I knew in my old Episcopal parish basically wonder what MY problem is :^>. They think having homosexual bishops is OK in Vermont, and celebrating same-sex unions at the altar is… “well, I wouldn’t want to do it myself, and it might be a little flakey, but it’s no biggie, is it? We can get along”.
My bet is that most of them will stay. Our question should be, “What do we do for them?” Any orthodox who remain in TEC should do it only with the idea of evangelizing the Gospel among pagans, IMHO.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
I guess this is let’s pick on Naughton day. Just one paragraph in a much longer story–but you’d think it was the sum and substance of the piece. Come on, guys, lighten up!
#32 BobG+ Thank you. I couldn’t agree more. We all need to grow up. We aren’t suffering and that includes the homosexual lobby and its allies at 815 that repeatedly tell us that gays and lesbians are oppressed when, in fact, by their own self description, they are highly paid, highly educated, sophisticated, live in the best neighborhoods and have plenty of disposable income to live the self indulgent consumerist American dream. How odd that TEC and all the mainlines are buying into this lie and are willing to spend millions promoting and defending this illusion/delusion even to the extent of confiscatory lawsuits. Certainly all this money could be used to help the truly oppressed in Darfur and elsewhere instead of spending it on an already coddled and self-centered middle and upper middle class “minority”. I can’t help but thank you for this marvelous insight. Mark+
#37, no, it’s just that I’ve never met an openly gay/partnered priest who preached and practiced the orthodox faith. Have you? They may exist but I have never met one.
LOL, Dave. Vermont also elected a socialist governor! I used to live in NH and most of New England giggled at Vermont. GORGEOUS state, though.
Anyhoo, it will take extremely brave and confident folks to stay in TEC after the fat lady sings. But do you think the pendulum would ever swing back in TEC? Will they eventually get bored doing “a new thing” and rediscover their roots? I wonder…
An openly homosexual partnered person CAN’T preach and practice the faith. He/she will preach something else… has to!
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
#43: I hope so! I was Episcopal for 51 years, and I mourn my old Church. I pray for her but I admit God’s got his work cut out for him there!
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
41. wamark wrote:
Believe that homosexuality is a sin and argue it vigorously, but we need not let jealousy or pride distort the reality of the conditions under which people live. Its funny, isn’t it, how we perceive things, conveniently? Conservatives are no less susceptible to this than are liberals.
My beef isn’t whether you or anyone opposes homosexuality or homosexual bishops (or any theological position). It is about how we can so easily delude or deceive ourselves into believing anything in order to attempt to justify our position.
You know, I have heard this canard so many times. So, because too many of those uppity gays study to get a good educated, work hard so that they are paid well, and learn to be sophisticated now becomes reasons to justify opposition to recognition of the reality under which too many homosexual people live and our prejudicial attitudes and actions. Those gays move into dilapidated neighborhoods (because decent folk don’t want them in their neighborhoods) and renovate them until they become the hip-cool places to live by heterosexuals, yet we give this as proof that they should be ineligible for non-discrimination protections. If we say those things about straight people (educated, industrious, sophisticated, etc), we pay them a high compliment.
Mark, the lawsuits are not money paid to promote homosexuality. The lawsuits are to regain control of property that under the Canons belong to the dioceses when people who rightly or wrongly leave the Church and do not vacate – the same Canons that we as priests vow to uphold (without qualification at the time we make them). You know this. Oh, how horribly we are persecuted! “Jesus, look at how much I love you and how those heathens are persecuting me,†we cry.
At least I was not like the two gay guys who were severely beaten-up by a group of straight guys looking to teach those gays a lesson (by their testimony) a few months ago, in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan of all places – those educated, highly paid, sophisticated guys living in one of the best neighborhoods.
Bob from Boone, I don’t think yesterday was pick on Jim Naughton day. It was instead a day that several people picked up on the demonstrable untruths in Naughton’s piece. Everyone would be kinder and gentler if your side would just stick to the truth.
In a post today Bp. Guernsey remarks that there are 33 parishes in the US that are affilliated with Uganda. Given the numbers in CANA, the AMIA and other jurisdictions, if the leadership of pecusa had any commitment to truth they would not stop saying that there are only 45 churches who have left pecusa. They would also stop saying that it’s an insignificant number of parishes. Furthermore, they would talk honestly about how painful it must be to lose huges parishes like Christ Church – Plano, The Falls Church, and Truro. Instead they tell lies as part of their damage control scheme.
teatime:
[blockquote]Church members will stay UNTIL they find themselves with an openly gay rector or bishop.[/blockquote]
and
[blockquote]#37, no, it’s just that I’ve never met an openly gay/partnered priest who preached and practiced the orthodox faith. Have you? They may exist but I have never met one.[/blockquote]
You didn’t say people would finally be driven away by clergy who were not orthodox, you said you expected them to leave when they had clergy who were gay. Either you’re saying all straight clergy are “orthodox”, or you’re saying that people will end up leaving the church because they will somehow object to a gay non-“orthodox” priest or bishop in a way they do not or will not object to a straight non-“orthodox” priest or bishop.
Which is effectively a statement that you expect the sexuality to be more important than the orthodoxy is getting people to leave TEC and join a schismatic group.
Tegularius: Teatime might possibly have phrased that a little better, but it’s true that, for many Episcopalians who’ve stuck it out so far, it would be the last straw to have an openly homosexual priest.
Besides, homosexuality *is* the presenting issue. The real issue is destruction of scripture’s authority, and criminalizing God’s word where ever it doesn’t match up with personal preferences; but it’s been cast in terms of homosexuality, not authority. Homosexuality is no different from any other sin, except that it’s the first sin ever to be declared OK with God. All the other sins we recognize as sins and at least give lip service to the idea of repenting them; but homosexuality is being glorified and pushed for acceptance. That’s not true for any other sin, and makes homosexuality a special sin (not in God’s eyes but in ours).
So, yes, the appearance of an active homosexual priest would make the difference for some.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
#48 — No need to spin and add to what I’ve said, especially since you have ignored my prediction that TEC will move full steam ahead on implementing its agenda, which means priests and bishops will be assigned and promoted BECAUSE they are gay and not necessarily because they are the best qualified. TEC has made quite clear that “gay inclusion” is the top priority. In fact, I haven’t heard the church champion anything else so often and so passionately, to the exclusion of other pressing issues.
TEC has not made orthodoxy a priority, see Spong. But the chances of getting an orthodox heterosexual priest or bishop are still higher than an openly gay/partnered cleric who was elevated for TEC’s “new thing.” Furthermore, the celibate, orthodox gay religious I know are vilified by TEC’s minions as “self-haters.” So, when the split happens and TEC can freely expand and celebrate its agenda, is it reasonable to believe that openly/partnered gay priests and bishops, who are orthodox, are going to be serving? Especially since the people who have misgivings about the “new thing” are labeled “homophobes” for disagreeing.
Also, the morale of orthodox heterosexual priests and bishops (if any remain) will suffer as they will see the gay clergy getting assistance, appointments and elevations, not because they are necessarily better priests but because TEC wants to prove a point. Everyone will be asked to sacrifice to “right a previous wrong.”
Is that explicit enough for you? Btw, you never answered my question. Do you know any openly/partnered gay clergy who are entirely orthodox? Is it possible? Is it common?
Teatime, when you asked the question, “Do you know any openly/partnered gay clergy who are entirely orthodox? Is it possible? Is it common?” how do you define “entirely orthodox?”
Does it mean that openly gay priests can say the Creeds, honestly? Does it mean that they consider Holy Scripture authoritative and that it contains all things necessary for salvation? Does it mean that they consider Jesus the unique expression of God and the way of salvation – the Son of God, divine? Does it mean that they believe in conversion of life and the transformative power of the Gospel? What else might it mean?
Or, does being “entirely orthodox” also mean that openly gay priests (or any priest) are required to abide by a certain theological perspective (penal substitutionary atonement theory, for example), a certain Scriptural interpretation (a literal 7-day creation, for example), a certain political ideology (Neo-conservatism, for example), a certain vain of doing-church (Evangelical, for example), and the list could go on in various permeations.
If the first set of criteria is what might define “entirely orthodox,” then I do know openly gay priests aplenty (and straight ones, too) who are “entirely orthodox.” If you also require various perspectives from the second list (or some variation of it), then I know both gay and straight priests who abide by the first list, but not the second, and visa-versa.
However, Bob G+, scripture and orthodoxy call for repenting sins, and define homosexuality as sin, while an openly homosexual priest by his example is preaching a sin. That can hardly be called orthodox (Romans 1:32). A celibate homosexual priest who preaches repentence from homosexual sins, as well as other sins, and holds the historical doctrines of the Church, is orthodox.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
[blockquote]while an openly homosexual priest by his example is preaching a sin.[/blockquote]
As is a divorced-and-remarried priest, but I don’t see anyone citing open-mindedness on divorce and remarriage as cause for schism. It’s about sexual orientation, not about “sin” in general.
That too. It might make a difference if the remarried priest (or individual) repents his divorce and is determined to not divorce again. Same with a homosexual priest who repents his sin and determines to not sin again. All of us sin repeatedly; the difference is in acknowledging the sin, repenting, determining to not sin again, and preaching that repentence. An active open homosexual isn’t doing that; he’s doing the opposite.
Schism results from the defiant insistance on sin of the homosexual “agenda” within TEC, and the reordering of scripture and doctrine which are necessary for preaching that which God has called a sin. See Romans 1:32.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
[blockquote]It might make a difference if the remarried priest (or individual) repents his divorce and is determined to not divorce again. [/blockquote]
The bible makes it clear that the sin involved is the sin of adultery, and the particular act that is adulterous is the second marriage. Repenting the divorce is fine, but continuing in the second marriage is neither ceasing nor repenting the adultery. A remarried person is not “acknowledging the sin [of adultery], repenting, determining to not sin [by committing adultery] again, and preaching that repentence” unless they set aside the adulterous relationship and remain single and celibate for the remainder of their days.
There is no biblical foundation for distinguishing between homosexuals and divorced heterosexuals when demanding celibacy as an alternative to forbidden relationships.
dpeirce (#52) – The definition of whether all forms of same-sex relationships are permissible or not fall under interpretation of Scripture. If to be orthodox we say that all must abide by certain interpretations of Scripture, then it is no longer about whether the priest (or any person) believes that Scripture is authoritative or whether it contains all things necessary for salvation, but that we must all abide by the same interpretation of those inspired, authoritative Scriptures. One of the defining hallmarks of Anglicanism is an allowance for different interpretations of Scripture, while still holding them as inspired and authoritative.
Calvinsts and Arminians will both agree that the Scriptures are divinely inspired and absolutely authoritative. Concerning Scripture, both would hold orthodox beliefs. Now, if to be orthodox the Calvinist says that Arminains cannot interpret Scripture the way they do and still be orthodox, it is no longer about the authority of Scripture or whether it is divinely inspired or not that determines orthodoxy, but about everyone interpreting the same Scriptures the same way.
These are two different criteria of what might determine whether someone is orthodox or not. One interpretation of Scripture holds that all forms of same-sex relationships are sinful, and this is the tradition. One interpretation is that Scripture doesn’t forbid all forms of same-sex relationships. One side, like the Calvinist example above, says that the other side cannot interpret Scripture in that way and still be orthodox.
I think we need to be very careful when set a standard for orthodoxy on a particular interpretation of Scripture, because our interpretation of those Scriptures have changed over the centuries concerning other issues.
Tegularius, #55: Then, does the fact that there are remarried priests justify active open homosexual priests?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Dave #57 – If openly homosexual priests are rejected on the grounds that they have chosen to live in a sinful relationship according to biblical teachings on sexual morality, then remarried priests must be rejected on the same grounds.
If remarried priests are accepted, then that acceptance means that the choice to live in a sinful relationship according to biblical teachings on sexual morality is NOT a choice which AUTOMATICALLY disqualifies someone from being a priest. Therefore, the rejection of openly homosexual priests must logically be on some other additional grounds.
And a group which threatens schism over acceptance of openly homosexual priests but which never did so over the acceptance of remarried priests must be doing so for reasons other than or in addition to questions of adherence to biblical teachings on sexual morality.
Bob G+, this isn’t simply a matter of different interpretations… it’s changing what is plainly written in scripture and isn’t even subject to interpretation: Homosexuality is an enormous sin per Lev 18:22; it’s just a sin, period. Paul expanded on that in Romans 1:21-32 by reaffirming its sinfulness. He called it shameful and unnormal, and reminded us that it rises from people becoming “wise” in their foolishness, leads to giving up God and going on into further sins, and teaches others to do the same. There isn’t any interpretation there; homosexuality is sin. Committed, uncommitted, “married” or what, it’s sin.
Yes, I know that some scholars offer different interpretations, and explain away what’s written, and even call Paul a homophobic bigot. That kind of stuff is covered in Romans 1:18-23.
I’m not trying to define what is an orthodox priest. I’m saying what is NOT an orthodox priest in one particular situation: An openly practicing unrepentent homosexual priest is not orthodox because he is going against scripture and teaching by his example for others to do the same.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Tegularius, #58: I don’t believe you answered my question; you, in fact, have twisted my question out of focus. I’m not defending remarried priests. Here’s my question:
Does the existence of remarried priests justify openly active homosexual priests?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
I believe remarried priests can be included in the priesthood only if they acknowledge that their divorce was a sin, caused by sin, and truly repent. That is fully consistent with Biblical Christianity, which unambiguously disavows the proposition that someone must bear the burden of a sin forever without God’s grace. That’s about as fundamental to Jesus’s New Covenant as it gets.
If the priest does not acknowledge that the divorce was sinful and does not repent, then I do not believe that person should be a priest.
Aside from that, however, there are sound practical reasons why persons who live active homosexual lives shoul not be priests, because they are not living a good example for others. Homosexuality should not be considered equivalent to heterosexuality and should be repudiated as a healthy lifestyle and family structure. That is true independent of my deference to Biblical wisdom.
[blockquote]I believe remarried priests can be included in the priesthood only if they acknowledge that their divorce was a sin,[/blockquote]
But what about the fact that the [b]remarriage[/b] is a sin, and [b]remains[/b] a sin? Is there a way to truly repent from the sin of [b]remarriage[/b] (which is distinct from, and additional to, the sin of divorce) while remaining in that “marriage” which is adulterous by biblical standards?
[blockquote]Does the existence of remarried priests justify openly active homosexual priests?[/blockquote]
Paralleling the old saw about the rich man and the socialite (“we’ve established what you are, we’re just haggling about the price”), the acceptance of remarried priests establishes that compromising on biblical standards of sexual morality is possible; the decision about openly homosexual priests is then a matter not of principle but rather of “haggling about the price”.
#62, Tegularius: So one sin justifies another? When I face the Lord I can say that others sinned so he should be OK with mine? The murder I committed is justified because the Church compromised biblical standards in the matter of divorce?
Just want to get things clarified.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
dave@christos.cjb.net, dpeirce@christian.net
[blockquote]When I face the Lord I can say that others sinned so he should be OK with mine?[/blockquote]
No, but when you face the Lord you cannot say “I split Your church because those other folks tolerated sin and I did not.”
Tegularius, there might be an argument over who split the Church, the liberals or the conservatives. I guess we’d both present our arguments and Jesus would decide.
And I infer from your comment that you agree the existence of remarried priests doesn’t justify active open homosexual priests? Am I correct in that?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
59. dpeirce wrote: “it’s changing what is plainly written in scripture and isn’t even subject to interpretation: Homosexuality is an enormous sin per Lev 18:22; it’s just a sin, period.”
Dpeirce – do you know that every time you or any of us read Scripture and attempt to correctly apply it that we are involved in the task of interpretation? To make a statement like, “…plainly written in scripture” means that you are interpreting those scriptures in order to come up with what you understand or accept as “plainly written.” The only possible way that anything in Scripture might be able to be “plainly written” and thus “plainly understood” is to read them in the original languages. For the Bible to be written in English, by definition means it has to be interpreted in the translation of it into English. Some Biblical scholars and common folk read and interpret Scripture this or that way, others that or this way. It is all interpretation. The outcome will be understood fully when we see Him face-to-face, but one interpretation is probably wrong, one is probably right, or both could be equally wrong. Ask Kendall about interpretation.
You bring up Lev 18:22 and the Levitical Code and the Moral Law. What about a bit later when the Moral Law demands that children that talk back to their parents should be stoned to death? It is in the interpretation and application of Scripture that we say we no longer abide by the command to stone children who talk back to their parents, even though the Moral Law in Leviticus demands it. Likewise, Leviticus also stipulates that homosexuals are worthy of death. It is by interpretation that we conveniently ignore that command of the Moral Law. Yet, by an act of interpretation, you still want to use just those convenient verses that support your interpretive position and ignore those that do not.
Gays are sinners because Scripture plainly says so, but we shouldn’t kill them for their sin, even though Scripture plainly says to do so, and we shouldn’t stone children who talk back to their parents even though Scripture plainly says so. The interpretive method you use is inconsistent and hypocritical, whether you are trying to prove that Scripture does or does not condemn all forms of same-sex relationships.
What’s interpretive about the word “sin” and the word “shameful” when applied to homosexuality?
The shellfish argument doesn’t impress me. It’s silly. No, we don’t kill homosexuals for their sin. But it’s still a sin, no?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
This is a big problem we must face when we are attempting to argue these points of difference. The hard work of interpreting Scripture and applying it, which we all do – some better than others, must start from a point of honesty, humility, consistency, and transparency. Else, all we end up with is Scriptural chaos, and that is where the Church universal is these days on both sides of the debate.
OK, good thought.
What’s interpretive about the word “sin†and the word “shameful†when applied to homosexuality?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
[blockquote]And I infer from your comment that you agree the existence of remarried priests doesn’t justify active open homosexual priests?[/blockquote]
I don’t believe that there’s a need for any special or particular “justification” of openly homosexual priests, so you can’t really say that I think anything does or does not constitute such justification.
Tegularius: Guess not.
Have a good day.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Dave – To have an honest discussion or debate about what Scripture actually says and doesn’t say, what are the implications for living our lives today, we have to be consistent in the way we engage Scripture. To simply repeat “what about the word ‘sin’ or ‘shameful’ to attempt to prove your point doesn’t make it when you first are not consistent with Scripture to begin with. Plus, you better be sure what those English words actually mean in Hebrew or Greek if you want to declare someone else outside the Kingdom (not orthodox) because of your interpretation of those words or verses in Scripture.
What about being consistent in your method of interpretation – if you want to use Leviticus as a justification for your position, fine, but then you cannot conveniently ignore other parts of it. Read Galatians and what Paul writes about concerning Christians who want to go back and put themselves under the Law – if you want to live by even one of them, then you have to live by all of them.
Even so, if you believe the Moral Law was not done away with by the New Covenant of God’s grace through Jesus, then you still have to take the whole of the Moral Law and obey it. This includes killing homosexuals and killing children who talk back to their parents. You have to be consistent or else you end up simply being a “cafeteria” Christian, picking and choosing willy-nilly what you will abide by and what you will not.
If you can do that – be consistent, etc., in the way you engage Scripture – then perhaps we can get to the next point of discussing what individual words may or may not mean in the context of the portions of Scripture in which they are found. Until then, we are just debating the definitions of words in the English language.
It is also shameful for males to have long hair. It is also a sin for divorced people to remarry.
I’m sorry, Bob G+, but you are giving me the same arguments my old Episcopal “pastor” gave me when I asked him if blessing same-sex so-called unions at the altar were scriptural. All the arguments led to one thing: “The Bible doesn’t mean what it says it means, and we understand better now”. I didn’t buy it then and I don’t buy it now. In my view, my “pastor” was simply trying to lead me out of the corral to where the wolves were. He spoke in good faith, I don’t deny him that; he believed what he said as I suppose do you. But it doesn’t take a lot of learning or weasel words to explain scripture. God WANTS us to understand his instructions for salvation and he didn’t make them obscure or only accessible for the sophisticated.
And the existence of one sin certainly doesn’t justify another.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Bob G+: Looking at your post #72 again, it’s possible that I’m not understanding properly what you are saying. So, a question:
Is homosexuality sinful of not?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Dave – You want me to answer “Yes” or “No”, but you need to understand all that has gone into the answer I will give you if you want my answer to mean anything.
Firstly, Scripture presents to us God’s will for our lives – all things necessary for Salvation, the light onto our path. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and the standard presented in God’s Word is, too. (Although there was a great change between the working out of God’s standard between the Old and New Covenants!)
We, however, are not same from generation to generation. We are fallible, imperfect, and sinful humans who may well try our hardest to clearly understand God’s will for our lives individually and collectively, but always get it wrong in the “moment” for the very reasons that we are fallible and imperfect.
This process of seeking and thinking and wondering and questioning as we engage Scripture and pray to God for right understanding so that we will rightly divide the Word of God all begin with our interpretation of God’s Word – the endeavor of Exegesis and Hermeneutics.
As Anglicans, we use tradition and reason to help inform our understanding and application of those very Scriptures. This helps us to not get caught up in craziness. This also adds to the humble acknowledgment that we could be wrong and therefore the allowance for various interpretations to exist at the same time within the same Church (just think of the profound theological and interpretive traditions and differences between Anglican Evangelicalism and Anglican Catholicism).
Secondly, we know so little! Scripture tells us that we know in part and see in part and understand in part and will not know fully until we see Him face-to-face. This should instill in us a great deal of humility – because at any moment in our lives we (individually or collectively) could be wrong in our interpretation/understanding of the Holy Scriptures. This doesn’t mean there is something wrong with God’s Word, but the “something wrong” is always with us!
Thirdly, history and the tradition tell us that there have been dramatic changes in our understanding of God’s Word over the centuries. Councils err, and at times so does the collective understanding of what portions of God’s Word actually mean. We are told that the Holy Spirit came to help us understand more and more of God’s perfect will as He reveals more of the Father’s Truth – held in the Scriptures. Again, the problem is not the Scriptures, but our unknowing, our stubbornness, our pride, our ignorance.
So then, because I want to know God’s will, because I know I understand so little and am prone to get things wrong, because I know of the long history of our changing our interpretive understanding of what portions of Scripture are actually saying, because as I get to know more and more gay Christians the stereotypes I have been raised with are proven wrong, generally (you will always find perfect examples of whatever stereotypes we may hold of any group of people), because I have spent a great deal of time studying the portions of Scripture traditionally used to condemn all forms of same-sex relationships, because I listen to all sides of the debate in order to learn and be challenged, because I read about what science has discovered about the condition of homosexuality, and because I pray diligently for God’s wisdom, I have come to this conclusion at this point in my life:
I do not believe the portions of Scripture traditionally used to condemn all forms of same-sex relationships support the argument. I don’t believe the tradition has correctly understood what God is saying to us because of my study of Scripture (as has happened collective over other issues). I think the arguments of those who call for a rethinking of our tradition have a stronger argument than those who argue otherwise.
Therefore, I do not believe that all forms of same-sex relationships, as long as they are defined by fidelity, monogamy, yadda, yadda, yadda, are sin. There is your answer. A qualified, “No,” if that is what you need, but the word “qualified” is very important!
Dave, You have to realize that that Bob G+, in the best tradition of late 20th Century liberal seminary training, is an antinomian and understands neither law nor Gospel and is living in the land of cheap grace. The best biblical scholar of the late 20th century, Raymond Brown (too bad he died so young) in his last work, a commentary on Corinthians, made it clear that it was time to lay all this contemporary weaseling bunk aside and understand that Paul is emphatic in his condemnation of homosexuality. When Paul says it and Brown absolutely confirms it there is now way around it. too bad Dave G.+. Fantasyland is for kids.
Bob G+: Your answer really isn’t qualified. It’s “No, homosexuality isn’t sinful”. What you wrote isn’t equivocation or a plea for understanding… it’s sugar coating for something which will hurt me.
That old “pastor” I spoke of earlier used to send me emails with the same arguments. He was a busy man but took time for a six month intensive email conversation with me to convince me that homosexuality in some circumstances is OK. Adultry isn’t OK in some circumstances but homosexuality is. Heh. He also talked a lot about reason and scholarship and modern knowledge which is superior to that of the times when scripture was written. He was honest and sincere but it all boiled down to: God has given us a road map for salvation but the map is full of holes and mistakes; however, we know better now and can correct the errors. Me, I just can’t figure out how God who was smart enough to create the place is so dumb as to let all those mistakes get into his manufacturer’s handbook. Sorry, it doesn’t wash.
Wamark: I’d give Bob G+ more credit than that. I think he believes what he says, even though it’s apostate, and isn’t consciously living in cheap grace. I credit him with trying to give me the best he knows. But, to drastically over simplify, he’s been entranced with the idea that God is so loving he JUST CAN’T mean all those strict things he said in his word. Yes God is so incredibly loving he would go to the Cross so we won’t have to, but he’s also JUST and RIGHTEOUS and sins must be acknowledged and repented. Ya’ can’t have the love without the righteousness… they are opposite sides of the same coin.
My trouble is I believe God said all those strict things, I just have a very hard time accepting that I actually am expected to *DO* all that. So, in a way, I’m no better off than Bob G+. I’m very glad neither of us gets to judge the other; the true Judge won’t judge like I’d want, but he will use mercy.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
I’m sorry Wamark, but your assumptions about me and your description of me could not be more than wrong. I’m anything but an antinomian! I’m squarely Evangelical in my understanding of what Scripture is and the authority it has in my own life and the life of the Church. I also know what Paul writes about the obligation of Christians regarding the Law.
The new commandment of Jesus is far more demanding and difficult to adhere to than are the precepts of the Old Testament Law! Yet, none of us are able to live up to the standard God sets due to our sin and rebellion – it is only by grace that I am saved. If that is “cheap grace,” then I guess I will live by God’s “cheap grace” since I have no other recourse.
Sorry, you can try your hardest to categorize me in a way that fits your presumption or stereotype, but that dog won’t hunt.
dpeirce, my whole point is that we need to engage Scripture with consistency, humility, and honesty. If we do that, we will be far closer to having a better understanding of what God actually desires of us and for us. Too many of us, both conservatives and liberals and all sides, all of us, fail at this all the time. You will believe what you will believe. My prayer is that you, me, all of us will truly lay down our lives before the Lord, our pride, our want, our arrogance, our insecurity, our prejudice, and allow God to teach us and make us into the very image of Christ. It is a life-long endeavor.
It also means that we will all probably have real differences with one another and believe wrongly at various times all our lives. Some people can’t accept that.
Consistency, humility, and honesty.
In all consistency, humility and honesty, that says homosexuality is shameful, unnatural, indecent, and depraved. That’s what it says.
Honesty is to accept what is written without snaking out of it. Humility is to be willing to accept it when it goes way against the grain. Consistency is to continue accepting what isn’t desired but is true.
If you truly wish to lay down your life before the Lord, then accept what he has said without trying to change it. Then comes the hard part: obeying the word. But, you can’t obey what you don’t accept.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
I forgot ‘perverted’.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
[blockquote]abandoned [b]natural[/b] relations[/blockquote]
If sexual orientation is not a choice but rather a trait, then isn’t a same-sex relationship “natural” for someone who is homosexual? Maybe the types of relations that are “natural” vary from individual to individual?
Tegularius, please! Paul makes plain that homosexual relations are unnatural, etc, period. There is not one scripture anywhere which says otherwise.
Me, I’m alcoholic. Always will be. Maybe genetic, maybe what I learned, probably some of both; but fact is, I’m alcoholic. HOWEVER…
Alcoholism does NOT have to gain victory over me. Alcoholism is also an unnatural, shameful, indecent, perverted, and depraved sin, but one CHOOSES whether to drink. In my case, I now choose NOT to drink.
Consistency, humility, and honesty, as your brother said above. Follow them.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
[blockquote]Paul makes plain that homosexual relations are unnatural[/blockquote]
I have no reason to believe that–given the normal meaning of the word “natural”–Paul’s opinion or any other scriptural source should be given precedence over the findings of science and our observations of the world around us.
That’s true. Science rocks. And the mere fact that God said it that way through Paul should in no way influence your judgement. After all, God only created everything; he can’t be trusted to know what he’s talking about.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
[blockquote]And the mere fact that God said it that way through Paul should in no way influence your judgement. After all, God only created everything;[/blockquote]
And among the things God created are those which constitute evidence for scientific findings. I believe that God continues to speak to us through His creation, and that Paul’s works–while inspired by God–were written by a fallible man.
Paul was a fallible man but the infallible God was his guide. Again, I remind you that God’s word calls homosexuality unnatural, shameful, perverted, etc, and there in no scripture which calls it otherwise.
You stick with science; I’ll (try anyway to) stick with what the Creator says in favor of what the creature says.Creator is more likely to be right than created and, besides, Creator is the ultimate judge. You need to think about that. It could get uncomfortable if you’re wrong. Or uncomfortable if I’m wrong… but there we get back to believing in the Creator or the created.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Fortunately, there is, in this situation, no conflict between science and the scriptures. Science has proven nothing about the genesis, nor the nature of same-sex attractions. There is simply no scientific evidence that same-sex attractions are equivalent to hand-dominance, eye color, or ethnicity.
Dave – What do you do when scripture calls long hair on men to be shameful? If we are consistent in our engagement with and the use of Scripture, then we need to be as determined to obey Scripture and not have long hair and demand that all men in the Church not have long hair – it is shameful. Or, perhaps, the way we use that word in reference to homosexuality is more like the way we use it for men with long hair. Which is it? That is the task of interpretation, and lots of people differ.
If you use that word to condemn one thing, the power of the word demands all things called shameful be condemned with the same determination. If you say “No,” then way? Where is the consistency, and if not consistent why?
I remember an OT scripture somewhere which says long hair is shameful, but I think I also remember it was for ceremonial reasons and applied only to Israel. Maybe you could provide me with a specific reference so I might reassure myself on that point. I THINK that is probably just another shellfish argument.
However, if long hair really IS shameful, then I would say the existence of long-haired folk doesn’t justify the existence of homosexuality. Homosexuality is the presenting issue being used to tear down scriptural authority. It’s the first sin which people have tried to make OK with God, so it has a special status among the sins even though all sins are equally bad. That would justify attaching temporarily more importance to homosexuality than long hair, at least until the long-haired folk start taking over Churches.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Tegularius:
[blockquote] I have no reason to believe that–given the normal meaning of the word “natural”–Paul’s opinion or any other scriptural source should be given precedence over the findings of science and our observations of the world around us.[/blockquote]
Sigh- There are three problems with this:
1. Any scientist (including myself) will tell you that Science is NOT truth – science strives to look for truth but it does not define it.
2. You know, I don’t like a great deal of what God says, like “You need to love others as much as yourself.” OR “If you try to save your life you will loose it, and if you try to loose your life for my sake you will find it.” Goes totally against my selfish grain.” However, regardless, it is what Christ taught, “If you LOVE Me, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.” So, like it or NOT we are to follow Christ’s commands – otherwise we aren’t REALLY his followers after all.
3. Paul’s letters are part of the Scriptures. So, if you disregard them you are saying that God is such a whimp, He can’t figure out how to keep erroneous teachings from His Book. Forgive me, but I think a ‘god’ who can’t even control what’s put into the the Book about Himself as a pretty useless God. Believe Him – or don’t – but don’t state He’s so lame He can’t even control His Own Word.
Just reality.
[i]“Morality precedes Scripture” – No, the reality is Morality is NOTHING without Scripture… [/i]
Bob G+, Tegularius, not that it hasn’t been fun, but I gotta leave at 4:00 tomorrow morning so, well, it’s been fun. Have a good day.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
[blockquote]Paul’s letters are part of the Scriptures. So, if you disregard them you are saying that God is such a whimp, He can’t figure out how to keep erroneous teachings from His Book.[/blockquote]
First, we know there was a process by which [b]human beings[/b] made decisions as to what works were considered “Scripture” and what works were not. As far as I know there is no documentation or historical record suggesting that there was any unambiguous divine direction provided to these councils.
Second, if you believe that God somehow directs councils that are making decisions on behalf of the church, and that it would require a God who is a “whimp” to have such a council reach a decision that is not in accordance with His will, then you’re left with a choice: either (for example) General Convention reaches decisions that are in accordance with God’s will, or God is a “whimp” for not guiding General Convention. Or, alternatively, councils of human beings are fallible, and human perception of divine guidance is not guaranteed to be in accordance with His actual will.
[blockquote] “Morality precedes Scripture†– No, the reality is Morality is NOTHING without Scripture…[/blockquote]
No, Morality precedes Scripture, and Scripture contains the proof. Read Genesis. In Genesis, there is morality; there are good actions and evil actions, and God responds accordingly. And yet, the people of Genesis have no Scripture!
Noah was chosen to build the ark because he was a good man in a wicked world, but his being “good” and the other people being “wicked” cannot have been because Noah followed the Bible and they did not, as there was not yet a Bible.
So: Morality precedes Scripture.
Yes, Dave G+ I have noticed how antinomians are always horrified when when exposed and pour forth a stream of denials. but I guess really hit the target. Your denials are proof positive. And speaking of dogs it was Lincoln who said “it is the dog that is hit that yelps the loudest.”
Dave – Here is one reference to men having long hair:
1 Corinthians 11:13-16 (New Century Version)
“13 Decide this for yourselves: Is it right for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Even nature itself teaches you that wearing long hair is shameful for a man. 15 But long hair is a woman’s glory. Long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 Some people may still want to argue about this, but I would add that neither we nor the churches of God have any other practice.”
The King James Version, The New Century Version, New Life Version, New International Reader’s Version, Wycliffe New Testament, Worldwide English Version – all translate (interpret) the Greek work to be “shameful.” Other various translations translate the word either “disgrace” or “dishonor.” Only the NRSV translates the word “degrading.” (I find it interesting the KJV uses the word “shameful,†the NKJV uses the word “dishonor,†but the 21st Century JKV goes back to the word “shameful.â€)
So, here we have various translations of the New Testament, all used by Evangelical churches (although many American-Evangelicals look askance at the NRSV), all the linguists and biblical scholars, and they cannot agree on which English word to use. Now, all four words are variations on a theme, but all the people involved in producing these bibles in English had to engage in interpretation in their effort to choose the word they used. All the translation committees are able to give you a rational for why they chose the word they did, but they still do not agree.
Well, this is Paul, the New Testament, and not a “shell fish” argument. It is there, black and white, plain as day, if that is the criteria one uses to interpret the English version(s) of the Holy Scriptures.
I’m not claiming one justifies the other. I’m claiming that if we are to rightly handle the very Word of God, then we have to actually handle it rightly. We have to be consistent. If the word “shameful†has a very negative connotation – to the point of justifying the denigration of a whole class of people – then that word has that much power where ever and for whom ever it is associated with.
We cannot pick-n-choose how we use Scripture according to how we want to view things. We cannot say the word “shameful†isn’t all that negative or important when applied to long-hair on men just because the culture doesn’t have a problem with long haired men, and then turn around and say the very same word has tremendous negative power against a class of people because the culture doesn’t like those people. The fact is, Paul says it is a “shameful,†“dishonorable,†“disgraceful†thing (depending on what version we use). We cannot ignore that. Either the word has that much power against both, or it doesn’t and we are reading into Holy Scripture our cultural biases. You see, conservatives do this just as much as we claim liberals do it.
We have to try as hard as we can to not let our own prejudices and wants interfere as we read Holy Scripture – that is, going to Scripture to try to find justification for our already determined beliefs, rather than allowing the Word to mold our beliefs. I wanted it to support my culturally determined opposition to all forms of same-sex relationships, truly. But, as I kept studying Scripture and reading biblical scholars on both sides of the issue, I came to the point where I just couldn’t justify the way I wanted the Scripture to be.
Warmark, it is very convenient for you to believe such things. The purpose of my denial is simply to set the record straight. Plain and simple. If attempting to correct misunderstanding is nothing more than a proof that you are right in the first place, then we have no place to go forward. Conversation is impossible. Spiritual growth won’t happen – we are stuck on milk rather than moving forward to meat. Pride is a dangerous thing. Too bad. I can learn from anyone, since I know so little of God’s vast and limitless knowledge.
Dave – concerning Romans 1:26-28:
The context of this portion of scripture is tied the the second chapter. That is why Paul uses the word “Therefore” at the beginning of chapter two. Even if Paul wrote this portion of Scripture to stand alone to condemn homosexuality, you have to follow what is actually happening.
A reasonable interpretation of this portion of scripture, which I’ve read from different Evangelical biblical scholars, can be summed up like this: certain people gave up their devotion to God by worshiping created things. Idolatry. The result of such a thing is that their minds were darkened and they continued down that path – God gave them over to what normally happens on such a path. It came to the point where these people turned from their “nature” (which was heterosexual) and began engaging in sex not by their natural inclination to the opposite sex but with there their own sex. There you go. You can reject it, accept, consider it. God’s truth is his truth, regardless of what any of us wants to think.
Paul uses this portion of Scripture (verses in chapters 1 & 2 together) to condemn those Christians who love to judge and condemn other Christians. We know this, because chapter 2 says so. To attempt to make those verses in chapter 1 stand alone is not rightly dividing the Word of God.
So, yes, consistency, honesty, and right handling of the Word of God. We can’t cherry-pick want we want to justify our culturally determined notions of what should or shouldn’t be.
Here is the purpose for which Paul writes the second half of Romans 1:
Romans 2:1-
“1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?”
We need to be vary careful when we start passing judgment on other people. God condemns such actions through Paul.
[blockquote]…for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.[/blockquote]
And here we see the key to why homosexuality became “The Sin Worth Splitting The Church Over”. If you preach about our greed, or our failure to love our neighbors, or our difficulty forgiving others, or our elevation of idols like money above our love of God then all of us will listen, reflect on our failings, feel guilt, and repent and try to follow God’s will more closely.
If on the other hand you preach against homosexuality, the solidly heterosexual majority can listen, realize they’ve never felt so inclined much less acted on such inclinations, and proudly think of themselves as “free of sin”. No wonder such preaching is so popular!
Tegularius:
[blockquote]First, we know there was a process by which human beings made decisions as to what works were considered “Scripture†and what works were not. As far as I know there is no documentation or historical record suggesting that there was any unambiguous divine direction provided to these councils.[/blockquote]
Yes, God is so out-of-control of things He couldn’t put together 66 books of His own choosing and inspire people to write these things correctly. What an ‘awesome’ God? Right?
It really comes down to the Matter of whether you are going to choose to Trust God or not… doubt if He really has your best interest in mind or not… I choose to believe God does. I also believe that if I believe in an infinite all powerful Being that He is INDEED all powerful.
[b] Re: Morality precedes Scripture[/b]
Oh, let’s think about this – John 1: “In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was God and was with God…” So, yes, the Scripture was there in the form of the Trinity in Gensis – and until we broke communion with THEM, we lived with the WORD. God doesn’t react to Morality He IS Morality… He defined it… [i](but of course, even so He can’t figure out how to get Himself to us accurately… poor thing.. creates the Universe, light, darkness, all living things, matter itself… but He’s let a bunch of finite beings mess up Who He is… poor guy…)[/i]
[b]Re: GC 2006[/b]
Well perhaps if the goals of this Convention were actually the same of the Council of Carthage in 397 and the men/women who attended had the same belief of those who attended, something good would have happened – as it was “the blind led the blind into the ditch” in 2006. The Spirit will not work when He is not wanted… and what God wanted wasn’t a big ticket item (and still isn’t) in TEC.
(1) I do not believe that by “the WORD”, John meant “the scriptures called the Holy Bible, some of which have not yet been written, as the Council of Carthage will define it three centuries in the future”. To suggest that somehow what we call “Scripture” existed before the events it describes is to view history and the events of the Old and New Testaments from a position of radical predestination.
Treating Scripture as having been revealed to rather than written by its human authors strikes me as a model that is more Mormon than traditionally Christian.
(2) I did not say that God preceded morality; God preceded everything, and His creation of humans necessarily preceded any notion of morality in human behavior. However, both God and morality preceded Scripture.
(3) I trust God; I believe that He has blessed the human race with a moral sense, a sense of justice, and a sense of reason, and that He is an ongoing presence in the world around us. He did not say, “Well that’s it, the Bible’s done, and they’ll hear no more from Me!”
Now it is undeniably the case that we also have base impulses, and that it can be tempting to claim that what we want to do is what God wants us to do. But that does not mean that we cannot discern God’s will from His work in the world around us.
Eclipse (#99) – I remember years ago going to an Evangelical Friends college (Malone College) to hear a debate concerning homosexuality. The school takes the general position – it is sin. Two people debated each other (I don’t remember who the pro-gay relationship person was, but the opposer was a scripture professor from the college). During the Q & A period, a woman came up and said something like “since the Bible existed from the beginning…” and used the first few verses of John to prove her point.
There was a brief period of silence, and then the scripture professor said to the woman, “ma’am, the word ‘Word’ in John is from the Greek word ‘Logos.’ It doesn’t refer to the Bible but to the second person of the Trinity – the Father, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit.” He tried his hardest not to embarrass the woman, but this is probably one of the more basic understandings – John’s writing about Christology, not about the Bible.
Really, Eclipse, the sarcasm is unnecessary.
This isn’t to reference any particular people, but just an observation.
Its funny, when I taught school and a student said an obviously incorrect thing, I as the teacher would say something along the lines of, “That isn’t right….” and then explain what was right.
Here in the blog-world, when obviously incorrect things are written, the correction of those obvious mistakes is not possible. Too many of those making the incorrect assertion are generally not open to correction. Too many of us don’t have a teachable spirit.
Whether one opposes homosexuality or any manner of other things or supports any of those things, there is a commonly agreed upon way to approach, engage, interpret, and apply Scripture among conservative through liberal Christians and scholars. The opinions of any topic may be very different and the interpretations of Scripture may be very different, but the “method” is agreed upon.
There are people who do not know of or understand those agreed upon methods. When correction is offered, the one making the incorrect assertion dealing with methodology (not the opinion of interpretation, but methodology of interpretation and application), s/he cannot or will not accept the correction.
We all have different interpretations of Scripture. One reason for this is because all of us are at different points in our maturation. Some of us are in first grade, some in 12th. Some are professors at university. Some of us are on spiritual milk and some eating meat (as Paul might say).
This ends up not being a place for learning, but often a place to expose our ignorance (and yes, I believe I expose my own ignorance, too). Too many of us don’t want to learn, but want to assert our opinions whether they are informed or right or not.