There are several aspects of Ruth Gledhill’s argument that demand response. In the first place, it is shocking that she asserts with such breathtaking ease that the conservatives in the Anglican Communion ”” those who stand on clear teachings of the Bible, must give way to the liberals. There is no acknowledgment that this means the growing churches of the Anglican Communion surrendering to the agenda of the dying churches.
Second, the argument that an insistence on the importance of biblical sexuality means that these teachings are held to be more important than “the Resurrection, the Crucifixion, the Virgin Birth, and the Trinity,” is nothing less than ludicrous. The issue of homosexuality may now function to place persons “on the Christian spectrum,” but this is only because the liberal churches have forced the issue. Conservative Anglicans from Africa and South American did not raise the issue of sexuality ”” the Episcopal Church did.
One other aspect of this particular issue cries out for acknowledgment. One additional reason that the issue of homosexuality (and biblical authority) now functions so decisively is precisely because the liberal churches have already allowed liberal denials of everything mentioned by Gledhill on her list. It so happens that the churches that hold fast to those theological essentials are, almost without exception, the same churches that maintain biblical teachings on human sexuality. No real surprise there.
Third, the argument that the historic creeds and confessions and liturgies of the church do not mention homosexuality is obvious and simple ”” they did not need to.
No, but I think evangelicals might not want to throw stones. I admire their steadfastness, but note that they haven’t been effective in motivating their own flocks for greater sexual purity.
Perhaps once they got their own house in order, people would be more responsive.
I’m glad Mr. Mohler can answer with such clarity, and I thank him for doing so.
Mr. Wilkins, all that I can state with authority is that I have been motivated to a greater sexual purity.
Don
To #1, Mr Wilkins,
They (the Evangelicals) may not have motivated to [i]greater[/i] sexual purity, but unlike TEC and the ACof Canada, the evangelicals haven’t urged their people to lesser sexual purity either. With respect, I don’t think your logic holds. When people are unable or unwilling to adhere to the higher standard, it won’t do to find a cast about for a standard that they find more attractive and then declare victory when everyone is happy. That is no standard at all.
#1 – We are all sinners and fall short. But that does not mean you throw out the standard just because you fail to meet it!
More to the point, there’s a fairly strong evidential case that we males have a biologically determined ‘orientation’ towards a certain degree of promiscuity. The essence of God’s wisdom is that the power of Christ — leveraged through the Holy Spirit — will enable us to overcome that orientation.
Biological ‘orientation’ does not get you off the hook for what God, in His eternal wisdom, has declared to be stupid, destructive, disloyal, selfish, lustful, and most decidedly out of His will.
Deal with it. Ya wanna schtup somebody with the same set of ‘nads as you? — God says He’ll have nothing to do with your rebellious heart. In fact, if you don’t care to listen to Him or submit to Him, He’ll give you over to you own stubborn hearts and leave you to follow your own devices (Psalm 81:11-12)
And he tells those of us who follow Him to have absolutely nothing to do with you (1Cor 5:9). So … at this point, those of us who follow Christ should have nothing to do with the Episcopal Church.
As currently constituted, it is not of God. Not even close.
I’m with Brien, and I’ve been saying that for years…just because many may fall short of a standard, that does not mean that we should have no standards, or even lower the standard. Plus, the standard is God’s and it’s not our job to lower it.
It should be noted that Ruth Gledhill denies Mohler’s characterization. I asked her “Do you agree with his characterization of your argument? In other words, he says that you believe Anglicans should “surrender[] the authority of his Word [i.e. the Holy Scriptures” – do you agree with that?”
She responded:
[blockquote] No, my position is not as he states it. This is what I just wrote to David Virtue who alerted me to the post and reproduced it at his website.
‘Thank you David. I appreciate his concern and in fact I am honoured to have merited such a considered response. The central point he makes is whether conservatives should ‘give way’ to liberals. He seems to think that is what I am suggesting but I am not saying they should, just that sexuality should not be a first order issue. So the diverging sides should be able to remain in communion with integrity while agreeing to disagree on this. As he says, many liberals (although not necessarily me) have also v fluid beliefs over things such as the Resurrection etc. But if that has been the case for so long, then why has the communion not broken up before now? How did it survive Spong and Robinson? What they said was in my view far more serious in its challenge to orthodox Christianity. If the communion stayed together over those more fundamental issues, it should surely stay together now and let God be the judge at the end.’ 5/18/2010 at 2:53pm (EDT) [/blockquote]
(this was a public facebook exchange)
One cannot lead the Church by compromising Biblical Truth. Social Justice is today’s phrase for justice via a secular humanistic worldview. As such, it rejects Christian Ethics and Biblical Morality. It is justice as perceived and embraced by fallen human beings. It is justice that embraces our sin and damages our relationship with God and each other.
It is true that evangelicals have failed to get their own house in order, but one cannot do so by compromising Biblical Truth, Christian ethics, and Biblical Morality that was clearly upheld by Christ and the Apostles. Yet, this is the “New Thing” the leadership of the Episcopal Church is touting as God’s New Way.
It is what is destroying the Episcopal Church, tearing the fabric of the Anglican Communion, and undermining the future of the American way of life.
It is all connected. Compassion is one thing but it cannot encourage others to embrace their sin over the righteousness of God.
#7 I think Ruth Gledhill’s self-perception of her argument is worth noting, but not decisive. The following factors count against her take on her own view:
1. Revisionist bloggers have generally enthusiastically welcomed her argument as a clear and convincing argument for their case, reasserters have seen it as a call to surrender. When there’s that kind of reception on both sides of the debate, it probably means Ruth Geldhill hasn’t understood her own position as well as she could.
2. Part of the debate is actually over whether it is a first order issue. Reasserters are saying that the Bible’s authority and a Christian view of sexuality and marriage are at stake. Reapprisers are saying that it’s no big deal, or that those views absolutely must be changed (two different groups in the other ‘camp’). By arguing that it is not first order, Ruth Gledhill is backing one group in the debate and doing so very strongly.
3. Let’s assume it’s not first order. What does disagreeing with integrity look like? Can reasserters oppose the ordination of practicing homosexuals? Can they oppose the consecration of practicing homosexuals? Can they preach against homosexual acts as sin and counsel those so engaged in their churches that they are in danger of Hell by such acts?
Or is the ‘disagree with integrity’ a bit like British secular views of Christian conscience – you can ‘disagree with integrity’ as long as there is no public face to that disagreement. Keep it in your head and don’t voice or act on it.
Does anyone really think that Ruth Gledhill’s view is, this isn’t first order, so those in favor of normalising homosexual activity should cease to speak and act on that basis in the interests of getting on with reasserters?
4. When Ruth Gledhill writes a stinging call for women bishops to be introduced with strong structural alternative provisions for those who disagree then there might be reason to think she really is calling for give and take in these debates. If it’s not a second order issue, then it shouldn’t be pursued in such a way as to force out those who disagree. Those wanting women bishops should be prepared to make big concessions in the interest of this great alliance. But without such a call to her ‘own side’ when they have the upper hand in one debate, this just looks like typical revisionist tactics that we’ve seen for decades:
First argue that this isn’t first order and freedom should be allowed for both sides.
Second create facts on the ground.
Third begin to require the other side to accept the new position because they allowed it to exist within the institution – require a certain level of acceptance from ordination candidates, bishop candidates, theological colleges and the like.
Fourth create structures that back the revised position and exclude the reasserter position.
5. And the argument:
[blockquote]As he says, many liberals (although not necessarily me) have also v fluid beliefs over things such as the Resurrection etc. But if that has been the case for so long, then why has the communion not broken up before now? How did it survive Spong and Robinson? [/blockquote]
Is just infuriating. Reapprisers constantly obfuscate their views, using traditional language and changing the meaning of the terms. They confess creeds they don’t believe, reinterpret doctrines so that they have no relationship to classic orthodoxy. And the whole time they constantly claim that they are merely working to find the essence of Christianity and state it anew for the current era. They rarely openly stand up and clearly say that they hate classic orthodoxy and seek to destroy and replace it. And when they do (like Spong) and actions are taken, they are protected by fellow reapprisers in positions of institutional authority.
But actions can’t be obsfuscated away the way words can. And so, unfortunately, we had to wait until Western sexual ethics had moved so far from Christian ones that reapprisers had to clearly show their hand in order to keep up with what Ruth Glehill refers to as current civil law. If reapprisers had been more honest and up front about their rejection of classic orthodoxy decades ago, this fight would have occurred decades ago. But the strategy was always to create a sphere of plausible deniability when dealing with orthodox sections of the communion. But ordaining openly practicing homosexuals and then consecrating two can’t be explained away the way that a sermon, or essay, or even book, can be. Hence the fight is now, and this is the presenting issue. But most reasserters will tell you that we are fighting this fight because it is ultimately about the Cross, the atonement, anthropology, sin, the Resurrection, the doctrine of God and of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the hope to come. A distinctly Christian ethic is an expression of a distinctly Christian theology. Just as reappriser appropriation of current civil law as the norm for their ethics is the expression of reapprisers holding lose to Christian doctrines.
RE: “The central point he makes is whether conservatives should ‘give way’ to liberals. He seems to think that is what I am suggesting but I am not saying they should, just that sexuality should not be a first order issue. So the diverging sides should be able to remain in communion with integrity while agreeing to disagree on this.”
See — she’s doing it *again*. It’s a “first-order” issue for *both sides* — the revisionists and the traditionalists. The idea of “remaining in communion” with the folks who are doing the very bad and anti-scriptural thing is *caving*. Why should our side have to say “okay, it’s second-order” while the other side gets to say [as they have] “it’s integral to our gospel and we must have it”?
If one side announces its for kleptomania and proceeds to bless stealing and the other side says “no — you’re violating Scripture and 2000 years of Christian tradition” it’s silly to then say “the diverging sides should be able to remain in communion with integrity while agreeing to disagree on this.”
That utterly violates the side opposed to the kleptomania blessings while allowing the other side to trundle on doing it.
No, it’s a first-order issue for both sides, and the two will not, ultimately, remain in the same organization over it, because the two gospels are antithetical.
And Mark Baddeley is spot on. You can’t obscure actions. For years, we were told “oh, it’s just a stray bishop or two being heretical” but when the highest body in the church legislatively, officially, formally, nationally acts, it’s not something that you can obscure or spin, despite 7 years of nobly attempting to do so — baldfacedly lying as has now been demonstrated by the Glasspool consecration.