As a province, I think we should do one of two things. We should either come out and say what we’re doing and why (with strong biblical and theological support), or we should stop doing it. If we take the first option, let’s face the consequences, if any. It is neither honest nor helpful to do something and then say we’re not doing it. It smacks of the worst kind of American imperialism to tell the primates that we’ve honored their requests, when we really haven’t.
Here’s another example. Resolution B033 from General Convention 2006 talks about refraining from the consent of candidates whose “manner of life” is problematic for others. Since we’re talking about GLBT people, let’s name them. It’s hardly honorable to place a burden on a class of people (and on the whole church, I think) without showing the burdened class the simple respect of at least naming them. Why didn’t we do that? Because our constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, perhaps. Or maybe because a motion that named LGBT people might not have passed that last-minute effort in Columbus. Either way, we’ve done something without saying what we’ve done.
Here’s my radical proposal — as solicited by Kendall Harmon — for breaking the impasse. (I’m sure it’s too late to have an effect in New Orleans, and I’m not sure any bishops other than my own bishop read this corner of cyberspace.)
Let’s say what we mean, and let’s mean what we say. All of us. Liberal and conservative. American and Nigerian. All of us.
If our bishops have discerned that now is the right time for ECUSA to move ahead with SSB’s and GLBT bishops, so be it. Let’s say that, go to Lambeth, and face the music. If we say that we’re not ready to authorize SSB’s, then let us ensure that they are not happening in our churches. Then if some priest (possibly including this one) wants to do them anyway, let’s face the consequences.
Read it all. I cannot say appropriately how much I appreciate this post. Bearing false witness is not a minor matter, and I do not think the New Orleans statement–and this is in keeping with a widespread pattern over the last number of years–tells the truth. A church that does not tell the truth will not prosper–KSH.
I agree with Scott’s proposal. While I am not happy with the HoB statements, I am hurt more by the obfuscation and outright dishonesty of the HoB statement rather than the actions of the HoB (which, in light of the recent statements are dishonest). Let’s all say what we mean and mean what we say. I find it ironic that the Gospel from Tuesday’s daily office lectionary included Matt 5:37: “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”
Jesus asked us for “Yes” or “No.” The Primates asked us for “Yes” or “No.” The HoB gave us “It depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Truly i don’t mean to be clever or snarky about this — but i can’t help but wonder (Canterbury and Lambeth and Nigeria aside) how a clear look for TEC would change things, over the next few years; what would openly authorized SSBs and LGBT bishops would look like in practice and imply in terms of theology to the remaining “everyday Episcopalians”? When local parishes and diocesan structures have to deal with exactly what it is all the changes lead towards, and see the unintended consquences (and no, i don’t mean another 10% departure, tho’ that would be part of it, inevitably), would Orthodoxy look more attractive to a remaining critical mass, or would the impetus to innovation just proceed apace?
And by unintended consequences, i mean exactly that. I don’t have a sense of what they would be, but if you make a major fiddle with a working structure to do *one thing* then you will always find more things working differently once you get rolling again after the tinkering.
In more congregational mainline/oldline denominations, with a very weak connectional theology/structure to start with, the gospel of radical individualism has led to huge declines in giving to general/national structures, while the empowerment of racial/ethnic caucuses has led to the rise of *very* conservative clergy groups who are African- or Hispanic-American to start proposing resolutions about, oh, sexual morality and support for welfare reform. But y’all in TEC know about that stuff already . . .
If the reappraiser leadership were honest, though, it could potentially weaken their claims to all TECs property in court. It behooves them to keep up the sham of trying to stay “united” to the global Anglican Communion as long as possible in order to frame themselves as the reasonable “good guys”, in opposition to the knee-jerk, hidebound, greedy, neo-cons. I think one of the main reasons why the reasserters have lost is because they’ve allowed their opponents to frame every argument, every disagreement in their language and their terms. You can’t win a fight if you let your enemy hog-tie you before you get going.
I truly lament the lack of honesty. Can the Bishops truly appreciate what a terrible witness this makes? To see this at the highest levels, to include the ABC, is truly disillusioning. I earnestly pray that all will let their “Yes” be “Yes” and their “No” be “No”.
I absolutely disagree with Russel+, but she is honest about her agenda and position. The scene with +Bruno and his dissembling was obscene and a terrible witness. On the level of truth telling Russel+ is by far the more honorable person.
In my year of active legal practice I saw many who elevated the act of lying to high art, but I never saw anything as bad as what has been practiced in TEC and the AC over the past years.
But this includes all of us. Do you say the Creeds and mean every word or do you cross your fingers? Do you participate in the liturgy week after week and believe less than half of it? We may fool ourselves, but we don’t fool God who alone can see our motivations and thoughts. And all of us are guilty to a greater or lessor degree.
Scott’s comments were written before the release of the current HoB statement. It is not a comment on the the HoB statement.
C.B. – but it is a comment on the statement because it seems that Scott had a pretty good idea of what the HoB statement would look like. Thier statement on the blessing of same sex unions is very close to the lie of “Quibbling” where the speaker knows exactly what the questioner was asking but decides to respond to the literal words rathern than the intent. It sounds very much like a husband or wife reply “No” to the question “did you sleep with someone else?” when they know that the person was asking about faithfulness in marriage and not about the physical act of sleeping and the did in fact have sex with another person, but didn’t actually fall asleep with them.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I am conflicted on this issue. There is obvious virtue in making a decision either to fish or cut bait. But the bishops are making one more attempt to find a way to stay in the Communion, and I think that is a worthy goal. It will not satisfy the ultra-conservatives who have never wanted anything but capitulation and grovelling in the dust (to avoid stoning), but it may satisfy enough moderates and even some conservative leaders in the AC to keep TEC at the table in conversation instead of driving the goat into the desert.
Bob,
If staying in the communion is a worthy goal, then say so and stop blessing ssu until the communion changes its mind. If blessing same sex unions is a worthy goal, then shake the dust off your feet and go. The Father will be waiting by the gate until you return. (Luke 15)
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Effective change comes from very strange places at times of impasse. It seems to me that this has been such a time. Unfortunately, the focus of the reasserting community and leadership has been on the strength of its biblical and historical stance. As such, the focus has been to try and reason with the centrists who have not committed themselves. We have given up on the progressives.
Scott Gunn’s article highlights the importance of a new strategic approach. Rather than expending energy on challenging the centrists from the orthodox theological perspective, we should tackle this impasse with the assistance of unlikely allies against obfuscation. Such allies may be found in the likes of progressives such as Scott. We would be seeking not to agree on theological positions (despite the fact I think we can more persuade those who are willing to looking at the issues more honestly) but rather in tackling the issues with people who are going to be honest about the differences. Reasserters may disagree with Scott’s position on the debatable issues, however, his interest in calling a spade a spade makes it more probable that we can come up with a more honest solution that we can both live with despite not necessarily being happy with it. If reasserters and progressives such as Scott got together to fight the obfuscation going on, then we could haggle out this issue with more honesty. I’d rather debate the issues with a worthwhile opponent who knows the issues and wants to haggle them rather than with a wishy washy individual who has no solid footing in any position. It’s a waste of time.
It certainly would be more truthful and enlightening than any dialogue we could ever have with the likes of Bruno, Chane, Schori and other members of the 3 O’s (Order of Obfuscators).
Scott says about the HoB’s statement that “it is clearer than [he] expected” and “the bishops have answered the primates’ requests.” So I don’t see that he sees that there is any false witness in the actual statement.
BTW,
I commend Kendall on his graciousness to Mr. Gunn. It sets a very appropriate example for many of us in the reasserting community of bloggers. Perhaps he is the right person in the American reasserting camp to try to foster such dialogue between non-obsfuscating reasserters and progressives. Kudos Kendall. Email if you need help!
to keep TEC at the table in conversation instead of driving the goat into the desert.
That goat has been driving itself, Bob. I think we should all be as honest as we can be and go from there. I don’t want the communion to break up, but if the only way we can keep it together is by lying to each other, what do we really have?
Scott’s proposal ignores that ambiguity often is not a bad thing.
—————
Scott writes: “If we say that we’re not ready to authorize SSB’s, then let us ensure that they are not happening in our churches. Then if some priest (possibly including this one) wants to do them anyway, let’s face the consequences.”
That’s the fallacy of the false dichotomy (which seems to be a recurring problem among some traditionalists). It doesn’t have to be either-or, where the bishops must either authorize and encourage SSB, or flat-out prohibit them, with nothing in between.
There is indeed a middle ground, and the House of Bishops seems to be taking it: “As a body, we won’t authorize or encourage SSB. But neither are we as a body prepared to prohibit them. As a body, we’re remaining neutral, taking no position. Priests who feel called to perform SSB, and whose bishops don’t prohibit it, are free to do so. And we’ll all learn from what follows.”
Given the divisions within TEC on this subject, that’s not at all an unreasonable course of action. What is unreasonable, not to mention unseemly, is all the second-guessing of the bishops that’s going on about it.
In case I wasn’t clear about the fallacy of the false dichotomy, I wasn’t implying that Scott Gunn is a traditionalist, only that I usually run across that particular fallacy in traditionalist writings.
I, too, think that all the “sides” need to come out and say exactly what they mean. One of the problems I’ve been having with what’s been going on lately is that the roots of it extend further back than I think most people in the pews could even remember. While I hope I understand the fixation of some on the issues of sexuality, I believe that that isue, as well as some others, has deeper roots. So, again, I would ask each and every bishop worldwide, if possible, to state unequivocally where they stand on a whole host of issues, particularly those which are sometimes characterized as “innovations.” Even if that “where” happens to be “I just don’t know.” There can be absolutely no solving of any problem anywhere at any time without a clear understanding of the full identity of that problem. Somebody posted a few days ago saying, in essence, we don’t know what, exactly, the baby is that we’re splitting. It’s high time we give ourselves the highest and best opportunity to KNOW. Now.
The HOB statement is further proof that the liberal pecusa leadership is incapable of speaking the truth. They continue to produce dishonest statements and when they are asked to provide solid biblical and theological reasoning for their actions they produce the kind of drivel we find in To Set Our Hope on Christ. No honesty, no biblical warrant, no credible theology – this is what we have received thus far, so why should we expect even the possibility of something better from these folks?
What this is, D.C., is a fallacy of the fallacies, a somewhat-common meme among the Left. Normally, they smugly link to the “slippery slope fallacy” somewhere, even though that is rarely the argument being advanced by the target.
Same thing here: Scott Gunn isn’t saying this is an either-or situation. He’s saying there are two paths that are intellectualy honest, not that there are only two paths, and the path taken by the HOB, while obviously an option (since it was taken), is deceitful. Fair enough if you want to add the “middle ground” you describe to Scott’s list of options with integrity, but what you described isn’t what the HOB did. Gunn’s point stands.
D.C. This is not a false dichotomy. Either God blesses homosexual sex in certain circumstances or He doesn’t. The Church has always said that homosexual sex is sinful – in all circumstances. Even in the Greek world where homosexual sex was accepted, the Church didn’t find it acceptable. So, if we are going to change now, we need to have the reasons for that change laid out and accepted before we act on the change. If you want to do “private” SSU blessings then there is nothing a bishop can do about it. But if there is an announcement in the paper (mentioning the priest) or the ceremony is performed on the Church property, then the ceremony is not considered “private.”
I agree with Scott Gunn that those who believe that God is doing a “new thing” should be bold enough in their convictions to accept the consequences of their actions and beliefs. If that means that TECUSA is out of the Anglican Communion, then so be it. However, if communion is a greater good than God’s “new thing” then they should stop the “new thing” until the communion changes its mind.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
DC a bishop has the authroity to probihibit a priest in his diocese from officiating at any ssbs in his diocese. If he catches them they can be inhibited or subjected to other discipline.
Your argument is nothing more than bank robbery is “Ok” if the criminal doesn’t get caught.
If TEC is going to allow local option then it is permitting it and to say that such is not “officially allowed” is simply not true.
DC says, [blockquote] “There is indeed a middle ground, and the House of Bishops seems to be taking it: “As a body, we won’t authorize or encourage SSB. But neither are we as a body prepared to prohibit them. As a body, we’re remaining neutral, taking no position. Priests who feel called to perform SSB, and whose bishops don’t prohibit it, are free to do so. And we’ll all learn from what follows.â€[/blockquote]
This is not neutral language, it is not a middle ground, it is authorization pure and simple. Failure to prohibit is authorization.
[blockquote] There is indeed a middle ground, and the House of Bishops seems to be taking it: “As a body, we won’t authorize or encourage SSB. But neither are we as a body prepared to prohibit them. As a body, we’re remaining neutral, taking no position. Priests who feel called to perform SSB, and whose bishops don’t prohibit it, are free to do so. And we’ll all learn from what follows.†[/blockquote]
Rev. 3:14-16 is brought to mind…no?
Br. Michael [#24] writes: “Failure to prohibit is authorization.”
Nonsense. Here’s what your logic would lead to, Br. Michael:
• In Jena, Louisiana, white teenagers hung nooses from a tree, supposedly as a “prank.” Their action was roundly and rightly condemned, but the district attorney and the U.S. attorney (an African-American) concluded that neither Louisiana nor federal law prohibited the action. Does that mean that the Louisiana governor and legislature, and Congress and the president, “authorized” the teenagers to hang nooses from a tree? Of course not; but that’s what you seem to be arguing.
• Another example: A couple of years ago, my teen-aged son drove “his” old four-wheel-drive pick-up truck into a muddy field to help pull out another vehicle that had gotten stuck. The mud ended up damaging his brakes. I hadn’t prohibited him from driving in mud, nor did I do so afterwards. Did I thereby “authorize” him to drive in mud, or to damage his brakes? Don’t be silly; I left it up to his judgment, but that’s certainly not the same as “authorizing” him to do so.
[blockquote]There is obvious virtue in making a decision either to fish or cut bait. But the bishops are making one more attempt to find a way to stay in the Communion, and I think that is a worthy goal.[/blockquote]
Not if they are dihonest in order to reach that goal.
[blockquote]ambiguity [b]often[/b] is not a bad thing[/blockquote]
Then obviously there [b]are[/b] occasions that specificity.
ugh! That was supposed to be “Then, obviously, there are occasions that [i]require[/i] specificity. My apologies.
Rarely do I agree with my brothers and sisters on this blog, but I agree wholeheartedly that we need to clearly state what is happening in TEC. I was appalled at the Bishops unwillingness to take an honest stance and move on. I resent this quibbling about “what ‘is’ is”. And let’s demand an accounting from Bishop Jon Bruno. Just what the heck was he trying to say or dodge in that press conference? The bishops are acting more like buffons than bishops!
DC, it is when that is the issue under discussion and it is the issue you have been asked to deal with. Frankly I find your logic lacking and your defense of dishonesty disappoinitng. Fred gets it.
DC, I have to agree, your middle ground looks like authorization to me. Your analogies aren’t quite on all fours, as the things you analogize to are not presumably prohibited. In our church, supposedly ssbs are prohibited unless GC passes a resolution allowing them (at least that is the way my very reappraising bishop in Atlanta indicates he understands things … and he does not allow ssbs, far as I know). Moreover, your middle ground is not what the HOB said. It may have the same effect, but it is not what the bishops said, and that is the whole point. If that is what they meant, then why not say it, just like you did. They didn’t; you did. So why is that? You had nothing to lose. They do. They know or fear (they refuse to take a poll) that the majority of the pew sitters, if they knew what this was all about, would never endorse ssbs or the consecration of more non-celibate homosexuals, and would pull their support (and worse, their money – and believe me, bishops are most concerned about money). So they are trying to create subterfuge so their pewsitters won’t know what they are doing (and allowing) in “private” ceremonies, which are actually “public.” Our bishops are used to controlling the information that gets to their pewsitters. They have always been able to do that. And to a great degree they still do. But, now the internet and blogging is starting to undermine this control, and Bp Bruno found that out the hard way in NO.
Br. Michael [#30], military superiors and cross-examining lawyers have legitimate reasons to demand that their questions be answered. Otherwise, though, it’s only gotcha journalists and petulant adolescents who have the effrontery to make such demands, as though they had some divine right to command others to speak.
As Miss Manners so often says in her column, the proper answer to a rude question is a non-answer. (Or less tactfully: “It’s none of your [expletive] business.”)
D.C., your analogies don’t work (other than to correctly compare other wrong behaviors to SSB). Now, if your son was off-roading in the mud and reeling off brake jobs every couple of weeks, and you had asked him to stop, but more in the manner of “tsk, tsk” as an aside while reading the newspaper, and never actually threatened to or actually took the truck away, you’d have an analogy to ECUSA. And, in that case, yes, I would say you would essentially be authorizing your son to ruin his brakes with regularity.
D.C. Your analogy in Jena or with your son would work if you had prior knowledge that people were putting nooses in trees or your son was want to drive his truck improperly.
The problem is that many priests are operating on a “You have my permission to not need my permission” basis. The bishop knows that public SSBs are happening in his diocese and he also knows that he (and he alone) is responsible for services not in the BCP or the Book of Occassional Services. The BCP does not give the bishop the authority to delegate the creation of new liturgies, rites, or sacraments. In the case of +Bruno, he even participated in a SSU blessing, but had the audacity to say that SSBs don’t happen with his permission. I guess in his case, it was just a rogue cleric performing the ssb. This is a “back door” authorization. You can almost see the bishops say: “I don’t authorize any rites for ssb (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).” Why can’t it simply be “Yes” or “no.” Why can’t our bishops simply say what they mean?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil [#29] and Phil Snyder [#30], what if both the Louisiana legislature and Congress passed “mind of the house” resolutions condemning hanging nooses in trees, but elected not to criminalize such conduct? (As well they might, for First Amendment reasons among others.) Would they be “authorizing” such conduct? You seem to think so; I think not.
As to my pickup truck analogy: I carefully said that my son drove into the mud to pull someone else out; it was only later that he (we) learned that he had thereby damaged his brakes. So as it happened, his Good-Samaritan intentions didn’t work out all that well, at least not for me, but I wasn’t going to second-guess his intentions, nor his judgment, by giving him a blanket prohibition against driving in mud.
It seems to me that we’re in a similar situation concerning SSBs (I know you disagree). We don’t know yet whether the eventual costs will outweigh the benefits, and the views of the various scriptural authors cannot the final word on that subject (or any other).
So if Bishop Bruno sees fit NOT to prohibit his front-line clergy from doing private SSBs, or even to authorize such action, it’s inappropriate for the rest of us to be second-guessing his decision. By the same token, if Bishop Wimberly won’t let his clergy do SSBs (which he won’t), that’s also his decision (although as a member of his diocese I hope he changes his mind), and not to be second-guessed by others.
And circling back to the House of Bishops decision: Personally I might have preferred for the HoB to tell the Global South primates to butt out, in no uncertain terms, and let the chips fall where they may. Most people here would have preferred just the opposite, namely a prohibition of SSBs and active-gay consecrations, accompanied by sackcloth and ashes.
But none of us are charged with that particular responsibility. All this criticism of the HoB’s decision, from both ends of the ideological spectrum, accusing them of bearing false witness and worse, comes across as the worst kind of enraged Monday-morning quarterbacking.
DC, I think we will let your answers speak for themselves. As a government lawyer I heard insurance company executives who stole millions make the same justifications. They didn’t lie, they just didn’t tell the truth.
A church that does not tell the truth will not prosper
Kendall, you are completely wrong about that. The record shows that dishonest churches are growing churches.
Think of the Catholic Church’s manner of dealing with the clergy abuse scandal. Was that honest? Nope. They’re growing anyway.
My favorite is the Mormon Church, with all it does to cover up and sanitize its history. Their claims are utterly provably false, and their apologists spin, spin, spin. And yet, they’re twice as big as the Episcopal Church, at least. They are proof positive that in the world of religion, dishonesty pays.
I agree there are honesty issues with the latest statement from the HoB. But when it comes to being honest and open about problems with scripture instead of covering them up, conflict of science vs. religion, the Episcopal Church has a rather good record. It has paid a great price for that honesty.
#10, right, I think the final statement is pretty clear. I happen to like its contents, though many won’t, obviously. The fact that it passed with only one “no” vote (and, of course, a few absent bishops) suggests that the HoB took their vocation of unity very seriously. I was particularly grateful for the clarity around SSBs. My understanding is that a recurring theme among the JSC members who addressed the bishops was a desire for precise and clear language. I’m glad the bishops listened (maybe to bloggers too?).
#13, yes, Anglicanisms embrace of ambiguity is something I treasure, and it’s the reason I personally could become an Anglican. I don’t mind ambiguity (“Some of us will respond to SSBs differently”), but I’m not a fan of obfuscation. The HoB did not do what I feared they would do, which would have been to say “We haven’t authorized rites, etc., so we’ve met the terms of the communique.” I think our bishops have laid out the current state of affairs in the church. Now we’ll see how the AC responds.
SG+
D.C., your analogy collapses in the face of the Bruno interview and his history of doing SSB’s (leading by example?).
Phil Snyder, thank you for your clear and lucid comments. I especially liked the recent one about burden of proof. Reappraisers have simply assumed the conclusion they want.
Scott Gunn, thank you for an eloquent plea for honesty. I, too, can live with ambiguity. But there has to be some agreed starting point from which ambiguity can arise. I have yet to see any intellectually-defensible case that the Bible can support the promotion of SSU’s. Interestingly, some SSU advocates (e.g. Wink) admit this and start from the premise that the Bible is simply wrong.
OF course, the problem is that if we wise moderns simply override the Bible whenever it is convenient, does anything in the Bible have any authority? (Of course this would not apply in the cases of changes explicitly or implicitly authorized by the Bible itself, an important distinction that seems lost to most reappraisers, given the plethora of invocations of the “shellfish argument”.)
More disturbing is TEC’s willful ignorance of science in the desperate attempt to rationalize its preferred theology. The HoB’s admitted exclusion of the last 10-12 years of research (documented earlier on this blog) is dishonest and anti-intellectual. I am appalled to hear the continued calls for “conversation” while witnessing TEC’s (and ACC’s) systematic exclusion of ex-gays, ensuring that only one side can be heard. For years I have attempted to obtain an explanation from reappraisers all the way up to 815. The response has always been denial, charges of “bigotry”, or changing the subject. It saddens me to see this example of, “My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts!” destroying a church that had so much to offer the world.
#35, I agree that the Biblical case for SSB’s is not easy. I need to re-read “To set our hope on Christ,” which was written to do that. Of course, there are other books/articles out there. I’ll take this up on my little blog in October, I hope.
[blockquote]OF course, the problem is that if we wise moderns simply override the Bible whenever it is convenient, does anything in the Bible have any authority? (Of course this would not apply in the cases of changes explicitly or implicitly authorized by the Bible itself, an important distinction that seems lost to most reappraisers, given the plethora of invocations of the “shellfish argumentâ€.)[/blockquote]
I agree that the supposed distinctions of civil, moral, and ceremonial law are often overlooked. But let me ask you this: why is slavery wrong? That’s clearly OK in the N.T. Have you given up all your possessions? That’s required by Christ himself to be his follower. Do you pay your priest? That seems contrary to what Christ wanted for his leaders. My point is this: we all read the Bible with sophisticated hermeneutics in place. Things break down very quickly when we (it happens on the right & left) won’t admit that.
I think we modern Christians can be sophisticated enough to say that there are parts of the Bible we regard as morally binding, and not other parts. Again, this is a book-length argument to engage, and I’ll try to write a little something in October. Mostly, I hope to link to others. I’m not clever enough to write all that!
Peace,
Scott+
To be honest, I have a problem with the reappraisers lack of honesty and this leads to quite negative feelings towards many of them. It is hard for me to look at the video of the smug and smirking Bruno and not detest him when he says, “Not in my diocese.”
But I know that when the schism becomes finalized in the TEc, there will be some on the other side of the fence that I really respect. In some sense, it will be a good thing that, after we have formally parted, we ironically can come together and embrace in friendship. I put Knick Knisely in this category and now also Scott Gunn.
Thanks, Scott.
Scott, thanks for your comments. I disagree that slavery is OK in the NT. I think that the best characterization of it is a grudging tolerance, recognizing it as another face of human sinfulness.
You state that the case for SSB is hard. Indeed, but does that excuse the kind of dishonest advocacy I described? If we are truly seeking the truth, we would want all the evidence to be considered. By definition, those who suppress evidence are not seeking truth but a predetermined outcome.
Sorry I have to say this, I just can’t get the image out of my mind. + Bruno’s interview reminds me of the character Sgt. Hans Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes. I know nothing!
If it were not so sad, it would be amusing to read D.C., who repeatedly claims that the only binding parts of the NT are the moral teachings of the One who said “Yet your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ ,” defending the blatant obfuscation of the HOB by insisting that those who disapprove of such transparent deception just do not understand logic.
The “slavery argument” as a measure of the degree to which scripture is modified by custom and as a justification of modifying it at will, is an unsound argument.
Why is slavery wrong? It is not wrong in some absolute sense, in spite of contemporary American opinion. On the other hand, it is unconstitutional; and if this is one’s definition of “wrong” then “wrong it will be, but there is no evidence that it is wrong in the blblical sense. It is difficult to make such an argument in the US because black slavery violates the American sense of individualism and equality before the law.
But for Christ, of course, we are also equal before the law, but quite a different law it is. One may be a good Christian and be a slave, and one may be a good Christian and be a servant. We simply are not willing to admit the Law which Christ spoke of is not the one we like.
the same qualification may be added to following Christ and giving away everything one owns. We don’t do it. But then, Christ did not say that all should do it, but only those who chose to follow him literally. Can one own two houses, three cars, a five car garage, have a retirement fund of many million dollars, live in a gated community and still get through the needle’s eye? This is a different matter, isn’t it? What is the interior state of one who has spent his life amassing possessions?
And let us consider a minute the OT argument that we should not suffer a witch to live. This is often cited as a case where no sensible man would follow the injunction, even if so declared biblically. But this is also a dubious assertion. Let us suppose for a moment that witches really do exist, and that the dangers ascribed to them are in fact real. If that were so, would you really suffer a witch to live? LM
I am willing to grant that the text requires interpretation. I am not willing to grant that it is as open as those argue who wish to say that their own agenda is in fact a legitimate reading of scripture.
“A church that does not tell the truth will not prosper”
Kendall, you are completely wrong about that. The record shows that dishonest churches are growing churches.
Think of the Catholic Church’s manner of dealing with the clergy abuse scandal. Was that honest? Nope. They’re growing anyway.
There is a critical difference here. The Catholic Bishops handled clergy discipline abominably, but does anybody really think that the Catholic Church is not honest about what it’s teaching is? Who thinks that Catholicism can be read to support priest/altar server unions? The mind of the Catholic Church is firmly made up on that. There are probably individual Catholics who really think that priestly buggery is OK, but there are so many Catholics somebody was bound to think it. Nobody known to be that far off the traditional moral range is a chancellor, however.
What is really driving people crazy about what the Episcopal bishops are saying is that you cannot know what the teaching of TEC is right now. You just can’t, because equally authoritative Episcopalians either contradict each other flatly or say nothing at great length.