More meetings, more conversation, all the way to Lambeth, and most likely beyond.
It appears that Dr, Williams has taken the position that the consensus of the Communion is against TEC, and so in order to “articulate the mind of the Communion,” Dr. Williams has adopted that position. The only reason he will not give up on TEC, will not agree that the mission and ministry has failed, is because of the existence of the “Windsor” bishops and others who follow the Communion’s consensus.
Dr. Williams has polled the Communion, and has now come out in support of what he considers the majority view. It is rather ironic that he would make his stand on such a basis, while at the same time calling into question TEC’s democratic model.
This letter will probably manage to hold the Communion together through Lambeth, although it is doubtful if it will be enough to carry us through GC2009.
Dr. Williams has chosen to support those who would exclude others from the Church based on the questionable translation of seven verses from scripture. The concrete act which exemplifies his decision to support that position is his insistence on continuing to exclude Bp. Robinson from Lambeth. He seems to not recognize that by barring Bp. Robinson, he has silenced the most qualified representative of those being persecuted in the Church today. In so doing, it is Dr. Williams who has expressed a “refusal of the cross – and so of the resurrection.”
Persecuted? Has Dave Beers opened up on Integrity?
#1 My eyes blinked on the same verb. Then I realized that polemics such as this only serve to bring up Monty Pythonesque visions of “nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!” and in reality undermine the argument proffered.
Fr. Jake, as usual you wilfully get it wrong by desparately grasping at straws and (to mix metaphors) mistaking the tip of the iceberg for the ship-sinking mass beneath the surface:
[blockquote]Dr. Williams has chosen to support those who would exclude others from the Church based on the questionable translation of seven verses from scripture.[/blockquote]
Your camp’s deliberate ignoring and discounting these verses is bad enough, to the total absence of ANY Scripture giving even a neutral, let alone a positive, view of homosexual and lesbian sex.
But it’s the “questionable translation” of most of the rest of Scripture, especially trivial side issues (NOT!) such as:
-the Fall of man,
-the resulting corrupt and sinful human nature needing to be redeemed by sacrifice,
-the continuing force of the moral provisions of the Law though the specific ritual obligations have passed,
-the many and detailed OT prophecies of Messiah fulfilled to the last detail by Jesus,
-His affirmation of the OT as the Word of God and as the word of the Father by referring to nearly every book of the OT as true and as prophecy not history written after the fact,
-Jesus’ claim of full divinity and equality with the Father not lessened by His submission to the Father in His humanity to be the second Adam and so an acceptable and sufficient sacrifice for all the sins of all who receive Him as Saviour,
-His many prophecies of His death and [b]bodily[/b] resurrection not understood and accepted by even His disciples until they took place,
-His ascension bodily into Heaven seen as a vertical ascent through the clouds out of sight by the disciples (a condescension to our human understanding of “up”),
-His appearances to Stephen, Paul and John after His ascension, the “faith received once for all by the disciples” (read the last chapter of Luke if you deny that was ever done and you will see Who gave it to be received),
-the affirmation of Paul’s letters as Scripture by Peter, the affirmation of Scripture as God’s word to us by Peter and Paul,
-the certainity of coming eternal judgment with “many” falling short and “few” finding the door to life,
-the utter impossibility of being saved by our own efforts or goodness,
-preaching the Gospel of salvation from sin being of prime importance while not excusing us from meeting people’s temporal physical needs,
-Jesus’ welcoming all who came to Him as they were but [b]never leaving[/b] them as they were without total personal [b]transformation[/b] rather than affirmation of their sins.
Pardon me if I have omitted any other trivialities. 😉
Oh, for Heaven’s sake, Milton, this isn’t an issue of evidence. Y ou know that as we all do. I don’t know who Fa ther Jake is, but doesn’t he deserve to be ignored? Larry
Well, Larry, among many, especially reappraisers, silence is taken as assent and agreement. Error should be countered with truth, no? Peter wrote that we should always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that lives within us and Jude told us to contend earnestly for the faith delivered once for all to the saints.
Questionable translation of 7 Bible verses? No Jake, based on the organic growth of Christianity out of the Afro-Asiatic worldview, which is reflected in the entirety of Scripture, and not only in the Bible, but also among other Afro-Asiatic texts such as the Vedas. You are out on a limb, Jake.
Well, this would explain 815’s zeal for lawsuits. It’s only sanctioned by one passage in Scripture….only 1/7th of the sin sodomy is, it would seem.
LOL!! I cross-posted my 1st comment above at the snake-oil salesman’s (Fr. Jake’s) blog, where it stood long enough to get the expected objections but no issue-oriented rebuttals (save one reasonable commenter at length). Fr. Jake’s reaction?
“Milton, that is extremist propaganda. Not allowed here.”
I commented after that how he only wanted to talk to himself or echoes of his own opinions since he objects to anyone who disagrees with him, even without name-calling, attacks or abuse. Shortly after that he deleted my 3 comments, though not the vaporous rebuttals (1 exception to that noted above). Perhaps he has done me the honor of banning me, too, though I will put my time to better use than to check and see.
Here is the reality, folks. It’s all changing – socially, scientifically, and theologically. The question is whether the advocates of change have it right or whether those opposed to change are correct.
In the very similar dynamic that took place during the Copernican Revolution and paradigm shift away from the Ptolemaic model of the heavens, which placed Earth at the center of the Universe, we are seeing a change in the way we interpret the Bible regarding same-sex relationships. This issue is not nearly as dramatic or substantial a shift, to say the least, but the dynamic is very similar. Back in the 1500’s, during the same time Anglicanism was developing, the Bible didn’t change, God’s universe didn’t change, but our understanding of it all and the Bible most certainly did. The Bible was right and we were wrong! There were those within the Church that started wars and that killed other Christians because those other Christians advocating for change actually believed that the earth was not at the center of the God’s created universe.
Church history is so full of these kinds of shifts in our understanding of God’s written Word. There were wars and rumors of wars (literally or figuratively) during those past dramatic changes in our understanding of God’s Word. We are in the midst of another such change.
Father Jake is right in that all this truly is a result of the interpretation of seven or so verses of Scripture. The Church has been seduced by the world’s way of dealing with argument and change – just look at our secular politics and how similar we are acting. But, history will show that in the same way Church leaders and Christians in times past insisted on continued wrong interpretations of Scripture despite the evidence, there are those today that continue in that same way.
All one has to do is look at the attitudes of the next generations and the increasing recognition by scholars, Evangelical and others, that the way we have historically dealt with homosexuality has been wrong and will not stand – because our understanding of and application of Scripture on this issue has been wrong. The Bible hasn’t been wrong, but we have been wrong.
Not everyone who advocates for change rejects Scripture. There is simply a different interpretation of it and history will show whether the change is correct or not, just like in past controversies. Advocating for the change in our wrong understanding of Scripture related to same-sex relationships does not mean that the person or group rejects the authority of Scripture (although some certainly do), no matter how opponents of change like to paint the picture. Anyone who has followed this controversy for the last 40 years (that’s just my timeframe) in all parts of the universal Church will recognize that society and the Church have changed and will continue to change, no matter how strenuously some demand that it stop.
Believe it or not, there are still people who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, that blacks are sub-human, that there shouldn’t be interracial marriages, and all manner of other antiquated holdovers of wrong Biblical interpretations. The issue of homosexuality will be another one of these issues, and there will always be some Christians who hold onto wrong interpretations of Scripture.
[blockquote]Believe it or not, there are still people who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, that blacks are sub-human, that there shouldn’t be interracial marriages, and all manner of other antiquated holdovers of wrong Biblical interpretations. [/blockquote]
Yes, Bob, and those of us who study not only Scripture, Tradition & Reason but also science and culture have little doubt that soon the notion of “there is s seperate catagory of ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ humnas and we get to interpret Scripture differently” will soon be among them.
I fail to understand why the TEC Bishops and their leftwing supporters cannot understand that if the approval of the House of Bishops is required to approve a Bishop or rites for ssb then they alone have the power to clearly state that they can block both such actions independently of whatever the House of Deputies or Standing Commitees want to do – they have a veto (just like 51 us senators can agree to block anything that the house of representatives wish to do) – they only need to agree that they will exercise the power that they posess.
Bob G,
Homosexual acts are viscerally and instinctively repulsive to the overwhelming majority because, like incestuous sexual relations, they are an evolutionary dead end. There is simply no way to normalize what a million years of evolution says is not normal. So if you won’t listen to the theology, perhaps the biology will convince you.
#12 – These are tired attitudes. I can even remember, and know through personal experience the reactions of people who were (and perhaps still are) repulsed by relationships between blacks and whites. What people are repulsed by has little bearing on what should or should not be. Homosexuality is nothing like incest for a whole manner of reasons, and you know it. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a “dead end,” (which is based on the idea that procreation is the pinnacle of our reason for existence) homosexuals are a part of nature in species in addition to homo-sapiens – a part of the natural order for as long as we can determine. Humans who are sterile are also a “dead-end,” but for whatever reason they are part of the natural order and we do not condemn them to hell or regard them as being repulsive.
[blockquote]What people are repulsed by has little bearing on what should or should not be.[/blockquote]
This is the statement of a man determined to live by ideology rather than biology. In other words, you are trying to break laws that cannot be broken. Good luck in your efforts. Overcoming instinctive repulsion to unhygienic and inherently injurious behavior takes a lot of work.
Sorry, Reactionary, that is not what I am doing or trying to do. What laws? Certainly not the Biblical laws that we as Christians are governed by. You make huge assumptions about what you think all homosexuals do or don’t do. Frankly, any of those behaviors that may be injurious or unhygienic are done by heterosexuals as much as homosexuals. All one has to do is be aware of what is truly going on in society to understand this. Not all heterosexuals or homosexuals engage in such behaviors.
Bob G,
Presumably you know what’s required to make babies and the sort of detritus a sexually licentious society leaves you with. Those are the laws sexual deviants are trying to break.
Also, could you tell me what nice safe behaviors homosexuals engage in which still enables them to define themselves as “homosexual?” As Larry Morse has suggested, you should read what homosexuals say when they are only talking to each other. There is a sanguine view of homosexual relationships out there that is not warranted.
[i] This thread is beginning to stray off topic. Please return
to a discussion of the post. [/i]
“Believe it or not, there are still people who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, that blacks are sub-human, that there shouldn’t be interracial marriages, and all manner of other antiquated holdovers of wrong Biblical interpretations” —Bob G
This is a particularly nasty dollop of the Shellfish Fallacy.
The Bible did not cause people to take a Ptolemaic view of the universe. They already did.
The Bible did not cause people to view people of other races as subhuman. They did so in defiance of the Bible. The very idea of “subhuman” people is an Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment notion inimical to Biblical teaching. (And don’t “curse of Ham” me; nowhere does the Bible question Ham’s continuing humanity.) As Winthrop Jordan demonstrates in his landmark book, White Over Black, Western racism grew out of slavery and represented a triumph of expediency.
Nowhere does the New Testament teach against interracial marriage. Old Testament teachings against Israelites intermarrying with Canaanites and others (who were, incidentally, of the same “race” as Israelites) have never been understood as binding Christians.
Reactionary – being homosexual is no more or no less about sex acts than is being heterosexual. That is the stereotypical definition common among a good many people, but it is not accurate. The affectual and sexual attraction of a member of the same or opposite sex determines whether one is homosexual or heterosexual. What sexual acts or behavior people of either orientation engage is not the question of being, but of behavior. Those who insist that being homosexual is about nothing but sexual intercourse are off base. This is why evangelism to homosexuals is so ineffective – the basic perception of who and what gay people are is so off base by so many Christians.
Bob G [#19]: You make reasonable points. But note that gay activists and their allies regularly make arguments presuming that people who feel same-sex attractions must act on those feelings. Thus reappraisers assert that we cannot possibly “welcome” gay people unless we approve of gay sexual conduct.
Irenaeus (#18) – I never said that Bible was at fault or the cause; I said that we are and that we are at fault as we try to rightly interpret the Scriptures and apply them to our world. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? It isn’t the Bible that is wrong or the cause, it is US! As Father Jake states, this present controversy revolves around the interpretation of seven (or so) verses. Some say we have traditionally interpreted them wrongly, most insist that we haven’t. Which group is right?
Another thing people have such a difficult time with is being able to place themselves back in history without transposing what we already know and understand today. There were at the time all kinds of biblical justifications of an earth-centered universe, slavery, prohibitions on inter-racial marriages, et cetera, et cetera. During those times, that is how people understood Scripture and how they applied it. We now look back with hindsight and realize their mistakes, the past mistakes in their interpretation and application of Scripture.
We, today, are as blind to our wrong interpretations as they were then. Homosexuality is a current day “inter-racial marriage” or “earth-centered universe.” The controversies are different, but the dynamics in the working out of the problem are the so similar. When a challenge comes to our current interpretations of Scripture dealing with hot-button social issues, there is a cry to stop and of heresy. Only through hindsight will future generations be able to declare whether the “reasserters” or the “reappraisers” are right with regard to our interpretation and application of Scripture concerning same-sex relationships. Rowan understands this, IMHO, and keeps calling us to wrestle, fight, examine, study, pray, discuss, but for God’s sake stay together as do it. For iron to sharpen iron, there has to be two pieces of iron.
Fr. Jake’s blog proclaims that it welcomes discussion and different opinions, but “extremist propaganda”, at least in Fr. Jake’s eyes, is unacceptable. Apparently for my “extremist propaganda” in my first comment above, pasted to FJSTW’s comments, I have earned the high honor of being Banned By Jake. Probably contributing to the award was my comment that he seems to like talking to himself or others’ echoes of his own opinion after labeling my comment as EP. Ya think? 😉
Bob G+, how would you go about evangelizing homosexuals? Would you tell them that God loves them just the way they are; that repentance is not necessary for salvation? Would you invite them to Bible studies? And what would you discuss at the Bible studies?
In refernce to your comments #9 and 21, the ancient Afro-Asiatic peoples, from whom we receive the Bible, didn’t believe in a flat earth. They were actually very sophisticated. Africans were performing brain surgery in the Congo Basin 10,000 years ago. They were operating complex mining operations in the Lebombo Mountains 80,000 years ago. They also had an experience of slavery very different than that which most Americans think of, as slaves were often people in a high caste, and therefore quite well off. This continued until the time of Jesus. That is one reason St. Paul didn’t attack the institution of slavery.
I encourage you to do some reading at the blog listed below.
Bob G [#21]: Of course we must all be wary of reading our blind spots into scripture.
But reappraisers now commit same type of error as Christians of past centuries who purported to find Biblical sanction for slavery, antimiscegenation laws, Social Darwinism, and the like: seeking to CONFORM SCRIPTURE TO SECULAR CULTURE.
Alice, to add to your examples from Scripture, in the oldest book of the Bible Job affirms that the LORD has “inscribed a circle on the face of the waters” and that He “hangeth the earth on nothing” rather than having a flat earth supported on the backs of elephants. The LORD could teach ancient people science beyond their measuring instruments when it suited His purposes!
Alice – one goes about telling homosexual people of Jesus the same way one goes about telling heterosexuals about Jesus. What one focuses on with homosexual people depends on whether one believes that all forms of same-sex relationships are wrong or not.
Frankly, “telling†rings hollow to a good many people these days, particularly younger people, because of the rank hypocrisies they witness among Christians. When anti-gay crusaders use certain verses to support their argument but conveniently ignore other parts (like abiding by all the morals laws within the Levitical Code if they insist on using a couple to condemn homosexuals, alluded to by Fr. Jake above), all it does is paint hypocrisy all over the face of the Church. When anti-gay Christians defame and spread lies about a whole class of people and then turn around and justify their own proclivities or sins, it is no wonder why people reject the Church.
We have to show consistency in thought and practice – we have to actually prove to people that there is something more important about the Gospel than nationalism and consumerism, hatred and judgmentalism all in the name a Jesus that unchurched people do not recognize as Jesus.
Frankly, I believe Rowan’s way forward demonstrates something other than how our current culture handles disputes, a Christian way, rather than the way of the world. Christians in America have been seduced by the culture, politics, and the lust for power, so we deal with our disputes in the same way the world does. The “world” sees this as hypocrisy and a demonstration of no difference in the way we live and believe from those we condemn.
In North America, we trace our theoretical, philosophical, and experiential history through Greco-Roman culture and events, and the Western Church. We can find in various cultures all over the world all manner of beliefs that may or may not support our current understanding of things or our perceptions of how people in centuries past lived and thought.
The fact is that in our Western history, secularly and ecclesiastically, there were those who fought to overturn the historical practice and interpretation of Scripture – contrary to the biblical exegetical and hermeneutical practices of the time – on such issues as an earth-centered universe, slavery, the place of women in society and the Church, the standing of black people, inter-racial marriages, and all manner of other issues including everything that went into the Reformation. During those times, the majority of Western people and most Church leaders opposed the innovations. I think that we are in such a time regarding the homosexuality.
While this issue is frankly minor with regard to some of the major shifts in theological thought and practice in centuries past, certain groups of Christians have made it major because it plays to the fear and loathing of homosexuals still held by the majority of people in our society – the current culture – and garners these groups attention, success, and power. That’s all changing, and these certain groups are not happy with the changes, just like in times past.
Milton – there was nothing wrong with people ancient or modern or what God was able to teach or not teach, it all depends on what we are willing to hear, whether we are willing to be taught, and how we engage with and understand the information we have available to us.
Ancient peoples were not stupid – they lived and thought according to the information that had at the time. When new information came along and started causing dissidence between established practices and beliefs and the changes that the new information demanded, there were problems. There where those who opposed the changes and those who advocated for them. Again, I believe this is what is happening with those seven verses mention above and the issue of homosexuality generally.
Bob G,
[blockquote]The affectual and sexual attraction of a member of the same or opposite sex determines whether one is homosexual or heterosexual.[/blockquote] This is a distinction without a difference. The point is, homosexuals define themselves by sexual attraction to members of the same sex. The consummation of that attraction is, obviously, a sex act of a kind that repulses most people. This is not to say that homosexuals cannot participate in the life of the Church. But at the same time, like unmarried heterosexuals, they are obligated to make a gift of their chastity to God. If you are going to grant license to homosexuals to engage in behavior that is clearly proscribed as sinful, then you will need to grant the same license to heterosexuals who do not want to remain chaste outside of marriage. After all, both groups will tell you, sexual attraction to the same or opposite sex is what defines them and to deny them fulfillment of their desires is to deny who they are. From there, we can proceed on down the slippery slope.
Bob G+, your speak of “rank hypocrisies… among Christians”. You will hardly have succcess in inviting homosexual persons to the Church if you paint the Body of Christ as a bunch of hypocrites.
Reactionary – just like heterosexuals, there is a dimension of attraction that goes beyond the sexual – it is an affectual attraction that occurs whether sex is present or not. If you are a heterosexual, there is an attraction to the member of the opposite sex that is more than sex and lust, as you know. The same thing is present in homosexuals. It isn’t just about sex, no matter how much you want to be about just sex and no matter how convenient that attitude is to justifying your viewpoint.
I don’t know any homosexuals who would define themselves by a sex act – none, and particularly Christians who are gay. There are, of course, some who do, just like some heterosexuals. There are plenty of homosexuals who do not engage in intercourse, as in “sodomy.” There are plenty of heterosexual men who do with women.
Heterosexuals have a means of marriage, homosexuals don’t. This makes a huge distinction from heterosexuals who want to justify sex outside of marriage. Again, it comes down to whether we consider same-sex relationships that are faithful, monogamous, and intentionally life-long, and sexual to be sin. The understanding of Scripture and the homosexual condition is changing, and no matter how strenuously some want to stop the re-evaluation it will not stop. You can believe it to be sin and wrong and disgusting all you want, but in the final analysis, I believe, your opinion will not be maintained, and not because we want to justify “sin,” but because we do not believe that Scripture rightly interpreted and applied declares such faithful relationships to be “sin” in the first place. Scripture does not support your viewpoint.
Fr. Jake writes about such things. Rowan calls us to remain together while we take the time of study, prayer, and re-evaluation. Only hindsight will determine who is right as the Holy Spirit guides, corrects, and inspires us.
Alice – it is generally not Christians who see themselves as hypocrites. We are often blind to our own condition and actions. It is non-Christians and disillusioned Christians who see the hypocrisy within our own ranks. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
I suggest reading the new book, “unChristian,†by the Barna Research Group.
It makes no difference how we want to present ourselves or good PR, it is how we are to “outsiders†that will determine how they see us and how they respond to our call to follow Jesus.
Bob G,
I am curious as to why you throw in the “affectual” angle. How do you define this as a “homosexual” aspect of attraction outside of sex acts? Aren’t you just talking about male-male or female-female friendship, the bonds of which can be as strong and impassioned as marriage? There are men whom I love as brothers but I am not sexually attracted to them. That would appear to be an important distinction.
I would also be interested in your citation to the Scriptural passages you insist are being misinterpreted. I cannot think of a single passage dealing with the subject that does not condemn homosexual relations as sinful in explicit terms. And how do we know the Holy Spirit is not moving us to reconsider the Virgin Birth, or to accept polyamoury, etc.? The answer is the test of orthodoxy: what has been believed at all times, at all places, by all people. This new interpretation you are invoking fails that test. And if you say that orthodoxy is too hidebound, then you are just making up your religion as you go along.
Sadly though, I would agree that the tide is with you, as orthodox congregants and clergy head for the exits. (I headed for the Antiochian Orthodox two months ago.)
Reactionary –
I am assuming you are straight and that you are married, although I may well be wrong on both. Let me assume I am right on both accounts (perhaps you have a girlfriend, if not married).
What were the feelings you felt for your beloved before you were sexually involved? Some of it was lust, as would be normal, but there were other feelings going on that were far different than your love for a sister, a very close female friend, you mother, aunts, etc. This is what I refer to as an “affectual†attraction. It deals with the “affect†rather than the “cognitive†and apart from the sexual.
Homosexuals have that same kind of “affectual†attraction/feelings to a boyfriend or girlfriend / partner as you have for your wife or girlfriend – separate from sexual attraction or lust. People within both orientations often become unbalanced and are driven by lust, become sexual addicts, and all the other kinds of things that our fallen-ness throws at us.
The difference between the love shared between friends, either of the same or opposite sex, and the type of love experienced between the lover and the beloved can possibly be expressed within two Greeks words for “love.†C.S. Lewis uses these in his, “The Four Loves.†From Wikipedia:
Eros is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Modern Greek word “erotas” means “(romantic) love”. However, eros does not have to be sexual in nature. Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than the philia love of friendship. It can also apply to dating relationships as well as marriage.
Philia means friendship in modern Greek, a dispassionate virtuous love, was a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philia denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers. This is the only other word for “love” used in the ancient text of the New Testament besides agape, but even then it is used substantially less frequently.
Most people want to believe that being homosexuality is nothing more than two men or two women having sex with each other. This is not the case. An incident of sex in prison between two men does not make them “homosexuals.†It makes them heterosexuals who engage in sex with a member of their same sex. (This can be seen as part of the meaning in the Romans 1 passage that is generally used to condemn all forms of same-sex relationships, incorrectly IMHO.) In the same way, a homosexual who decides to marry an opposite sex person, well, that does not make him/her a heterosexual, but a homosexual who gets married and possibly has sex with a member of the opposite sex.
There are straight people who don’t like homosexuals who refuse to believe this. Most of ex-gay theory is based on the idea that there really are no true “homosexuals,†just emotionally screwed-up people having sex with their own sex that need either deliverance or therapy. Well, frankly, the facts are not on their side.
Considering Scripture, refer back to Fr. Jake’s “questionable translation of seven verses from scripture.”
Check out “Evangelicals Concerned” for more info, if your actually interested in finding out: http://www.ecwr.org/resources/homosexuality.html
Bob G+ said, “In North America, we trace our theoretical, philosophical, and experiential history through Greco-Roman culture and events, and the Western Church.”
That is certainly convenient as Greco-Roman paganism tolerated homosexuality. Afro-Asiatic peoples did not, although they knew of it. The biblical worldview is that of teh Afro-Asiatics, not the Greeks and Romans.
By this position you limit your understanding of history and hold a warped perspective. Most of what the West knows about Aristotle, for example, it interpreted through the semitic mind of Arabs.
Probably the greatest challenge to conversing with you on this issue is your evolutionary premise. This is entirely foreign to the biblical writers, and it is not an adequate view of Reality. But that’s another discussion.
Alice – Americans engage Scripture from a Western perspective. As you know, the Eastern Church has some very different interpretations of Scripture and basic theological concepts.
What I am talking about is how Westerners have engaged Scripture over the centuries, experienced challenges to traditional interpretations of Scripture, and changes in our Western understanding of the world and how it all works. I’m tracing Western progression because that is who we are and how we understand the world today and Scripture (for the most part). I’m very well aware of the place of Plato, Aristotle, “Eastern” thinking as in Pharisaical Judaism, and the early Christian fathers.
As I said, we can find all manner of philosophies, theories, and ways of doing things in many different cultures. I am stressing the action and reaction of people in the West – how we dealt with the Copernican revolution, the Reformation (which was Western, although the aftermath is felt in most of the world through missionary endeavors), how we in this country dealt with chattel slavery, the place of blacks in society, the place of women in society and the Church, inter-racial marriage within our culture, etc., etc., etc.
I don’t necessarily disagree with what you wrote, but it is not particularly relevant to the point I am trying to make.
I recommend that you read Martin Bernal’s “The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization”, Rutgers University Press, 1991.