“So what the American church has done by the election and then ordination of Gene Robinson is really actually turn its back on the voice, the moral voice of the Lambeth Conference. That’s the problem basically. There is no way out of the problem now.”
Still, Carey feels that if the Americans were to come out wholeheartedly for the Windsor Covenant, dialogue and reconciliation would be possible.
“If the Episcopal Church says, ‘No, dammit, we are not going to go that way’, then there is no dialogue,” he said. “They are actually saying they are walking away from the family, they are closing the door. But if they are prepared to say, ‘We will fall in behind the convenant,’ then we can find a resolution.
“But there is no sign that the American House of Bishops realizes how serious it is,” he said.
“Basically the Anglican spirit aches for unity and I don’t think there are going to be many people who are going to be in a rush to run away from the See of Canterbury.”
He’s probably correct on the above. The only trouble is when one reaches out to the “See of Canterbury”, there doesn’t seem to be anyone home.
Its like someone on the edge of drowning, and reaching for the life preserver, only to find out its made of jello.
Gloria
No, actually, what there IS is no sign that the American House of Bishops is going to abandon its commitment to decades of discernment of the Holy Spirit that has led us to the place where, like Peter when faced with Cornelius (anybody else preaching that text on Sunday?) recognized that God shows no partiality and our job is to bring people to Jesus, not push them away.
Why do I think that a first century version of Lord Carey’s arguments were used at the Council of Jerusalem when Peter and Paul went head-to-head about the inclusion of the Gentiles? The Holy Spirit won that one and She’ll win this one, too … in the long haul. In the short haul, how sad that Carey is part of the problem by insisting that reconciliation short of capitulation is not possible. I’m double checking the Scripture text but … yes, there it is … with God ALL things are possible.
Because you want to justify your sin to yourself and to others, and continue living in it, and deny any real consequences of your actions.
[i] Comment edited by elf. Ad hominem attack on another commenter [/i]
The problem with Ms. Russell’s comments is that persons afflicted with same-sex attractions are not in the same position as gentiles. Nor is the analogy with unclean foods accurate, although it’s better than the matter of the gentiles. OTOH, the Council of Jerusalem did retain some dietary prohibitions (strangled animals, blood), ritual restrictions (food offered to idols), and, more to the point, a prohibition against fornication.
Hence, the Church certainly includes persons afflicted with same-sex attractions, but can never countenance fornication.
[i] Edited by elf. Off topic. [/i]
The problem with the Rev. Russell’s comments is that no one is pushing anyone away! The Episcopal church has always said her doors are open to all. Period.
What the reapprisers want is to let everyone in to every part of the church: leadership, communion, ordination. (What they don’t seem to care about is Baptism and all it implies re sin!)
I agree with Susan Russell that we should look to Acts 15 as a way out of this crisis. We should be willing to submit ourselves and our agendas to the the voice of the Whole Church and, when there is conflict, Holy Scripture should be our guide.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote] [T]here IS is no sign that the American House of Bishops is going to abandon its commitment to decades of discernment of the Holy Spirit [/blockquote]
Liberals selflessly provide us the benefits of their ever so sharp skills of discernment, and how do we thank them? We demand they demonstrate its validity. The effrontery! Don’t we realize who they are? We should not presume to question them. We should rather receive from them, and be grateful for even crumbs. It must be tough for your average liberal – being so enlightened and all, and yet having to constantly deal with lesser minds rejecting their prophetic discernments. What’s a prophet to do?
carl
Teaching at Jerusalem Council: agreed with the prophets; as Bauckham, Bockmuehl et al have clearly demonstrated the prescriptions for gentiles were those applying to sojourners within the congregation of Israel, drawn straight from Lev 17-18. Why do we keep getting Acts 15? I should have thought that was the most ill-advised place to turn. The entire council agreed (compare today), there was agreement with the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit (who spake by the prophets–so our creed) confirmed what he said before. You’d think the OT had said nothing about the inclusion of the nations as being consistent with God’s will, on God’s terms. I think most now concede that Acts 15 is a very bad place to turn for an analogy for samesex behaviour (itself condemned as porneia in Lev and in Acts 15).
Pointing out that it is hypocritical of Ms Russell cherry pick from Paul’s lessons is hardly ad hominem. I certainly did it in a civil manner as well. Titus needs to look at whether they should ban Ms Russell because her modus operandi is to swoop in, say something inflammatory, and then quickly exit. Kendall could we have a little help here?
But moving on, there is an [url=http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7457 ]interesting letter[/url] from a evangelical priest in the Church of England who discusses the conflicted nature of that institution. In particular, he states:
[blockquote]…a survey conducted by Cost of Conscience in 2002 revealed, for instance, that a third of the Church’s clergy doubted or disbelieved in the physical Resurrection and only half were convinced of the truth of the Virgin birth. And once the creeds have been emptied of shared meaning, biblical morality shares a similar fate.[/blockquote]
In five years, has the faith one given slipped even further? Also, he writes:
[blockquote]Without help from the Primates of the Global South, the Church of England is going to end up on the wrong side of the fault line which is opening ever wider through the Communion as we enter 2008.[/blockquote]
Lord Carey posits that the American House of Bishops doesn’t see the crisis and expresses hope that they might come around and accept the Windsor “covenant”. (When did the Windsor become a covenant, anyway?) Windsor vague language was exploited to the hilt by the revisionists and for all intents and purposes, Windsor is dead. The American House of Bishops quite clearly sees the crisis. They created it and is continuing to promulgate it. The crisis advances their cause to keep the crisis going. (That cause is an 815 centered communion.)
I would argue that it is Lord Carey that does not see the crisis. The Episcopal church is a done deal. Kaput. The coming crisis is is the seeming ineluctable dissolution of the Church of England.
Philip Snyder [#8] writes: “I agree with Susan Russell that we should look to Acts 15 as a way out of this crisis. We should be willing to submit ourselves and our agendas to the the voice of the Whole Church and, when there is conflict, Holy Scripture should be our guide.”
Funny y’all should mention this. If we read Acts 15 carefully, we see some interesting things:
• The decision appears to have been made by the apostles and elders — Gk: presbyteroi, which we now think of as priests — not just by the putative predecessors of modern-day bishops.
• There’s no indication that anyone outside the Jerusalem ‘diocese,’ if you will, had a vote. Paul and Barnabas briefed the council about their work among the Gentiles. In the debate proper, however, only Peter and James are recorded as speaking. The text of the subsequent letter reads as though the Jerusalem apostles and elders assumed they had plenary authority to set policy for the church everywhere.
• A curiosity is that the dominant voice in Acts 15 seems to have been that of James. So far as we can tell, James was not one of his brother Jesus’ disciples, at least not during Jesus’ lifetime. The epistles and Acts don’t have much to say about James’ spiritual journey. I’ve long wondered just how he came to have such authority in the early church.
#12–see the many publications of R J Bauckham on James.
Abp. Carey seems to have managed to gore everyone’s ox here: Susan Russell’s, TEC’s Executive Council, the GAFCON participants, those who refuse to see TEC’s clear “walking apart” from the Communion, and more. But he wants to work for the Communion’s “unity”. Is it possible any longer to be honest in this way yet also committed to unity in any realistic way? I hope so.
Seitz-ACI [#13], it’d be more helpful if you could summarize “the many publications of R J Bauckham on James” for the benefit of us pew-sitters.
I’d be especially interested in the evidentiary basis for Bauckham’s assertions, viz., what are his primary sources.
Bauckham’s views on Acts 15 are shared by the vast majority of NT scholars. Nothing odd there. It is manifestly the case that 1) the injunctions for gentiles are drawn from Lev 17-18; 2) the decision required the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures, both (and I would add, some distinction here would be a contradiction of the Rule of Faith as articulated by the ante-Nicene Fathers and the Creeds), 3) porneia in the context of NT usage ruled out fornication of all kinds, and samesex sex. As for James, anyone who knows anything about this issue knows it is not a simple blog topic. But this much is probably condense-able. James represents that part of apostolic life most likely to know the scriptures of Israel and to believe their centrality is crucial to Christian claims. Bauckham believes the ‘jacobite’ circle reads hebrew as well as greek (the references in Acts 15 are from LXX and Hebrew texts both). The Jerusalem church and the gentile mission are crucial, as many see, in terms of different mission and same Lord (the deference of Paul to super-apostles, in spite of disagreements; the commendation of Paul by Peter; see David Trobisch’s work on this score).
I’m confused about the reference to the Council of Jerusalem, which affiirmed from the earliest days of the Church that practicing sexual immorality was incompatible with being a Christian. Further, Scripture is clear that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is incompatible with sexual immorality. E.g., Ephesians 5:3; Hebrews 12:16; I Peter 1:15; I Corinthians 6:9, Galatians 5:19, Colossians 3:5, I Thessalonians 4:3-8 and many other verses.
No matter the topic, the Scripture du jour, or the Church’s challenge there is always a triple filter through which all Scripture & solutions must be strained: Acceptance that is unconditional, uncritical, and undisciplined.
BTW: My # 18 Comment was appalling to most people – unless you are a revisionist who operates under the “new thingy”.
Lord Carey is quoted as saying, “But if they [TEC] are prepared to say, ‘We will fall in behind the convenant,’ then we can find a resolution.”
I’m not certain what he means by “fall in behind,” but the Executive Council has already issued a positive response to the draft covenant and expressed the willingness of TEC to contribute to the final shaping of the Covenant. It is already clear that several provinces think that the draft as it stands needs working on, and some have suggested ways to revise it. I hope Lord Carey is not taking the same position as some GS primates who apparently want the draft to be adopted as is. It would be a mistake to do so, and it won’t happen that way anyhow. I believe that at Lambeth 2008 discussion and further work on the draft covenant will be front and center; a good reason for bishops not to boycott.
I wonder if the GAFCON agenda will have a session to draft their own version of the covenant. If so, they’ll need to be at Lambeth to promote and give reasons for it.
I will say that when he acted as chaplain to my diocesan convention under my previous bishop, following GC2003, Lord Carey took a more pastoral, bridge-building tone than he has of late.
[i] Quotation from another blog edited by elf. [/i]
21 I would note that a “pastoral, bridge-building” “contribution towards healing the church” is in the eye of the beholder. In my case, Lord Carey is making a healthy contribution by simply saying that the Communion situation is very seriously broken and that there are serious discrepancies between what the instruments of unity have expected of ecusa and what ecusa has actually done.
The complete absence of scatological language in #21’s citation makes me doubt this is a quote from Mad Priest.
Note that 21’s bowdlerization has left the references in 22 and 23 somewhat adrift.
[i] Comment deleted. Off topic. [/i]
[url=http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ap13_damage.gif]’Okay, Houston, we’ve had a problem here.'[/url] (John Swigert, Jr)
I think some transparency from the Susan Russells of the world vis a vis their incessant behind-the-scenes lobbying for their cause at general conventions [ see their personal ratings for each member of the U.S. clergy, his spouse and each kid in the family as to how much that individual is sympathetic to Russell et al, on their site ]. It is indeed a unique method used to refer to oneself as a ‘believer’ and indeed gives unique meaning to the word ‘ integrity ‘
I am sure Lord Carey knows from his time as ABC that the seeds of disbelief and disunity are watered by the endless conversations with no resolution that some campaign groups in the AC work for….
RE: “Why do I think that a first century version of Lord Carey’s arguments were used at the Council of Jerusalem when Peter and Paul went head-to-head about the inclusion of the Gentiles?”
Hard to imagine why Susan Russell thinks this . . . other than the self-serving need to scrounge up some sort of Christian faux parallel to the idea of welcoming unrepentant flagrant sin into the church. You know . . . kinda like men coming up with “scriptural passages” to justify their abuse of their children or spouse. It’s just what human beings do when they wish to browbeat others about how Truly Spiritual they are in their actions.
RE: “Titus needs to look at whether they should ban Ms Russell because her modus operandi is to swoop in, say something inflammatory, and then quickly exit.”
RobRoy, I think it’s merely about the attempt to evoke in the opponents the same anger that revisionists feel when they read T19. ; > )
[blockquote] But if they are prepared to say, ‘We will fall in behind the convenant,’ then we can find a resolution.
“But there is no sign that the American House of Bishops realizes how serious it is,” he said. [/blockquote]
[blockquote] No, actually, what there IS is no sign that the American House of Bishops is going to abandon its commitment to decades of discernment of the Holy Spirit… [/blockquote]
And it seems to me that thats fine, Susan, but it’s a distinct choice. There is process and dialogue or you have sufficient convictions to walk away from the anglican communion who is inviting you into the process. It doesn’t make any sense to mourn what you see as a work of The Holy Spirit.
For EVERYONE, it seems like it must cheapen God’s work to be antagonistically petty, IF you truly believe you’ve got it right. Of course, that applies to both sides of the conflict. It would probably be beneficial for us all to read Matt. 3:9 again, lest we become proud in our salvation and not humbled by the grace of it.
RE: James speaking out for the Council’s decision in Acts 15. Why is there a problem? Just because he was asked to deliver the report and conclusion is not a guarantee that he was in charge of the meeting. Of course his status as a step-brother/cousin (depending on your reading of the Greek adelphia) of Jesus probably granted him a higher postion. 🙂 But notice also, that first PETER addresses the assembly:
[i]And after there had been much(T) debate, Peter stood up and said to them[/i]
followed by Barnabas and Paul:
[i]And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.[/i]
and then James: [i] 13After they finished speaking, James replied,[/i]
Probably speaking in the role of prophet, or a word of knowlege. It was a Charismatic assembly, after all.
Oh, and it wasn’t just [i]the apostles and elders[/i], the Scripture makes it clear that [i]Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, [b]with the whole church[/b] to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas[/i], so it went beyond the local ecclesia.
Libraryjim [#31]:
James was Jesus’ “step-brother/cousin”? You must be a Catholic (or perhaps Orthodox).
And he was “asked to deliver the report and conclusion”? Boy, that’s a different way to read the passage. The text implies pretty strongly that James is not merely a spokesman who announces the collective consensus; on the contrary, he’s “the decider” (pace GWB) who listens to the competing views and then makes the decision.
DC
You say that like it’s a bad thing. The ‘perpetual virginity of Mary’, while not dogma in most Protestant churches, has long been a central doctrine in regard to the [i]Theotokos[/i] of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, and has been discussed on this forum in depth. It is a logical argument from language experts and holds a lot of persuasive pull. Not something to be easily dismissed, and it convinced me (although I was raised Roman Catholic, so didn’t [i]really[/i] need a lot of convincing 🙂 ).
As for the second point, I haven’t studied this at all, and was just putting out a theory. I’m open to views on the topic. Again, 🙂