I think taking St John’s Gospel as the subject of study is a terrible affront to the Episcopalians. I have been told more than once by our progressive friends that this gospel was made up out of whole cloth.
In the US, the Bible Reading Fellowship is an orthodox group that publishes some great material. I hope that the same is true of the British BRF. It definitely has evangelical roots. I am glad that these studies will be from the BRF, and that the bishops will be studying the claims of Jesus. I hope that the US bishops finally catch onto Jesus meaning it when he says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me.” Unfortunately, their seminary experience may have been mostly giving them tools to twist the Bible into saying what they want, rather than going deeper into what it actually says.
I wouldn’t hold out any hope that anything that happens at Lambeth 2008 will positively influence what happens in ECUSA. All you need to do is look at Lambeth 1998. It had no effect whatsoever on ECUSA.
I am more worried about the continued effects ECUSA will have on the Anglican Communion.
Whatever happens at Lambeth 2008 will reflect the influence of TEC, and therefore, GAFCON and its aftermath will have much more influence on the Anglican Communion……..if anything is left of it as we now know it following Lambeth.
The problem is not with studying the Bible; it is with accepting the clear teaching of the Word.
As the saying goes: It is not what we don’t know that worries us, but what we do with what we already know.
Three weeks of Bible study is not going to change 30 years of EcUSA false teaching and ungodly practices. And again, that word – “inclusive.”
Do note that the list of those preparing the study materials includes “USA” … along with DR Congo, UK, Tanzania, and India. So much for getting voted off the Anglican Island — as was widely predicted not all that long ago.
I’ll reserve comment until we have some clue about the actual study materials. Rather difficult to critique without actual materials to hand. On the other hand, including USA does not equal a seal of approval of all that the ECUSA/TEC/GCC has done, Susan. I know you liberal folks will spin it that way. So do the Primates, Bishops, and countries not coming to Lambeth for that reason. Thank you for affirming the truth of their speaking … again.
But there could be problems with John and the actual text, especially the pre-existent Word, seeking to save the lost, that I AM The Way, I AM The Truth, I AM The Life bit, et cetera. Those and believing could be most difficult for USA bishops of the liberal ilk.
RE: “Do note that the list of those preparing the study materials includes “USA†… along with DR Congo, UK, Tanzania, and India.”
One of the more hopeful statements by Susan Russell . . . talk about clutching at straws. Surely she must know something we don’t, if there’s this much desperation to claim some theologians from the US as some sort of victory.
Re: 6
Sorry to disappoint you, Susan, but I saw where there is a BIBLE study, which means absolutes, ancient truths, and objective claims.
California Dreamin’ isn’t part of that hermeneutic. Your hopes that “USA” = your revisionism is quite a stretch. In the end the Anglican Island may be short a few who had hoped for proof-texting that favors America’s fascination with the self.
But Susan does point out correctly why those who said they wouldn’t come, must not come. That is exactly how the revisionsists would spin it. In addition Lambeth is a awfully expensive Bible Study.
I’d still like to know the names of those Bible Study preparers from the DR Congo, USA, UK, Tanzania and India. I can’t find their names listed anywhere online.
I was quite excited to discover the Bible Study scheme was being released to the public – I promptly downloaded the .pdf and ordered the commentary from Amazon. It might be fruitful to read and study along with the bishops – sort of a corporate renewal experience.
Far from diminishing or ridiculing John, I’ve always been told that John’s Gospel was probably the most popular one in the Anglican ethos (Don’t forget Temple’s commentary on it). At GTS in the ’90s, no one was explaining away the claims of the Gospel, so I didn’t leave seminary with the idea that it was anything less than part of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, containing all things necessary to salvations. Brueggemann, LT Johnson, NT Wright, Ray Brown were on our required reading list – not Crossan, Borg, et al.
Indeed, not one of my professors at GTS (two of whom are now bishops) ever suggested that Jesus was anyone less than Scripture and the Creeds said him to be.
No. 13 – Re your last paragraph in your above post. Of course it’s not in the interest of some of the others on this thread to believe that. I think that those who claim the word “orthodox” for themselves are less orthodox than many of the “revisionists”.
I think taking St John’s Gospel as the subject of study is a terrible affront to the Episcopalians. I have been told more than once by our progressive friends that this gospel was made up out of whole cloth.
In the US, the Bible Reading Fellowship is an orthodox group that publishes some great material. I hope that the same is true of the British BRF. It definitely has evangelical roots. I am glad that these studies will be from the BRF, and that the bishops will be studying the claims of Jesus. I hope that the US bishops finally catch onto Jesus meaning it when he says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me.” Unfortunately, their seminary experience may have been mostly giving them tools to twist the Bible into saying what they want, rather than going deeper into what it actually says.
I wouldn’t hold out any hope that anything that happens at Lambeth 2008 will positively influence what happens in ECUSA. All you need to do is look at Lambeth 1998. It had no effect whatsoever on ECUSA.
I am more worried about the continued effects ECUSA will have on the Anglican Communion.
Whatever happens at Lambeth 2008 will reflect the influence of TEC, and therefore, GAFCON and its aftermath will have much more influence on the Anglican Communion……..if anything is left of it as we now know it following Lambeth.
The problem is not with studying the Bible; it is with accepting the clear teaching of the Word.
As the saying goes: It is not what we don’t know that worries us, but what we do with what we already know.
Three weeks of Bible study is not going to change 30 years of EcUSA false teaching and ungodly practices. And again, that word – “inclusive.”
Fr. Kingsley
Do note that the list of those preparing the study materials includes “USA” … along with DR Congo, UK, Tanzania, and India. So much for getting voted off the Anglican Island — as was widely predicted not all that long ago.
I generally have a hard time reading from the good Book with my head in the sand.
I’ll reserve comment until we have some clue about the actual study materials. Rather difficult to critique without actual materials to hand. On the other hand, including USA does not equal a seal of approval of all that the ECUSA/TEC/GCC has done, Susan. I know you liberal folks will spin it that way. So do the Primates, Bishops, and countries not coming to Lambeth for that reason. Thank you for affirming the truth of their speaking … again.
But there could be problems with John and the actual text, especially the pre-existent Word, seeking to save the lost, that I AM The Way, I AM The Truth, I AM The Life bit, et cetera. Those and believing could be most difficult for USA bishops of the liberal ilk.
RE: “Do note that the list of those preparing the study materials includes “USA†… along with DR Congo, UK, Tanzania, and India.”
One of the more hopeful statements by Susan Russell . . . talk about clutching at straws. Surely she must know something we don’t, if there’s this much desperation to claim some theologians from the US as some sort of victory.
Re: 6
Sorry to disappoint you, Susan, but I saw where there is a BIBLE study, which means absolutes, ancient truths, and objective claims.
California Dreamin’ isn’t part of that hermeneutic. Your hopes that “USA” = your revisionism is quite a stretch. In the end the Anglican Island may be short a few who had hoped for proof-texting that favors America’s fascination with the self.
But Susan does point out correctly why those who said they wouldn’t come, must not come. That is exactly how the revisionsists would spin it. In addition Lambeth is a awfully expensive Bible Study.
I’d still like to know the names of those Bible Study preparers from the DR Congo, USA, UK, Tanzania and India. I can’t find their names listed anywhere online.
I was quite excited to discover the Bible Study scheme was being released to the public – I promptly downloaded the .pdf and ordered the commentary from Amazon. It might be fruitful to read and study along with the bishops – sort of a corporate renewal experience.
Far from diminishing or ridiculing John, I’ve always been told that John’s Gospel was probably the most popular one in the Anglican ethos (Don’t forget Temple’s commentary on it). At GTS in the ’90s, no one was explaining away the claims of the Gospel, so I didn’t leave seminary with the idea that it was anything less than part of the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, containing all things necessary to salvations. Brueggemann, LT Johnson, NT Wright, Ray Brown were on our required reading list – not Crossan, Borg, et al.
Indeed, not one of my professors at GTS (two of whom are now bishops) ever suggested that Jesus was anyone less than Scripture and the Creeds said him to be.
No. 13 – Re your last paragraph in your above post. Of course it’s not in the interest of some of the others on this thread to believe that. I think that those who claim the word “orthodox” for themselves are less orthodox than many of the “revisionists”.