In a series of public correspondence, two professors at Episcopal seminaries discuss what they see as problems with the approach taken by the Task Force on the Study of Marriage in evaluating what the Bible has to say about marriage and sexuality. Dr. Wesley Hill is Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity School for Ministry and Dr. Garwood P. Anderson is Professor of New Testament and Greek at Nashotah House Theological Seminary.
Read it all by following the links provided. Also this morning there is now this.
I agree about the handling of scripture. The Bible has no canonical shape or thrust–it is just the liberal version of proof texts: flat, contradictory, unstable. Lacking what the Fathers called scope, or hypothesis, or taxis. (Reminds one of he joke about seeing WC Fields reading the Bible. When asked what he was doing, he responded, ‘looking for exceptions’).
This is the revenge of a certain historical critical minimalism. Yet the BCP shows Gen 1-2, Song of Songs, Hosea, Matt 19, Ephesians, Revelation et al functioning as a totality. Anderson is right to label it fundamentalism.
Haller likes to say that the preamble of the 1979 BCP is an exception. But the scriptural texts read at marriage ceremonies clearly established the nexus of texts which ground Christian Marriage, and the ‘dearly beloved’ only summarized the scriptural inheritance. Again, an odd sort of stingy reductionism when it comes to how texts–biblical and BCP–actually do their work.
Sadly, I do not believe it will make much difference. The 2015 GC will get where it wants to go no matter what kind of objections are put forth. The Taskforce was selected to ‘get the job done.’
Sorry, Anderson is right to label ‘it’ (viz, The Taskforce Project in Theological Maneuvering) fundamentalist. For Haller’s private blog musings, see his personal site (if you must).
Words cannot stop a train.
Robert Gagnon wrote a whole book to set at rest the revisionist exegesis of scripture to fit a preconceived notion. Subsequently, revisionists [of all protestant denominations] have virtually jettisoned scripture when making their appeal toward “re-visioning” the church to fit their desires.
As #3 writes, it matters not one wit what is written. GC2015 will accomplish what it sets out to accomplish. I invite all my TEC friends into the ACNA. It isn’t perfect, but it is [i]trying[/i] to be faithful to the faith once delivered to the saints.
I have written my own fair share of such books and have delivered more lectures on the topic for one lifetime than I would like.
I think what Garwood Anderson is noticing is that scripture is indeed being used, but perversely.
This is different to simply saying it is irrelevant or that it has a sell-by date and then times out. ‘It does not understand the beautiful new thing we now know God has created.’
Well, nicely written, but rather late to the feast and all that. The Task Force has spent much energy and _much time_ to bring forth this report. Certainly, TEC has waited patiently long enough and the report deserves head seat at the table. Great thanks to the Task Force for finally bringing this work to the conclusion that it was tasked to find.