This [statement by the Episcopal Church of Sudan] is troubling stuff, especially when taken together with the GAFCON verdict that the latest draft of the Anglican Covenant falls far short of anything that the conservatives could work with. If there were any doubt in the bishops’ minds about what was expected of them at Lambeth, it ought to have evaporated by now. They have two more weeks to find a formula that might give the waiting Communion some hope. This is more than an affirmation of the Covenant, though that may be part of the solution. What has to be demonstrated is that the different factions are prepared to work together. Archbishop Deng seemed to suggest that the reason for the Sudanese presence at the Lambeth Conference was merely to express its will. Having done so, however, he must be active in finding a way forward. The Communion contains views other than his own, as he must know.
Read it all. This editorial falls far short–as is alas becoming all too common with this publication–of seeing a way for Lambeth 2008 to make any kind of meaningful contribution toward enabling the current huge mess in the Anglican Communion to become any better. True, it is a matter of working together, and I have long been insisting it will involve sacrifice on all sides.
However, any meaningful step in a constructive direction must include the North American church’s cessation of the practice which is precisely at issue in debate. Christians have heretofore considered what Anglicans are currently debating as impermissible and immoral. We cannot have a debate about whether to do something which the American church in particular with ever increasing speed is continuing to do. The way in which the American church has gone about this has been a fiasco for those advocating for this change . The global debate by TEC’s actions has been set back many more years than most dare to understand.
Amidst all the pleading to work together and to have conversation and on and on must be understood that without a total cessation of the practice–which is what the Windsor Report pleaded for–no meaningful progress is really possible. And what is about to happen at Lambeth 2008 if there is no cessation is that the de facto situation in the entire Anglican Communion will be one of reception on the matter of blessing non-celibate same sex unions. Perceptive readers of the Windsor Report will know that on this matter ‘reception’ is not the Anglican Communion’s collective discernment of how to handle this question. But if nothing is done then whether there is a claim to work together or talk more or not, the tear at the deepest level on the Anglican Communion will get worse. This reality is what the Episcopal Church of the Sudan was rightly getting at.
If this tragedy occurs, the responsibility will lie in manifold places, but it will fall primarily–as it does increasingly–at Archbishop Rowan Williams’ feet–KSH.
Have you ever been nominated for bishop? If not, why not? Not that I would wish that burden on you!
Kendall wrote:
“I have long been insisting it will involve sacrifice on all sides.”
I am very genuinely interested in hearing what specific sacrifices Kendall believes must/should be made on the “reasserter” side. What must be given to the “reappraisers” in order for the all important unity to be restored or maintained?
I am really hoping for an answer since this question goes to the heart of the whole situation.
Thank you kindly for your generous response.
The reasserters will need to sacrafice their sense of individualism. They need to agree to work within TECUSA if TECUSA agrees to stop ordaining sexually active homosexuals and stop blessing same sex unions. That is an awful lot of pride to swollow – particularly after you have shaken the dust off your feet.
We also have to sacrifice the idea that we are right. We need to say that we might be wrong. We need to listen to the arguments from scripture and tradition that the reappraisers put forth (I am still waiting for some, but I will listen to all arguments from scripture and tradition).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
It is TEC’s absolute refusal to see that SSBs are anything but the ‘new work of the Spirit’ which makes Kendall’s aspiration for a cessation a sadly forlorn pipe-dream. In the PB’s notorious words, “We’re not going back!” That’s a pretty full-blown “full stop” (as the British would put it). She should be taken at her word.
Far better, IMHO, is the Gafcon response, which is to simply declare that those from whom TEC has walked away, will continue to pursue the Great Commandmendment and Great Commission with the same family and moral theology which is as unchangeable as our Savior (who is the same “yesterday, today and forever”).
Lambeth’s “indaba” is General Convention’s Bible Study technique writ large. Hegelian synthesis is not faithful to Christ.
I respect the many African primates who did not waste precious finanical resources to be a part of this sham conference.
From the seeming desperation in Kendall’s voice, it sounds as though — in the absence of the implacable Athenasiuses from Africa (with apologies to William Safire) — the bishops might have been able to begin taking a few tentative steps toward some kind of progress. It’s a shame that in some reasserters this has provoked, not cautious hope, but anxiety and anger that the progress might not be in precisely the direction that they had so vociferously demanded.
Lumen Christie (# 2),
[blockquote]
I am very genuinely interested in hearing what specific sacrifices Kendall believes must/should be made on the “reasserter†side. What must be given to the “reappraisers†in order for the all important unity to be restored or maintained?
[/blockquote]
In the reasserter community it has been said that no matter what sacrifices are made the bar will be raised higher. An example, it is said, is that even though VGR was not invited to Lambeth, many of the 200 absent bishops (though not all) are boycotting Lambeth. It is also alleged that this is part of the plan that was outlined in the Chapman memo; at the very least it strikes me as consistent with the spirit of that memo.
Umm… obviously in #6 I should have said “reappraiser” where I said “reasserter”. Sorry.
Philip Snyder [#3] writes: “We need to listen to the arguments from scripture and tradition that the reappraisers put forth (I am still waiting for some, but I will listen to all arguments from scripture and tradition).”
Philip, an inherent theme in both Scripture and tradition has been the desirability of reexamining established ideas when there seems to be a reason to do so, and of being willing to listen to — and perhaps even to be persuaded by — other points of view:
• The Syrophoenecian woman wouldn’t take no for an answer, so Jesus reconsidered his previous focus on Jews;
• Saul/Paul had a change of mind and heart about persecuting the followers of the Way;
• The church council in Acts 15 reexamined the question whether to exclude the uncircumcised from their midst, and ultimately changed the rules. It’s important to note that this change likely would never have happened if Paul and his fellow reappraisers had not defied the reasserters of the day, thus bringing the issue into focus and serving sort of like the grain of sand in the oyster;
• In 1 Thess. 5.20-21, Paul urged his readers not to dismiss prophets (who by definition urge us to reexamine settled views), but instead to test what they say and keep what proved to be good.
Incidentally, reexamination of old beliefs would seem to be a prerequisite to repentance, and the latter is certainly enjoined in both Scripture and tradition.
Mary Tanner was involved in the modern reincarnation of “reception” way back in the days of the Eames Commission. Does anyone doubt the reason that she is on the Windsor Continuation whatever it is?
Philip Snyder (#3),
[blockquote]
We need to listen to the arguments from scripture and tradition that the reappraisers put forth (I am still waiting for some, but I will listen to all arguments from scripture and tradition).
[/blockquote]
Well, don’t forget [i]reason[/i].
The Anglican method of theology, going back to Richard Hooker, is [i]Scripture, reason, and tradition[/i] in that order. Even the Roman Church, since the time under Pope John Paul II when the encyclical [i]Fides et Ratio[/i] was issued, understands that there is unity of God’s truth as discerned in the Holy Scriptures and scientific truth, correctly perceived.
In fact, the reappraiser position, to the extent that it has merit, as I understand it, is grounded only in [i]reason[/i]. The idea of ss preference as innate is absolutely off the road map of Scripture. I think that for the Church (as understood in the Anglican world) it is still premature to conclude with finality that ss preference is innate though there is a growing body of psychological and sociological evidence to support this view. Even if the view gains establishment, the question will remain what are the implications for Christian guidelines on ethical behavior. What is very clear at the present time, however, is that there remains a huge problem with marginalization of, discrimination against, and even demonization of those who have ss preference.
The primary point in 1998 Lambeth I.10 (which one may find quoted in the Windsor Report) is that such marginalization, discrimination, and demonization is simply not acceptable for Christians. Reasserters who carp about things that, in the words of I.10, cannot be advised must not ignore the main thrust of I.10.
I think it’s dangerously easy to misapply this parable to ecclesiology. Members of the church are accountable to a different standard than the world at large, and the leadership of the church are accountable to a higher standard yet. Sadly, there seems to be a contemporary “tradition” of failing to exercise proper, loving, and charitable church discipline. I suppose good discipline ebbs and flows (e.g., there’s ample evidence of problems in other ages besides our own), but certainly we ignore the Apostle Paul’s admonitions at our peril. It’s going to be extremely difficult to recover from a situation that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. Unlike some other denominations, at least the Anglican communion hasn’t completely capitulated to patently false teaching.
Further to my previous, I mean the FIRST Eames Commission, back in 1988. “Open Reception” was the way the first appearance of “impaired communion” was addressed. No one should be surprised that the same method will be brought back for an encore. Here comes Hegel again.
The tone, D.C., is simply earnesst pleading. I would really not like the third largest Christian family in the world to be further torn and hurt.
If some readers don’t remember what went on in the decade between 1988 and 1998 Lambeth Conferences, I googled up this [url=http://tinyurl.com/58jjbc]short essay from Dr. Mary Tanner[/url] reflecting on whether the reception process was really open or not. The whole thing will seem like dejavu all over again.
[i]Philip, an inherent theme in both Scripture and tradition has been the desirability of reexamining established ideas when there seems to be a reason to do so, and of being willing to listen to — and perhaps even to be persuaded by — other points of view[/i]
As long as these other points of view line up with SCRIPTURE and Tradition, I agree with you.
[i]• The Syrophoenecian woman wouldn’t take no for an answer, so Jesus reconsidered his previous focus on Jews;[/i]
The scripture in question indicated that Jesus did not CHANGE HIS MIND, but was rather focusing on the woman, to see how deep her faith was, in other words, probing and prodding to get to the action/reaction HE wanted to see. His mission was always to the Jew first, but He knew the prophecies: the Messiah would open a new covenant for all nations, not just the Jews.
[i]• Saul/Paul had a change of mind and heart about persecuting the followers of the Way; [/i]
Be fair now, If Saul/Paul had not met the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, he would have rode into Damascus the same person as he was when he left Jerusalem. Meeting the Living God face to face has that effect on people. That and being struck blind. You can’t say it was all from the goodness of his heart and his own reasoning.
[i]• The church council in Acts 15 reexamined the question whether to exclude the uncircumcised from their midst, and ultimately changed the rules. It’s important to note that this change likely would never have happened if Paul and his fellow reappraisers had not defied the reasserters of the day[/i]
Again, that was a result of two things: Peter’s vision and meeting with Cornelius, where the Spirit fell on the Gentiles; and Peter himself visiting Paul in Greece and seeing the effect the Lord was having there. It was not a case of reasserter vs reappraiser, but rather how far to take the Lord’s command of Evangelism and discipleship at the end of Matthew’s Gospel/beginning of Acts. This decision seems to be the basis of one of the Articles of Religion:
[blockquote][b]VII. Of the Old Testament.[/b]
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral. [/blockquote]
[i]• In 1 Thess. 5.20-21, Paul urged his readers not to dismiss prophets (who by definition urge us to reexamine settled views), but instead to test what they say and keep what proved to be good. [/i]
HOW did he tell them to test what they said? By studying the SCRIPTURES. Paul called upon the [b]authority of the Scriptures[/b]. The implication was that if what they said did not line up with the Holy Writ, they were to reject it. If it did, they were to embrace it. quite a difference from today’s “new thing” where we are told by Bishop Griswold “If we have to go against Scripture, then so be it”, and Bp Bennison’s “The Church wrote scripture, the church can re-write it”.
My point is, let’s put your examples to the test of context.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
D.C. wrote:
“The Syrophoenecian woman wouldn’t take no for an answer, so Jesus reconsidered his previous focus on Jews”
I don’t know how many things Jesus reconsidered or not, but in that particular instance, I think Jesus was trying to shake his disciples up by calling this woman as Jews would refer to her, and maybe in hearing those feelings externalized, they would see that they were wrong. He also seemed to be testing this womans resolve and faith.
Despite the Gospel author’s lack of understanding of Jesus’ actions in that case, I doubt that Jesus ever did anything that didn’t have the purpose of teaching his disciples something He wanted them to know.
[blockquote]
• The Syrophoenecian woman wouldn’t take no for an answer, so Jesus reconsidered his previous focus on Jews;
[/blockquote]
Jesus still focused on the Jews. However he did what the woman requested. God reaching out to the gentiles is a great theme in Scripture.
[blockquote]
• Saul/Paul had a change of mind and heart about persecuting the followers of the Way;
[/blockquote]
After God hit him over the head with a 2×4. When God strikes you blind, it is preferrable to change your mind. Again, Jesus (and his followers) were working out of the scriptural tradition. There is nothing new there.
[blockquote]
• The church council in Acts 15 reexamined the question whether to exclude the uncircumcised from their midst, and ultimately changed the rules. It’s important to note that this change likely would never have happened if Paul and his fellow reappraisers had not defied the reasserters of the day, thus bringing the issue into focus and serving sort of like the grain of sand in the oyster;
[/blockquote]
Again, I point you to the several passages in the Prophets that talk about God bringing the nations into the fold. Scriptural support is offered in the text of Acts 15. So, where is the scriptural support for blessing SSU’s or ordaining people who call sin “blessed?”
[blockquote]
• In 1 Thess. 5.20-21, Paul urged his readers not to dismiss prophets (who by definition urge us to reexamine settled views), but instead to test what they say and keep what proved to be good.
[/blockquote]
The job of a prophet is to call people back to their covenant. The first promise in our Covenant is to “continue in the apostles teaching and fellowship….” Where in the apostles teaching are the innovations that TECUSA is pushing?
To Stabill I respond that reason, to Hooker, is not what we think of “reason.” Reason is the word of the God (the Logos) spoken to the Church, not what science or logic say about a subject. The Church has always said that homoerotic relationships are sinful. Can you show me otherwise?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Can Lambeth and the commission go forward without any cessation on TEC’s part of a corrupt practice. Kendall says that this practice must first cease. This is merely logical and necessary, nothing else. But it is only too easy for the entire commission et al process to continue while TEC does nothing at all to change its practices. We will have all sorts of “unity” undertakings and TEC will continue at its old villainous games.
THERE WILL BE NO CESSATION UNTIL A POWER EXISTS TO PUNISH TEC. Does anyone doubt that? Larry
Philip Snyder (#17),
[blockquote]
To Stabill I respond that reason, to Hooker, is not what we think of “reason.†Reason is the word of the God (the Logos) spoken to the Church, not what science or logic say about a subject.
[/blockquote]
No, no, no. Here is the quotation from Richard Hooker (1554-1600) that is usually cited:
[blockquote]
What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever. [i]Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14[/i]
[/blockquote]
(Unfortunately, my source for this is secondary, but I think it’s correct.)
And, as I said, it’s consistent with [i]Fides et Ratio[/i], or, rather, the latter (from the 1980’s or 1990’s) is consistent with Hooker.
It’s important if only for understanding how the Roman Church will hope to avoid another sad incident such as its episode with Galileo (1564-1642).
I appreciate #3’s sentiment.
Perhaps if we gave up a sense of victory or a need to be coercive, there might be some progress. Choosing to be cutoff or connected is our own choice. Nobody forces us to do either. We might not like each other, or consider each other heretics, but it’s hubris to think that our opinion is God’s. Sometimes we have to get over being easily offended or hurt.
Kendall’s comment doesn’t note the final challenge of the gospel: “Its point is that all must live in the world side by side, leaving it to God to make his judgement at the final harvest. If coexistence is the only solution foreseeable to the bishops, here is good authority for it.”
John,
Are you willing to enforce a moritorium on same sex blessings and ordination of practicing homosexuals until such time as the Anglican Communion comes to a different mind on the subject? If so, then we can go foward. If not, I am afaid that the Anglican Communion will come apart. It is worth the destruction of the 3rd largest communion?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#21: Please…there really is no doubt about this: TEC is not going to be humbled, corrected, or shamed into backing down from SSBs.
The reason: they have a “True Believer”‘s conviction, and they have been seduced by a deceptive spirit. Read Joe Dallas’ “A Strong Delusion…Confronting the ‘Gay Christian Movement'” for a thorough examination.
Kendall, maybe you know something that I don’t. It seems to me that we must utilize the Serenity Prayer about TEC and leave it to its own devices. The AC has already cracked up and is irreparably damaged, if holding TEC and the GS provinces together is crucial to your definition of keeping the AC together.
Stabil, your quote is correct, but Philip Shyder is correct about the reason Hooker means. It is not the type of reason that Descartes and the enlightenment uses. It is Holy Spirit inspired reason.
Thank You for the “Hooker quote” clarifications. It seems to be thrown around a lot when people fail to be able to under-gird their positions with scripture. It would always set my teeth on edge, when misapplied.
Br. Michael (#23),
You write:
[blockquote]
Stabil, your quote is correct, but Philip Shyder is correct about the reason Hooker means. It is not the type of reason that Descartes and the enlightenment uses. It is Holy Spirit inspired reason.
[/blockquote]
Most likely, if not certainly, it is reason inspired by the Holy Spirit. As the quote says, it is “whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason”. I understand the use of [i]any[/i] here to indicate consensus.
But, as I understand these things (I have not been to seminary), it is [b]not[/b] the same thing as the Word of God though it must not contradict that which is plain from a correct reading of Scripture.
I understand the “Word of God” to be the mystical concept, co-eternal with God the Father and made incarnate in Jesus Christ, that is met in the prologue to the fourth gospel.
I can hear Hooker now….. what do you mean three legged stool?
Stabill,
In Hooker, Reason is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the Church – as a whole. It is not the scientific or “logical” entlightenment knowledge. One of the arguments for SSBs that I have heard is that science has shown us that homosexual men (women, for some reason are different) have no choice in their sexual preference. Therefore, according to reason, we cannot withhold the Church’s blessing on their relationships. That is now what Hooker meant by reason. He meant the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church today and Reason cannot contradict the plain meaning of Scripture – which the Articles of Religion call “God’s Word written.” So, the while the Word of God – the Logos – is incarnate in Jesus Christ, the Word of God is also Holy Scripture. If we do not believe that, then why do we say “The Word of the Lord” (and it is capitalized just like that) after the OT and NT readings in the Book of Common Prayer. So, you can have your word as “mystical concept” as long as it is also grounded in Holy Scripture.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#21. I promise I will not ordain any homosexuals. As far as same-sex blessings, nobody has asked. I will probably say, “why do you need the church’s blessing? God is wherever two or three are gathered in his name. Bless one another in Jesus’ name!”
Of course, I would be present.
But will I stop having communion with those who think differently? Probably not. That’s for God to decide.
John,
There you go with individualism again. Will you support disciplining priests and bishops who act or teach outside of what the Communion as a whole has said is acceptable faith or practice? For example, will you support changes to the canons of your diocese that state that it is illegal to perform same sex unions and that those who are ordained are expected to express their sexuality only within the confines of a male-female marriage?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil Snyder [#29], when it comes to sex outside a male-female marriage, I have a hard time understanding why the laity should be held to a lesser standard than the ordained. (I know the pragmatic reason, of course: if your proposed canon required not only the ordained, but also the laity, to remain celibate outside of marriage, there’s little chance it would be approved — “reverend, now you’ve stopped preachin’ and started meddlin’.”)
Any proposal for a canon like this should take into account the various edge cases (to use a computer-programming term) that might come up. In that regard, here are some hypothetical situations, of the kind law students have to deal with.
The basic question: If you have a male and a female, what does it take to have their relationship count as “marriage” for purposes of legitimizing their sexual activity under this proposed canon?
• An ordained deacon and his fiancee are ready to start their wedding. Oops: They forgot to get a marriage license. The officiant, a friend of theirs, is sympathetic; he goes ahead and conducts the service anyway; the couple exchange vows and rings. Without more, under Philip’s proposed diocesan canon, would their wedding-night sex be licit or illicit?
• In Berzerkistan —Gary Trudeau’s fictional dictatorship, based on Turkmenistan under the madman Saparmurat Niyazov — suppose the “law” says that, in order to get a marriage license, a bride must offer herself to the local mayor for droit du seigneur. An engaged woman refuses to do this; she and her fiance and their minister proceed secretly with their wedding, without a license. Is their wedding-night sex licit? (This was an early scene in the movie Braveheart, wasn’t it?)
• Here in the U.S., a couple get a license and exchange vows and rings; the ceremony is presided over by their former college professor, who has no legal or ecclesiastical credentials of any kind. Licit or illicit sex?
• A young woman marries her rapist, not because she wants to (she despises the guy), but because her parents insist that family honor requires it. Licit or illicit?
Philip, anyone wanting to enact a diocesan canon such as you’re proposing should at least consider how the canon would deal with these hypotheticals.
DC,
The laity are not held to a lesser standard — The clergy are held to a HIGHER standard. This is because they are standing in the place of Christ, a shepherd, of God’s people
“To whom much is given, much is expected”
and
“God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers”
In fact, all Christians are expected to live their lives in accord with Christ’s teachings and commands, and to repent when they (we) fall short. But as examples, Bishops and priests and deacons are expected to set that example.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Philip – you’ve said a lot there. “act or teach.” Act, I submit to the bishop, and to what the diocesan convention or General convention decides; teach? There is a place for individual conscience in the tradition – even in the Roman Catholic tradition. If not, then we start making the church is into a spiritually Stalinist state. If that’s you’re sort of faith, God bless you.
For I honestly believe that Christianity – the faith taught by Jesus Christ, and as evinced by his resurrection – makes complementarity irrelevant. I believe that his death upon the cross exposed the danger of assuming our needs are God’s needs (that, for example, gay sex brings God’s wrath). I think I have good theological reasons for it. So I will continue teaching.
I think that you are wrong for saying homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexual acts can be taken out of context, abstracted as something out of a human relationship. Although scripture may have an understanding of homosexual acts (I think biblical culture is unintelligible in this score), it seems to me that it is as reliable as its assumptions about geological time and the sun’s relationship to the earth. But I also don’t think that belief trumps shared prayer or the liturgy. Thus, though I think you are deeply wrong, it’s my problem, and not yours, and definitely not God’s. I’ve just got to deal with the fact that you’re not thinking clearly. Should I change you? No. God loves you. A sinner. Like me. And I only knew about my Sin because God forgave me. More and more, gay people are realizing that God loves them – likes them – as who they are, bringing them into a new, changed sort of existence that gets them out of the predatory places that the church has forced them into. This is what I teach, and I believe that this narrative has plenty of warrant in scripture.
As it is I do obey my bishop, who has stated that priests have to follow the law. In my state, that means only heterosexual marriages. If the state changed the law, I may, as an agent of the state, bless a couple who the laity in my church – the wardens and vestry – thought merited a blessing, and challenge my bishop. I would submit to his discipline in this case if I did so.
I don’t mind him disciplining me, whatever that means. I don’t think Akinola or the ABC should discipline me. That’s inquisitorial and one reason we’re not Romans.
As it is I would lead a community – as a Christian, and not as a presbyter – in blessing a couple that the community of Christians believed whose relationships represented the work of the spirit. I might make a little marriage certificate. I might even place it in the book. I’ll let God make the real decision, for in reality, it’s not a marriage until the state says it.
But I would never go to your parish and do such a thing. Nor would I do it in your diocese. I don’t think liberal bishops should force conservative bishops to do this. Nor do I think there should be a formal rite in the BCP – we shouldn’t even be producing a new book anyway – rites should all be online. People invent rites and they should have the confidence to perform rites as they see fit and say them in Jesus’ name. They don’t need the church for that (and I admit some exasperation with those pro-gay groups who seem to insist the church has to offer legitimacy. God is there and known through the fruits).
I think you have plenty of other things to worry about, for God is somewhere working in your midst. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a Christian and that you can discern how God is working in your church’s life.
I wish I were offered the same charity.
Philip Snyder (#27),
[blockquote]
So, while the Word of God – the Logos – is incarnate in Jesus Christ, the Word of God is also Holy Scripture. If we do not believe that, then why do we say “The Word of the Lord†(and it is capitalized just like that) after the OT and NT readings in the Book of Common Prayer.
[/blockquote]
The Word of God is God’s message for us. It is an abstraction. It is beyond full human comprehension and, therefore, beyond the expressive capability of any human language.
After a lesson the reader (under BCP 1979) says “The Word of the Lord” because the reading has been from the Holy Scriptures, which we understand to [i]set forth[/i] or [i]proclaim[/i] the Word of God.
Stabill,
Your definition flies in the face of 2000 years of understanding the Written Scriptures, starting with Jesus and St. Paul.
“The Scriptures testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to me so you might gain eternal life” – Jesus, John 5:39-40
“All Scripture (revelation written down) is inspired/breathed by God, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Paul, 2 Timothy 3:16
From the Articles of Religion:
[b]VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.[/b]
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
[b]VII. Of the Old Testament.[/b]
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
From the Catechism:
[i]Q. What is the Old Testament? [/i]
A. The Old Testament consists of books written by the people of the Old Covenant, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to show God at work in nature and history.
[i]Q. What is the New Testament? [/i]
A. The New Testament consists of books written by the people of the New Covenant, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to set forth the life and teachings of Jesus and to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom for all people.
[i]Q. Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God? [/i]
A. We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.
[i]Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible? [/i]
A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures.
From The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886, 1888, Adopted by the House of Bishops Chicago, 1886
[blockquote]But furthermore, we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity…can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence; which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.
As inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom, we account the following, to wit:
1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God. [/blockquote]
The Scriptures have been held as the Primary Written Revelation of God’s Word through the ages. Now all of a sudden, they are just a ‘guidebook’ because we cannot know the mind of God in human language? Nonsense.
libraryjim (#34),
[blockquote]
Your definition flies in the face of 2000 years of understanding the Written Scriptures, starting with Jesus and St. Paul.
[/blockquote]
I hope not. I think what I said is consonant with everything you cited.
[blockquote]
Now all of a sudden, they are just a ‘guidebook’ because we cannot know the mind of God in human language?
[/blockquote]
This is a gross misinterpretation of what I said.
libraryjim, you have a great understanding of history. At some point you may be given permission by God to think for yourself.
Scripture also warns us: we may search but not find him. Second – Paul was referring to the OT – the Septuagint, in fact.
I have no problem that the bible is The Word of God. But the early church fathers, at least, were remarkably imaginative about how it was used.
John Wilkins (#36),
Yes, it is reasonable to take one’s understanding of the phrase “The Word of God” from the Oath of Conformity.
I understand it from John 1:
[blockquote]
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
[/blockquote]
The issue I have with the Oath — which I’ve never had to take but which is required of every bishop, priest, and deacon — is that, as an oath, it should be cast in the language of rational discourse rather than in liturgical language. That is, an oath ought to be something whose meaning could reasonably be dissected under hostile cross examination.
One faces the question of what the meaning of the word [i]is[/i] is 😉 i.e., the meaning of [i]to be[/i] in
[blockquote]
I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church.
[/blockquote]
If this is interpreted as a statement in the language of rational discourse, it means that the Word of God is identically the same thing as the Scriptures. It means that the Word of God is not distinguishable in any way from the Scriptures.
So if the Oath is a statement in the language of rational discourse, it is important which translations of which original versions of the Scriptures are referenced. It is then important which copy of the “Word of God Written” definitively represents the “Word of God”.
Since it seems clear that the Oath was not intended to be specific about versions and translations, one can only conclude that, as it is, the Oath is not cast in the language of rational discourse.
A simple way to fix it, i.e., to make it more like a normal oath, would be to change “be” to “set forth”.
John,
Thinking for oneself does not automatically mean disagreeing with historic Church teaching or orthodox theology.
I’ll have you know that early on in my walk with the Lord, I went through quite a time of intense discernment to find out if what I was being taught was true, or if a more ‘liberal’ view was in order, which led to a study of different theologies of people trying to convince me their way was right (Mormon, JW, Catholic, Reformation, etc.).
My studies brought me to the conclusion that the orthodox, historic teaching of Christianity was indeed, the correct way to interpret the Bible, etc. I have kept studying, even to this day, and have found nothing to cause me to change this conclusion or adopt the empty, vapid false-Gospel teaching perpetuated by many of the ‘leaders’ of this movement taking over the churches today.
Peace to you in the Resurrected Lord, Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God incarnate.
Jim Elliott <><
No, “to be the Word of God” is correct. The Scriptures ARE the Word of God written. Jesus is the logos of God, incarnate. There is a difference and a separation of meaning, but the wording is correct.
#2 It is a really good question, though answering it is getting harder and harder as the damage seems to increase and thereby so does the divide.
One place where I tried to get at something was here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/6164/