In closing, I would like to make three final observations. First, I keep being told that there are \u201d\u02dcgood arguments\u2019 for the Church to change its teaching on this issue. If there are, then where are they? Jeffrey John is a leading figure in this debate, so how come he offers us here such a poorly researched, implausible and incoherent case? Why is the case being made by SEC, a sister church in the Communion, so thin?<\/p>\n
Secondly, what is Jeffrey John doing from the pulpit? He consistently makes the claim that texts \u201d\u02dcmust mean this\u2019 when they probably don\u2019t, that Paul \u201d\u02dccertainly would have thought this\u2019 when the majority think he wouldn\u2019t, and that \u201d\u02dcthis is what Jesus does\u2019 when the gospels writers suggest the opposite. It is one thing to make a case, even a contentious one; it is quite another to disguise from your listeners that there is another possibility. It is a bit like saying \u201d\u02dcI am not interpreting the Bible; I am simply telling you what it says.\u2019 It is a naked power play, and is wrong whoever does it. Some would call this dishonest; others might label it deceptive. It doesn\u2019t seem to me to be a legitimate way to feed sheep….<\/p>\n
Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n I will take comments on this submitted by email only to KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com<\/i>.<\/p>\n Update<\/b>: Robert Gagnon has written on the passage in question there<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In closing, I would like to make three final observations. First, I keep being told that there are \u201d\u02dcgood arguments\u2019 for the Church to change its teaching on this issue. If there are, then where are they? Jeffrey John is…<\/span><\/p>\n