|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I have written above is what it sounds like to me.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
A point not yet mentioned is that the Scaife family wants the Episcopal church in their pocket. There was a big meeting in Dallas a few years ago. The city ought to be called the American capital of ecclesiastical amnesia. It was there that a lobotomy had been administered to the Southern Baptist Convention some thirty years earlier, such that they forgot what the denomination had hitherto stood for in the way of individual autonomy. Happily, Episcopalians are too aware and fond of history for the attempt to have succeeded yet in our case. The election of Ms. Claypool at least provides reassuring evidence that outside money has not yet bought our church (unless you are an even subtler conspiracy theoriest than I).
Those abroad might not feel this threat, but we do.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I (you?) have written above is what it sounds like to me.
Of course people are permitted to have their own understanding of the word. But that doesn't mean that all understandings of the word are equally valid or true. Or that they should be permitted to teach those understandings to the body of Christ. The difference between eccentricity and heresy is the desire for an audience. Eccentricity is permitted, heresy is not. I believe in the perspicuity (or clarity) of scripture, but I'm not naive enough to believe that divergent views do not exist. And of course, some of those divergent view are very difficult to resolve. However, I do believe that most divergent views are resolvable through continued recourse to scripture. This is because scripture is the ultimate rule of faith and God is faithful to his promises.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And as the CofE website says, Anglicans uphold the ultimacy of the scripture and the sufficiency of the creeds, and recognise the congruity of the 39 Articles with the preceding two.
One last time, Numpty: the C of E is not "Anglicans," and your frantic repetition of this point won't make it true. In some provinces, the Articles have no authoritative standing whatsoever.
And in some (like mine), they are constitutionally enshrined as delineating the fundamentals of anglican belief (alongside the 1662 BCP).
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Indeed. And there is probably all manner of shading in between, as in the US (where they are a 'historical document') and Canada (where they have some status owing to their place in the Solemn Declaration).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
... We're talking fracture in relationship on the grounds that some in the Communion believe a manner of life to be incompatible with public ministry. I know that ECUSA folk don't get that, and perhaps it's futile to keep trying to explain it.
Some of us get that. Some of us also wonder why each province can't decide for themselves which manner of life is compatible and which manner of life is incompatible with public ministry within their province. Or maybe its just me.
To my mind, this thread has for me exposed rifts in the fabric of Anglicanism far deeper than issues of human sexuality but far more to do with what it means to be Anglican. There are those, for example, like Numpty and myself, who believe that Anglicanism is a form of Reformed Catholicism and that documents like the 39 Arts are pretty normative and foundational to the concept of an Anglican Communion and without which there's not much of a 'communion' to speak of...and then there's a heck of a lot of people on this thread who think otherwise...
This, to me, is the real issue at stake.
So you can't let each province interpret things like the 39 Arts themselves. And by the way you notice that sexuality was not mentioned in my post. I think you are right about this being deeper than sexuality. I think it is more to do with autonomy.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Although I've previously made this point it's important to remember, further, that the 39 have never had any real standing in the American Church. They were "established" by General Convention in 1801, albeit without any meaning of such "establishment" being attached; no subscription ever required. The only true believers walked out of the Church over ritualist controversies, led by the Suffragan Bishop of Kentucky, not long after the American Civil War. So it's not as if the Articles were subsequently relegated to irrelevance; they just never were terribly relevant. What is probably of greater interest is the original preface to the American BCP, which declares - as of 1789 - that the Episcopal Church did not mean to depart from the essential doctrine of the CoE, nor from its worship except insofar as local circumstances required. That was the perspective as of the late C18. Yet it's interesting to note that the very first American BCP got rid of the Athanasian Creed in the Offices and it was never to be seen in an American prayerbook until it was placed in the Historical Documents section of the 1979 book, but not authorised for liturgical use. Moreover, the eucharistic theology of the American BCP has always had a different slant due to the adoption of the rite used by the Scottish non-jurors, which Samuel Seabury agreed to endeavour to have adopted in the American Church. Although these issues aren't directly related to the controversies of the present day, it's worth keeping in mind the quite different starting point of the American Church relative to the CoE or its later colonial missions (as most will know, unlike its later work in overseas missions, the CoE would never consecrate or send forth bishops to its Church in the American colonies prior to the Revolution).
[ 15. December 2009, 23:52: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Finally, in case this isn't already entirely clear, I don't think the American Church will ever tolerate any limitations on its autonomy. That's just not on. I'm not even attempting to say whether that is a good position or not. It's simply that culturally the American Church won't be constrained by the collective will of foreign prelates.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
The prerequisites for church unity are expressed in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: scripture, creeds, sacraments, historic episcopate. There is nothing new in these criteria. They were expressed much earlier in the church history.
The Anglican Communion as it has come to be articulated recently by some is beginning to look suspiciously like one of the images/ideologies/institutions that Stringfellow and Wink warn have demonic properties, including that of depersonalizing and sacrificing human beings when it serves their own survival. It is uncomfortable to observe these developments, but they seem all too novel compared to the respectful and cordial collegiality of the past.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
...It's simply that culturally the American Church won't be constrained by the collective will of foreign prelates.
Which is precisely the reason there is Anglicanism in the first place.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The prerequisites for church unity are expressed in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: scripture, creeds, sacraments, historic episcopate.
What's church unity got to do with the Anglican Communion?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Actually, to my understanding the Chicago-Lambeth Quad is a formula for the minimum basis for achieving "home reunion", the main sticking point of which is the adoption of some form of episcopacy by churches that presently lack it. I actually think we're moving beyond this. While achievement of communio in sacris between ourselves and the ELCA depended on the adoption by the ELCA of the historic episcopate, the proposed agreement on interim sharing of the Eucharist with the Prebyterian Church USA deals with the matter of polity by recognising that both churches have a dedicated ministry of oversight. This isn't really a new development; people have been talking in these terms for at least the past 25 years. However, the agreement would be groundbreaking because, by my reading, it would authorise the possibility of a presbyterian minister celebrating the Eucharist using the Presbyterian rite for a congregation of Episcopalians. I realise this is a digression, but I want to emphasise that in the USA a lot of progress is being made in the field of Christian unity, in contrast to our present travails within the AC.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
the proposed agreement on interim sharing of the Eucharist with the Prebyterian Church USA ...
I hadn't heard about this. Thanks for telling us.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
You can find the proposed agreement either on the website Episcopal Life Online (formerly the Episcopal News Service) or on the Episcopal Church website itself, if not both. I believe it's already been approved by TEC but has to be approved by a majority of presbyteries in the PCUSA.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Extremely interesting, especially as PCUSA sent it down on remit. Care to launch a separate thread to discuss this?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I (you?) have written above is what it sounds like to me.
Of course people are permitted to have their own understanding of the word. But that doesn't mean that all understandings of the word are equally valid or true. Or that they should be permitted to teach those understandings to the body of Christ. The difference between eccentricity and heresy is the desire for an audience. Eccentricity is permitted, heresy is not. I believe in the perspicuity (or clarity) of scripture, but I'm not naive enough to believe that divergent views do not exist. And of course, some of those divergent view are very difficult to resolve. However, I do believe that most divergent views are resolvable through continued recourse to scripture. This is because scripture is the ultimate rule of faith and God is faithful to his promises.
Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for essential matters concerning salvation. The Anglican tradition have historically rejected the Puritan insistence that every single thing must have a clear and explicit justification in the Bible.
In my view, the resolution of divergent views of Scripture can only be resolved in the direction that results in greater charity and love. Our Lord himself summed up the Law with the Two Great Commandments, and St Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 13 declared that love is the ultimate criterion for true faithfulness to Christ. In the context of the Anglican Communion, a right decision must result in mutual understanding, respect, and appreciation for one another.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I (you?) have written above is what it sounds like to me.
Of course people are permitted to have their own understanding of the word. But that doesn't mean that all understandings of the word are equally valid or true. Or that they should be permitted to teach those understandings to the body of Christ. The difference between eccentricity and heresy is the desire for an audience. Eccentricity is permitted, heresy is not. I believe in the perspicuity (or clarity) of scripture, but I'm not naive enough to believe that divergent views do not exist. And of course, some of those divergent view are very difficult to resolve. However, I do believe that most divergent views are resolvable through continued recourse to scripture. This is because scripture is the ultimate rule of faith and God is faithful to his promises.
Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for essential matters concerning salvation. The Anglican tradition have historically rejected the Puritan insistence that every single thing must have a clear and explicit justification in the Bible.
I think that you are mistakenly conflating two distinct ideas. The sufficiency and the ultimacy of scripture. The result, ISTM, is a rarified definition of faith to those beliefs that particularly pertain to salvation. In other words, you seem to attempting to divorce beliefs which are essentially soteriological from certain behavioural injunctions as not pertaining to salvation. The book of James does not permit such over-spiritualisation of faith.
Oh, and for the record, I am not arguing for the regulative principle which, essentially, maintains that we are not do something until there is Scriptural warrant to do so. I am arguing for the normative principle which, essentially, maintains that we are to do the things we want until the Scripture says no. The starting point is not constraint, the starting point is freedom.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Numpty, are such people (like the ABC) that you mentioned permitted to have their own understanding of that word, or one that you consider to be right? I know it sounds like I'm being cheeky, but what I (you?) have written above is what it sounds like to me.
Of course people are permitted to have their own understanding of the word. But that doesn't mean that all understandings of the word are equally valid or true. Or that they should be permitted to teach those understandings to the body of Christ. The difference between eccentricity and heresy is the desire for an audience. Eccentricity is permitted, heresy is not. I believe in the perspicuity (or clarity) of scripture, but I'm not naive enough to believe that divergent views do not exist. And of course, some of those divergent view are very difficult to resolve. However, I do believe that most divergent views are resolvable through continued recourse to scripture. This is because scripture is the ultimate rule of faith and God is faithful to his promises.
Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for essential matters concerning salvation. The Anglican tradition have historically rejected the Puritan insistence that every single thing must have a clear and explicit justification in the Bible.
I think that you are mistakenly conflating two distinct ideas. The sufficiency and the ultimacy of scripture. The result, ISTM, is a rarified definition of faith to those beliefs that particularly pertain to salvation. In other words, you seem to attempting to divorce beliefs which are essentially soteriological from certain behavioural injunctions as not pertaining to salvation. The book of James does not permit such over-spiritualisation of faith.
Oh, and for the record, I am not arguing for the regulative principle which, essentially, maintains that we are not do something until there is Scriptural warrant to do so. I am arguing for the normative principle which, essentially, maintains that we are to do the things we want until the Scripture says no. The starting point is not constraint, the starting point is freedom.
I would agree with you on this point. On this issue, I think at the very least, there is suitable room for respectful disagreement over the teachings regarding homosexual relations in Holy Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture do I find a condemnation of the blessing of a committed and faithful same-sex couple. Conservatives will no doubt disagree vehemently with my interpretation.
But all liberals and conservatives committed to the same creedal faith of the Christian tradition acknowledge the same Triune God, the same Jesus who is both God and human, etc. With the exception of John Spong who isn't representative of all US Episcopalians, let alone, all North American Anglicans, no TEC leader has ever repudiated the central tenets of the catholic Creeds. There is much to unite us than divide us. In fact, Anglicans have done quite well maintaining unity in spite of a diversity of views on the nature of the Eucharist. If an Anglican who accepts Transubstantiation can break bread with one who accepts Calvin's spiritual presence view, then why can't two Anglicans who disagree over homosexuality? Please tell me that homosexuality is not a greater theological issue than discerning the nature of the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.
Going back to my first point, in the context of a genuine and honest disagreement over one moral issue by Anglicans who are uniformly faithful to the essentials, is not the most charitable thing to support religious conscience and permit each church to discern its own course of action in its dialogue with the Holy Spirit? I would say yes. Many in TEC would say to not ordain LGBT clergy or not bless same-gendered relationships would contravene Scripture. The scriptures they would refer to would be Our Lord's 2 Great Commandments and the many passages that speak to love, joy, peace and gentleness.
[ 16. December 2009, 05:52: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Anglican_Brat:
Nowhere in Scripture do I find a condemnation of the blessing of a committed and faithful same-sex couple.
You won't find the bible condemning the riding of unicorns either.
And I think the analogy between disagreements concerning the nature of the eucharist and the same of human sexuality is false. However, if TEC was advocating the replacement of bread and wine with Corn Chips and Coca-Cola I could see the analogy working.
[ 16. December 2009, 08:05: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Hehe, ironically this is happening in some places in Africa, the reason being that wine is so expensive that one bottle can be as much as a week or even a months wages and Coke is seem as the staple for parties and community gatherings. I recall a kerfuffle about it a while ago, but I don't know what the state of play is now.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is that the Qu'ranic approach to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, then?
No - who's saying that?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
...It's simply that culturally the American Church won't be constrained by the collective will of foreign prelates.
Which is precisely the reason there is Anglicanism in the first place.
Zach
and
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall
What's church unity got to do with the Anglican Communion?
And therein, IMO, lies the problem....
What's the point of having a Communion if it's not about church unity??? A disunited Communion is surely an oxymoron.
[ 16. December 2009, 08:27: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you for your last post Anglican Brat . Who may, or may not, be ordained is a matter of ecclesiology, not of faith, and we would do well to remember that our basic Anglican teaching is that church governance is a matter of tradition and convenience rather than of faith.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
And I think the analogy between disagreements concerning the nature of the eucharist and the same of human sexuality is false.
I think that was rather AB's point. They're not analogous - one is a much graver disagreement, yet has not so far been a cause of impaired communion.
[ 16. December 2009, 09:01: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is that the Qu'ranic approach to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, then?
No - who's saying that?
I think the point was that Christians should be able to debate various interpretations of scripture with an assumption of good faith on the part of their opponents.
To dismiss all those who hold views different from your own, or even from the majority, as eccentrics (which may be true in the literal, but not in the common, usage) or as heretics, is not conducive to such debates, and would therefore tend to an approach more common in Islam than in Christianity.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Matt Black
What's the point of having a Communion if it's not about church unity??? A disunited Communion is surely an oxymoron.
Not at all. In fact, communion almost demands a certain sense of difference to make it meaningful. That may be difference within a congregation, between, say, traditionalists and progerssives, or within a diocese, between preaching house and AC shrine, or between national churches. How are we to mature if we do not subject ourselves to the discipline of "povdig" (thanks, Josephine), of learning to get on with one another in spite of our differences.
Communion is about saying, "I disagree with you, but that doesn't change the love and respect I have for you as a brother or sister in Christ, and whatever it costs me in pride and discomfort, I will sit down at table with you, and share with you the bread and wine of the undivided body of Christ. We are all one in Christ Jesus, whether we like it or not. Would that every "church" (ie denomination) in the world embody that truth, but we have to start from where we are, and where we are is that there exists an Anglican communion. Those who want to fracture that communion, however good their intentions, are surely moving against the expressed prayer of our Lord that what is true in the heavenlies should be manifest on earth.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
It also depends what the degree of difference is. If we cannot even agree on what the term 'communion' means then what hope is there? "Unless two are agreed to walk together" and all that...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Shouldn't this be balanced with judgement though? It's a hard line to take when certain morals are so much a part of your being that you feel others should follow your way of thinking, but I think we are called not to judge which would mean giving people the freedom to find their own walk with God - easier said than done. But I think you need to remember that (if you want to divide it into two camps) that liberals and conservatives do view one another with a certain degree of suspicion, or at least an assumption on where they are coming from. Each groups morals/faith/discipline/practice/understanding of scripture, etc are different and in some cases deemed repugnant or even wrong by the other. So both need to learn tollerance and respect. It's a two way street Numpty, and you can't have it all your own way - the world just isn't like that.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is that the Qu'ranic approach to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, then?
No - who's saying that?
I think the point was that Christians should be able to debate various interpretations of scripture with an assumption of good faith on the part of their opponents.
Debate concerning interpretation, yes. Accepting divergent views as "equally correct", no. The aim of theology is to come to the correct interpretation; the true interpretation. Any other motive would be theologically substandard. Of course, different people will come to different convictions concerning what is correct and true. But let's not pretend that we aren't interested in being right. We are interested in being right. We are interested in truth.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But we are not talking about the world, but the Church.
[reply to fletcher christian]
[ 16. December 2009, 11:25: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."
So ought I to refuse to post on the same website as you because, say, it seems to me you have a compulsion to deceive? You consistently post as if your way of reading the bible is the only reasonable one, yet there is incontrovertable evidence on pages that you cannot not have read for that not being the case. That's a deliberate lie. I'm sure there must be texts that convincingly prove this is a gross sin.
I sometimes struggle to believe you're actually posting this kind drivel in good faith, Numpty, that really you're just playing word games. Either way, you're describing a world view that is entirely divorced from reality. Whether you can derive it from the text of the bible has no relevance whatsoever.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But we are not talking about the world, but the Church.
[reply to fletcher christian]
You can't have the world all your way, so you'll start a church were it can all be your way?
Oh dear.
Matt, you would have been much happier in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
... start a church were it can all be your way?
oh dear oh dear. must not post before morning coffee.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."
Then withdraw, already! Of course you're quite right that communion can't be coerced, but as Mao said, shit or get off the pot.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I thought Mao said you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. And Morrissey said "there's a country, you don't live there but one day you would like to, when you show them what you're made of, when you settle the score" (National Front Disco -- just seems relevant to some of the ideas about Church being posted on this thread).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But we are not talking about the world, but the Church.
[reply to fletcher christian]
You can't have the world all your way, so you'll start a church were it can all be your way?
I was questioning the wisdom of basing our outlook on 'worldly' values.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."
Then withdraw, already! Of course you're quite right that communion can't be coerced, but as Mao said, shit or get off the pot.
If you look at 1 Cor 5.11-13 you'll see that I'm not advocating the withdrawal of conservatives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion; I'm advocating the principled expulsion of progressives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."
Then withdraw, already! Of course you're quite right that communion can't be coerced, but as Mao said, shit or get off the pot.
If you look at 1 Cor 5.11-13 you'll see that I'm not advocating the withdrawal of conservatives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion; I'm advocating the principled expulsion of progressives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion.
Well, there is no basis in Anglican polity for such an expulsion.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm advocating the principled expulsion of progressives from fellowship in the Anglican Communion.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Whose principles would they be, then? Certainly not the Church of England.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
But we are not talking about the world, but the Church.
...and I imagine it's the same world He came to save, but this conversation is going from silly, to downright mad; playing with words, deliberately obfuscating meaning and peeps calling for the expulsion of everyone who doesn't think in exactly the same way they do. I've had the unfortunate displeasure of seeing all this before, when during the Northern Ireland peace process an immovable object met an unstoppable force in the shapes of Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams. Everyone accepted that it would be tough because two bigoted assholes were locked in a room together - but really, is this what it has come to for the church? Where did we loose the concept of seeing the image of God in our neighbour? Maybe I was away on holiday the day the church decided that......
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
...it was fed up with having too much of the world in the Church and not enough of the Church in the world?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
LQ possibly erroneously notes that:
quote:
Well, there is no basis in Anglican polity for such an expulsion.
Well.... there is the case of Bishop Colenso of Natal, but he was only half-expelled-- the ecclesiastical courts turfed him out, but the British civil courts kept him in. Before that, of course, many clergy were displaced in 1559-1561 for non-compliance with the Elizabethan establishment, and then there was the wholesale removal of puritan clerics in 1660 at the Restoration.
Most constituent churches have provisions to depose and/or defrock clergy for a wide variety of offences and, depending on the exact wording of canons and the willingness of a majority to use them, expulsions are quite feasible. There is an argument that this is what was done with the (for want of a better word) traditionalists in Pittsburgh and San Joaquin, but that discussion has been exhausted on the boards.
The desirability of doing so is quite another question.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Whether sexual orientation is mentioned in the Bible I gainsay: please provide citations. Whether it says much about Lesbianism is also doubtful.
If Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool had both given vows of celibacy, you may have a point. AFAIK neither of them have done so, so this is a red herring.
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
No, but neither can we remove orientation from the equation as reasserters would like to do, because once you admit orientation into the evidence, it's much harder to defend a straightforward reading of the relevant texts.
So you're suggesting that the bible's wrong because we've invented the concept of orientation in the last 200 years? That's what it reads like.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I'm sorry Jolly Jape but that degree of tolerance doesn't accord with 1 Cor 5:11 which allows for principled withdrawal of fellowship for gross sin. You can't say to a fellow Christian, "Look, I don't think this is sin and therefore - despite the fact that you do think it is sin - you must keep associating with me. Oh, and if you don't keep associating with me I will accuse you of lack of love."
Well, actually, I don't actually recall accusing you of anything, just suggesting that you were not giving sufficient weight to the direct, unambiguous and unqualified Dominical teaching of, for example, the various and manifold references in John 13-17, in favour of a few verses by Paul, the applicability of which to the present circumstances is not even certain.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Whether sexual orientation is mentioned in the Bible I gainsay: please provide citations. Whether it says much about Lesbianism is also doubtful.
If Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool had both given vows of celibacy, you may have a point. AFAIK neither of them have done so, so this is a red herring.
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
No, but neither can we remove orientation from the equation as reasserters would like to do, because once you admit orientation into the evidence, it's much harder to defend a straightforward reading of the relevant texts.
So you're suggesting that the bible's wrong because we've invented the concept of orientation in the last 200 years? That's what it reads like.
No, what it reads like is that the Bible speaks against homosexuality as part of pagan cultic observances, or of orgiastic practices, or of just plain immorality, but is silent about it in a context of loving, lifelong and exclusive relationships, because the writers of the texts either never came across such relationships, and therefore could not have addressed them, or else came accross them, and made no comment.
I suspect we are in danger of approaching the horses' happy hunting ground here, though.
[ 16. December 2009, 14:31: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
There is a brand new thread in Dead Horses which started on Lesbianism and the Bible and which has now moved onto those sorts of questions
Lesbians and The Bible
All welcome.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is that the Qu'ranic approach to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, then?
No - who's saying that?
I think the point was that Christians should be able to debate various interpretations of scripture with an assumption of good faith on the part of their opponents.
Debate concerning interpretation, yes. Accepting divergent views as "equally correct", no. The aim of theology is to come to the correct interpretation; the true interpretation. Any other motive would be theologically substandard. Of course, different people will come to different convictions concerning what is correct and true. But let's not pretend that we aren't interested in being right. We are interested in being right. We are interested in truth.
Come on, now, Numpty, we're all interested in the truth, I am, you are, so is Matt, and LQ, and Grammatica, and +VGR. So, for that matter, were the Pharisees, the Saducees, and even Pilate.
You seem, here, to recognise that there is a plurality of beliefs that people can, with integrity, hold. That is not saying that each of those beliefs is right, per se, though I probably allow for more complemetary truth than perhaps you do, but it is acknowledging that we see "through a glass darkly". If that is a just summary of your position, then is it not your desire to expel from fellowship those who have honestly come to an understanding different from yours just a tad worrying to you?
The truth (sic) is that if we look for differences we will find them, and there will always be some pretext at hand to highlight those differences to such a point where we can justify to ourselves the rending of the seamless robe. Do you really believe that that is what Christ wants for His Church? If we choose the other option, of looking for Christ in our brother or sister with whom we disagree, then we will see the strength of diversity, not the weakness of division.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Debate concerning interpretation, yes. Accepting divergent views as "equally correct", no. The aim of theology is to come to the correct interpretation; the true interpretation. Any other motive would be theologically substandard. Of course, different people will come to different convictions concerning what is correct and true. But let's not pretend that we aren't interested in being right. We are interested in being right. We are interested in truth.
Speak for yourself. I don't think it's even possible for us to be completely right, to know the full truth about God, this side of the grave. We see through a glass darkly, as Jolly Jape (and Paul before him) says.
There are four conflicting versions of the gospel in the Bible; the early church didn't seem to think it was important to come to one interpretation of the foundational events of Christianity. There has never, ever been agreement among Christians on one interpretation of those events or of the Bible. You're not talking about reality, Numpty.
[ 16. December 2009, 15:14: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
