Do They Really “Take the Bible Seriously Not Literally”?

PB Schori’s love for neighbor compels her to set aside not only the passages on homosexuality.
“We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine.  But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.”  (Time Magazine, Jul 2006)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 2:5

The “I-take-the-bible-seriously-not-literally” arguments is something that I have heard for years…and in my pre-conversion days, even said!  It is a total ‘snob’ thing…  It is saying, “I, who know deep things consider the bible as a ‘deep thing’ with all the other ‘deep things’ that I deeply think about.”

The traditional view holds that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God; the revisionist view holds that the bible is an Inspiring Word from God.  Every major debate we have in the church today can be fit underneath that headline.

Matt this type of writing is extremely helpful in the growth of my theology.  It is a great ministry.  Thank you.

There are snippets of several heresies in this crisis.  I wonder if historians won’t call the combination ‘the American heresy.’  John Henry Newman wrote of America in 1839:  “Exclusiveness, separations, rules of life, observance of days, nice scruples of conscience, are odious to it. . . .A religion which neither irritates their reason nor interferes with their comfort, will be all in all in such a soicety.  Severity whether of creed or precept, high mysteries, corrective practices, subjection of whatever kind, whether to a doctrine or to a priest, will be offensive to them.”

And so we are continually thankful to God that when you heard the word of God from us you accepted it,not as a mere human message,but as it really is,God’s word,a power in the lives of you who believe.2 Thessalonians 2:13 Phillips
Like those described in Romans 1,behind their ‘facade of wisdom’ they’ll ‘deliberately forfeit the truth of God’ and ‘accept a lie’ rather than ‘welcome it not as the word of men,but as it is in truth,the Word of God’(1 Thess.2:13) and earn the titles,’‘instead they became futile and godless in their thinking(empty imaginings,foolish reasoning and stupid speculations)...fools and simpletons(1:21-22).

Matt,
I would add my thanks to Lee Parker’s.  I too find your words very helpful in enlightening me & moving me along the one path.

Matt:  You really should begin to put some of these essays into a booklet form, with a view towards creating a “Christianity 101 for Anglicans” or some such thing.  Much of what you write is not new to me as I was raised in the theologically and Biblically literate Christian Reformed Church, then did a Masters degree at Regent College in Vancouver (I took systematic theology from J.I. Packer no less).  But I have noticed in the Episcopal Church the astonishing ignorance of both clergy and laity on the very basic things.
Matt, your writings are solid and easy to grasp and they address so much of what needs to be addressed.  I volunteered to teach our parish’s highschool Sunday School and my main goal is simply to introduce these kids to Christianity.  Many of these kids are connected with the Freemason’s youth program, but, after our last diocesan convention, the frightening truth is that they are probably getting better teaching from the Masons then they are from the Diocese.
Accessible, orthodox, Anglican training materials and discussion books are badly needed!

I have heard the “God is Love” argument all my life to excuse all sorts of behavior and argue for a universalist understanding of Salvation.  I think a better understanding of John’s message is that God is “loving”, but He cannot be equated with what we humans imagine as “love”.  The corollary to “God is Love” is that anything we humans want to imagine as love (e.g. same sex attraction) is of God, and that simply is not true.

What was the author’s intent in writing the “begats?”  And again the intent in the 7 day creation?  Since you acknowledge Genesis 1-3 as difficult, what’s your take?

Based on YOUR CHOSEN method must we all become creationists and teach our children to disrespect science?

As you know there was some 1500 years of tradition supporting “young earth” theology.  Why change?

Has it not occurred to you that some of the interpretations that result from your method, are difficult and problematic for people you choose to label as revisionists?  The “clobber” passages are the present passages that are difficult?

What’s good for the goose ...

Almost Live Priest:

I don’t think you have effectively scored any points against Mark with your questions.  To answer a few,
“What was the author’s intent in writing the “begats?” ”  I suspect Matt would share the concept of a “sensus plenior” which actually transcends the human author’s intentions.  There are several “begat” passages in the OT (a couple in Genesis, and a much longer one in I Chronicles).  The Chronicles passage (I Chron 1 through 9)
was humanly intended to safeguard the racial purity of the Jewish people, as a way of defending the integrity of the covenant community.  The Book of Ruth ends with a brief “begat” passage, intended to show that David had a Gentile ancestress.
Genesis 5 was intended to show the spread of death, with its drum-beat refrain, “and he died.”  Genesis 11 shows the place of the Chosen People within the human race, and the unity of the human family.  But in a larger sense, all these must be read in terms of the whole Canonical context, and interpreted in terms of the genealogy in Matthew 1.  Each “begat” drives one step further toward the Incarnation, when “the Seed of to Woman” would appear. 

Not all who maintain plnary verbal inspiration and Biblical inerrancy are creationists.  That was not the case with Hodge, Sheed, Warfield, or Machen.  And you are seriously misinformed when you write, “there was some 1500 years of tradition supporting “young earth” theology.”  Before Archbishop Ussher (a very good Anglican scholar, btw) added up the OT chronology in the 17th century, nobody had bothered to argue about young earth/old earth.  Christianity has a 2,000 year tradition of condemning sodomy as a sin, based upon about 1500 years of OT teaching.  The young earth debate is of fairly recent origin.  It is exceedingly specious to equate the two issues.

Lawrence Wells,

Thank you for your wonderful response. I’m tied up all day and could not get to it but hated the idea of letting ALP’s comment just hang out there unanswered. You are absolutely on the money.

To Lawrence Wells:

I , too, wish to thank you for your thoughtful response.  As I was unfamiliar with the term “sensus plenior” I found that it means fuller sense.  It is an interpretation that goes beyond the literal meaning.  In other words with regard to the “begats” you are saying that the author’s words were “x begat y. y begat z, etc” but what the author really meant was “racial purity is safeguarded” or “chosen people are among the peoples of the earth.”

I see a little “hocus pocus” in your method.  It’s ok for orthodox exegetes to “interpret” – that can be called “sensus plenior.”  But “hocus pocus” when liberal exegetes interpret … that’s heresy.  Must be nice to be able to make the rules.

I submit that the human authors of the “begats” (while they may have been using them to illustrate the themes you suggest) were taking about real people who lived real lives that could be traced back to the first man and the first woman – they weren’t just making it up – they were reporting their understanding of actual, factual history.  That was also part of their intention.

What is there about your “fuller sense” explanations that allows you to dismiss the problem of the real lives of people traced back to Adam and Eve?  Do you think the human authors just made that stuff up to illustrate a point?

Having said what I said above, I like the interpretations you have offered for the various “begats.”  But, of course, I shall quibble further.

With regard to my statement about “young earth” theology, I think you’re being picky.  Prior to Archbishop Usher people pretty much took it for granted that the literal meaning of words in the Bible was correct.  I agree there was no discussion, no debate – no need to debate and discuss something so obvious. 

Not until Galileo and Copernicus did people even think about questioning the church’s teaching.  Up until then the teaching was 7 day creation scenario, three tiered universe, and x begat y, etc.  I submit that young earth was a given for 1500 years – no questions asked. The evidence for my previous statement is that it was not discussed.  So I think your lack of an answer, to my “why change” question is telling.  Makes me think I’m on to something.

The human authors were wrong when it comes to the age of the earth.  I don’t expect you to admit it because if you do, inerrancy crumbles like it should.  Inerrancy is a dog that just won’t hunt.  Teaching inerrancy harms the people of God and the wider human family.

Lawrence K Wells . . . my hero!

Great response . . .

“The human authors were wrong when it comes to the age of the earth. “

I’m not sure just what point your are trying to make.  But let’s begin by analyzing your statement quoted above.  This is like saying Laurence Wells is wrong about the age of ALP.  Actually, Laurence Wells has never ventured an opinion about the age of ALP, and the OT has never offered any information on the age of the earth.  If you choose, as Bp Ussher did, to add up all those years and draw a conclusion, that’s your problem, not the Bible’s.  Just because your inference is not supported by extra-Biblical science does not make the Bible wrong.

I believe our difficulty (yours and mine) right here in that when I say “the Bible is literally true” and you say that it is not, we mean two very different things by “literal.”  For those who deny the literal truth of the Bible, “literal” means only a straight-forward statement of gradgrindian fact.  Mr Gradgrind (Dickens’ evil but obtuse schoolmaster in “Hard Times”) would concur with you that the Bible cannot be literally true, because statements like “The Lord is my shepherd” just cant be the case.

When the Reformers insisted on a “literal” interpretation of Scripture, this was not at all what they had in mind.  It is too bad many of their fundamentalist descendants have been trapped into such a notion.  The “literal” interpretation is seeking out exactly what the inspired human writer had in mind when he wrote things like “the Lord is my shepherd” or “in his hand are all the corners of the earth.”  A genuine literal interpretation makes room for numerous literary genres, ranging from straighforward narrative to highly figurative poetry to meditative Wisdom literature to allegory. 

“Prior to Archbishop Usher people pretty much took it for granted that the literal meaning of words in the Bible was correct. “

A half-truth.  Patristic and mediaeval Biblical scholars generally assumed, for example, a 6/24 creation, but Augustine had to argue against a notion of instantaneous creation.  Exegetes interpreted in fanciful allegorical ways which sat loose to the Biblical text; this was why the Reformers rediscovered “literal” interpretation: searching out the original intention. Admittedly, OT cosmology was naively assumed, but no doctrine of the Creed hinged on this.  So what is your point in bringing it up, other than to disparage the Bible?

“Not until Galileo and Copernicus did people even think about questioning the church’s teaching.”

Indeed.  So Irenaeus was wasting his time when he wrote Adversus omnes haereses (the Gnostics were only kidding, not really challenging the Faith) and St Dominic only imagined the Albigensian heresy (which wasnt really there).

Bravo, I carelessly wrote, “Not until Galileo and Copernicus did people even think about challenging the church’s teaching.”  I thought the context made it clear that I was referring to what you have correctly called OT cosmology.  But, I did not spell it out and you jumped on it.  My bad.

Nonetheless, my point which you refuse to acknowledge is that the human authors intended to write historically accurately when writing the “begats” going back to the first man and the first woman.  You have mischaracterized my use of the word literal—I’m using it in the reformers sense—the intention of the human authors—historical accuracy back to Adam—then minus 6 days to get back to the very beginning.  If that was their intention, then they were wrong vis a vis the age of creation and hence the age of the earth.

The human authors were trying to say more than one thing.  Take the racial purity theme you mentioned.  They certainly did want to say that: Israel is racially pure.  Our evidence for this assertion is that x begat y, etc.  This we KNOW.  You can count on these “begat” facts and therein is the proof of Israel’s racial purity.  That was also their intention.  They were wrong historically—and they were wrong morally in trying to make a point about “racial purity”—racial purity is challenged (as you have correctly pointed out) in the Ruth “begats.”

Using your age of ALP example—had you, as the biblical authors did, said:  ALP returned to Lebanon in 1998.  Before that he spent 35 years in China.  Prior to China he spent 10 years in Canada and, while we don’t know the exact year of ALP’s birth, we do know prior to Canada he and his family were in the United States for 7-10 years ... and we know he was born in the United States.  I believe my “prior to” statements above are the biblical equivanent of “x begat y, etc.”

I do not wish to “disparage the bible” and to suggest as much seems quite un-Christian to me.  Is this what you say to fellow Christians who disagree with your approach?  One of the side-effects of thinking one’s bible and one’s approach is “inerrant,” is a pesky and occasionally abrasive self-righteous and judgementalism.  Just look around and smell the roses here as our new PB is being theologically drawn and quartered by the self described “faithful remnant.”

I do wish to disparage the approach to the bible that suggests that it is inerrant.  I also wish to completely discredit the idea of “divine superintending” that Matt frequently teaches.  It is a doctrine wholly without supporting evidence.  It’s just one bad idea supported by a host of other bad ideas.  It misleads people about how God works with human beings.  It is a false teaching and it is dangerous.

ALP, you have a jaundiced understanding of authorial intent if you think it was the intent of the author to give a lecture in astrophysics.

You’re a priest and never heard of anthropomorphisms?

Here:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/5068/faq/chicago.htm

It’s always nice to understand what you criticize.

Let me add my thanks to you, Matt, for an excellent essay.  I have just one comment relevant to your discussion, and one that relates more to the comments.

(1)  Whereas Marcion may have come to his error through a reading of Scripture, the leadership of the Episcopal church pretty clearly came to their conclusion first and then cobbled together a rationalization to claim Scriptural faithfulness.  I have never seen a reappraiser invite us to get our Bibles out and follow along as he proves Scripturally how we have misinterpreted the Word of God these last two thousand years.

(2) The reappraiser argument, illustrated well here, often goes as follows:  I can find a passage in the Bible that is unclear or ambiguous.  Therefore, everything in the Bible (or at least everything that gets in the way of my own opinions) is unclear and ambiguous.  Therefore, interpretation is always required, and you have no right to insist on your interpretation.  I don’t know if this fallacy has a name, but it is used all the time.  As Matt suggests, we can usually tell what is ambiguous and what is clear by reading Scripture in context.  As an everyday example, suppose we have a contract.  I agree to purchase, and you agree to sell, five widgets at ten dollars each.  If that is all the contract says, there is room for argument and interpretation about when delivery is to be made, where delivery is to be made, whether I can pay by check or credit card, whether I have thirty days to remit payment, and so forth.  It is simply dishonest to “interpret” the goods (widgets), the quantity (5), or the price ($10@) as something other than what the contract says.

We could turn the reappraisers’ argument back on them by asking, “If you can’t believe what the Bible seems to say about homesexual acts, how can you believe what it seems to say about salvation?”

Matt is correct, that their only answer is “special access to divine truth” apart from Scripture, or private revelation, or—as I would characterize it—“I heard voices.”  How does one ever argue with that?  But, of course, that is the whole point.

Cousin Vinny,
How does one argue with “divine superintending?”  The idea is that God acted in a unique, one-time way, over time as he inspired the human authors.  No evidence is offered.  It is simply asserted as fact—much as the emperor was told that his “new clothes” looked fantastic.  It is an intellectually indefensible position but it is part of Matt’s belief system and thus the basis for much of his teaching. 

“Divine Superintending” has “hocus pocus” written all over it—am I missing the “abra cadabra?”

Matt,
Are you saying that the human authors did not intend that the “begats” (historically understood) supported their contention of racial purity?  We can trace our ancestry all the way back to Adam and we’re pure, baby!  Wasn’t that what they were getting at?

If not are you saying that they just made up the “begats?”  So then they do not represent real people, real bloodlines, going back to Adam?  I could see Heinrich Himmler making up stuff to support his contention of Arian supremacy but not the biblical authors.

And what does attributing human characteristics to God (anthropomorphisms) have to do with it?  Or are you using “anthropomorphisms” simply in the sense of “made up?”

Vinny,  Matt’s approach seems to be “they heard voices.”

ALP,it might if your perception of God is,as JB Phillips so eloquently put it,too small.
Leads me to an interesting thought,is the revisionist view of God so small that they can’t perceive Him being able to direct and protect the writing of His word and yet being so ‘large’ in their thinking that not accepting God’s word for what it is,the word of God ,they want to meld ‘God’ into a smorgasboard of deities,clockmaker God.
‘A little pepparoni god today sir?’
‘No,I’ll go for a bit of Brahman today’

ALP,
Seriously, it is important to understand what it is you are criticising and I do not mean this in an insulting way, but you are completely igorant of what precisely people mean by inerrancy…which is why I passed along the link that you obviously did not read.

AS for this quote:

“And what does attributing human characteristics to God (anthropomorphisms) have to do with it?  Or are you using “anthropomorphisms” simply in the sense of “made up?”

It is difficult to believe that a trained priest in TEC does not know what an anthropomorphism is in the context of an exegetical discussion. Perhaps you might consider engaging in less sneer and more study?

ALP:  If you can prove or disprove the scriptures or portions of scripture with science and logic, what. pray, is the role of faith?

Cousin Vinnie: Special access to divine truth. Isn’t that the definition of gnosticism? That’s what we have in TEC today, what with the spirit doing a totally new thing and all.

Almost Live Priest:

Maybe I just too stupid to get just what your point you’re trying to make. Now I’ve often said you don’t truly don’t know what you’re talking about unless you can explain it in common terms. In the past I’ve work for a telecom firm and a salesman loved big words like “attenuation,” being a tech at the time I knew exactly what he meant, but with our non-technical audience I used signal loss for they understood what I meant & I felt no need to impress. Basically if you can not explain something in the simplest terms, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

Okay, Matt’s point summed up is that TEC can’t take the Bible “seriously” unless take what the plain meaning of the text seriously. I got that.  I’ve read all your post and I have only one question, “What, exactly, are you trying to say?!”

I’m willing to be humble and have you spell it out in small simple words, KISS me - Keep It Simple, Stupid. I’ve proven by my poor grammer, mis-spelled or missing words that I have a LD, so please be ‘inclusive’ and explain what you’re trying to say in a forthright manner, a fifth grader or someone with a LD like myself could understand.

Thank you!

Hosea6,
I’m all for plain talk.  I seem to have some intellectual and educational shortcomings (as Matt has so uninsultingly pointed out).

I think the biblical authors accepted the science of their time—3 tiered universe.  The universe is not 3 tiered, they were wrong.  I think the biblical authors (since bloodlines, tribal identity, family identity were very important to them) thought they were accurate in tracing their ancestry back to Adam—and thus to the beginning of creation.  They were wrong about that too.

The point is that the biblical authors were creatures of their time and their culture.  They were not “without error” which is a common sense definition of inerrant. 

So my overriding point is that the bible is not inerrant (although I hear Matt saying now that inerrant doesn’t mean inerrant—it means what he wants it to mean.  Makes discussion tough.

Matt, it seems that the words mean what you and those who have trained you, mean what you say they mean.  And I, who was trained in another tradition, ought to know how you use words and respond according to your way.  No thanks.  In the interest of clarity, say what you mean so that most everyone can understand it, not just people with your kind of theological training, OK.

El Jefe, there is informed faith and uninformed faith.  Faith does not mean “check your brain at the door when you log on to StandFirm.”  I have immense faith in God.  I have less faith in our ability (mine included) to apprehend the mind of God.  I am, however, crystal clear that the idea of biblical inerrancy poorly serves the church and the world.  It is a fancy way of saying, “my bible is better than any holy books that you other folks may have.  So do it my way.”  I find an arrogance and pride in such an approach to a life of faith that I see nowhere in Jesus “who humbled himself…”  Jesus shows us God incarnate.  Inerrancy shows us human nature building another tower of Babel.

Cousin Vinny, special access to divine truth is exactly what the “divine superintending” approach claims.  We’ve got it and you don’t.  If the shoe fits ...

Almost Live Priest wrote:

I have immense faith in God.  I have less faith in our ability (mine included) to apprehend the mind of God.   I am, however, crystal clear that the idea of biblical inerrancy poorly serves the church and the world.  It is a fancy way of saying, “my bible is better than any holy books that you other folks may have.  So do it my way.”

But how do you know anything about the God in whom you have faith, if not from the Bible? If another “holy book” might be better, how do you decide which one is right? Even if you are right and the Bible is not inerrant, how can other books, which do not even claim to be about the same God, reveal Him to you? Even if we humans cannot fully apprehend the mind of God (and I do not claim that we can), not every statement is difficult to understand. Sometimes God says “Don’t do X”. What’s confusing about that?

ALP, I have tried several times to respond in some meaningful way to your objections, but I am at a loss.  If you don’t believe the Bible, that is your right.  I am just telling you that “I heard voices” won’t cut it with me, especially when those voices (1) contradict what I have accepted as the written, revealed Word of God, and (2)reject 2000 years of Christian church tradition.  You would have to perform some really remarkable miracles to even get my attention.

And to say that in Scripture “white” means “black” is pathetically weak reasoning unless you can demonstrate that the passage in question is satire or sarcasm.  If I accepted that argument, the authority—nay, even the comprehesibility—of Scripture is destroyed.  Even the ability to communicate on a blog such as this is lost, because words have been stripped of any accepted meanings.  Talk about your Tower of Babel.

Cousin Vinny, what got your attention to say that the earth is old rather than young ... or are you a creationist?  Your question is quite reasonable so I propose a reasonable answer.  Something (probably evindence and reason) has caused most modern people to overthrow 1500 years of assuming the “begats” went back to Adam the first man and near the beginning or creation itself.  We no longer think that the “begats” get us anywhere near the creation of the universe let alone the beginnings of humanity.  We have changed many years of tradition to overturn these teachings.  I submit that the (new reasons and new evidence) simply (if placed on the scales of truth) outweighed the truth claims of the bible’s words with regard to the “begats.”  The truth scales were tipped in favor of OLD earth and the biblical words were “reinterpreted.” 

What are the reasons and evidence that the “clobber” passages should be reinterpreted (the 2000 years of tradition you cite, I assume).  First looking at what the scriptures say about how people are to relate to one another in general and how we are to relate to outcasts and outsiders in specific—let it suffice to say God wants us to love our neighbor as ourselves.  God seems to have a special heart for the outcast.  These scriptures deserve great weight on the scales of truth because they are a basic theme.  So on the scale I would place all the scriptures alluding to hospitality, welcoming, inviting, loving, accepting—all that mushy stuff.  I’d add the bible’s teaching on baptism.  Of course, I’d include the scriptures which point out that we are all sinners. 

Over against all this biblical teaching I’d place the clobber passages on the other side of the scale.  Now in my mind the weight of scripture is clearly on the side of love and inclusion.  But then to the love and inclusion I would add a few modern observations about GLBT people living in committed monogamous life long relationships.  I would add that the scriptures never mention this situation.  I would add that Jesus said nothing specifically about GLBT people (I wish he had).  I would add (simply to counter those who seek to justify their unwelcoming, unaccepting actions towards GLBT people by saying, “it’s unnatural” that quite the contrary GLBT behavior is observed in many species in nature (I believe a Swedish museum can provide filmed evidence of many of the species in nature where GLBT behavior is found).  I would point to the testimonies of GLBT people themselves that for the most part, same sex attraction is not a chosen but a given.  I would point to the experience of many chuches where GLBT (both closeted and outed) people have lived holy lives and made substantial contributions to the life of the church.  At any rate you get the picture, the scales in my view tip convincingly for accepting GLBT people just as in the same way that heterosexual people are accepted.  The tipping of the scales leads me to say that it is an unchristian act to demand that a person sexual orientation change because of the clobber passages or the 2000 years of teaching.  The teaching is wrong as are the clobber passages.

As to the problem of how can one know about God apart from an inerrant Bible:  just like every other human being whom God is drawing to himself.  Not all of the Bible is wrong—just some of it.  Use your brain, your reason, and figure out what is worthy of God and what looks a lot more like culturally determined human world view—I would suggest patriarchal society may not be God’s ideal but there it is in scripture because that was the culture of the human authors.

As I have said many times in the past, as humans we’re all on the “slippery slope” of having to pick and choose.  The fact that YOUR CHOICE (not necessarily God’s) is to accept the Bible as inerrant, infallible is YOUR CHOICE—a choice made by a fallen human being and just a subject to being wrong as the rest of us on other parts of the slippery slope.  If your choice is to accept the bible as infallible and inerrant, you have chosen without evidence (except what the Bible says about itself).  As stated before the consequence of your choice is usually an attitude that says to others, “my bible is better than your holy books.”  It leads to pride and to domination—tough things for the human family to overcome.

ALP,

If you would simply read the link this conversation would be a whole lot easier. Of course you are not stupid and I never said you were. I said you were “ignorant of” the concept of innerrancy, not the concept I have “made up” but the principle itself. 

So since you don’t have an idea about the concept itself, you seem to be arguing against a stereotype or a strawman revisionists have conjured. So it is difficult, especially this week when I have limited time, to argue with someone who will not even make the effort to gain a basic understanding of what he mocks and criticises. Would you argue with someone about the meaning and usage of the aorist tense in Greek if you had no knowledge of Greek? And if, for some reason, you did then your interlocutor would have every reason to hand you a text-book.

As for anthropomorphisms, I’m glad you have realized that sometimes it is necessary to speak in simple terms to simpler creatures that is one key to the concept. The anthropomorphic principle in exegetical terms (and there is another name for it) simply says that the human authors described the appearance of the world from their perspective and, unless, their purpose was to give a scientific lecture on a certain subject, that this anthropomorphic perspective does not impinge on the inerrant nature of text.

This is not a difficult concept to wrap your mind around. Every day I hear the meteorologist tell me what time the sun will rise. That is factually incorrect. The sun does not rise. The earth revolves on her axis. The sun only appears, from an anthropomorphic perspective, to rise. Now, I suppose I could call up the radio station and complain that the meteorologist needs to be more precise, but 1. that would be pedantic and 2. were the meteorologist to follow my advice and be scientifically precise many of his listeners would be lost and unable to hear the intended message of his presentation (ei what sort of weather there will be).

In much the same way, God, in inspiring the human writers, did not give them special knowledge of atoms and gravity and the solar system, but he allowed them to speak of nature in terms familiar to them and to their listeners. Otherwise the purpose of God’s communication would be lost in a myriad of inconsequential facts. If the point, for example of Genesis 1 and 2, is that God created the heavens and the earth, it was not necessary for God to reveal the astrophysics of the Big Bang and if he had, the profound point he inspired the human author to make would have been lost.

The Ascension is a picture of this concept. If God wants to make the point to Jesus’ disciples who believe in a three teired universe that Jesus is going to sit on his right hand in heaven, it makes much more sense for Christ to ascend into the clouds in accordance with the prophets rather than mapping out the atmosphere and solar system for a first century crowd.

Again, this is a concept we understand instinctively. When I want my dog Maggie to stop begging. I say “no”. I do not say, “Now, maggie sit down a moment and let me explain to you why it is impolite to beg…” The dog, of course, would not follow. I speak to my dog in language my dog understands so that the point of what I am saying can get through.

The author of the creation accounts was not intending to give us a science lesson. And, I could be wrong but the presence of several genres in the text suggest that he was not even intending to give us straight up history. I do believe there are historical elements. I think Adam and Eve were real historical people who really fell. Was there a talking snake? I do not think so. That is probably intended as an image of Satan. But I could be wrong. Either way the point of the text, the point God makes through the human author clear and it has little to do with astrophysics.

Matt,
Inerrancy and infallibility have plan talk meaning which are different from the way you use the terms.  I use them as most people understand them.  I wish you would too.

You come from the “school of circular” reasoning which we’ve discussed before.  You have a closed theological system where common words have special meanings.  I was taught that anthropomorphisms were instances where we humans characterized God in human ways.  “He walked in the garden,” is one example I remember.

I think the authors of the “begats” were describing what they believed were actual blood lines going back to Adam.  You think he is a real character—I take the fact that Adam means humanity is a clue that we’re reading myth or allegory.  Nonetheless, your understanding of anthropomorphism seems to allow you to explain away (no problem that’s one of our exegetical rules) what the human authors intended as specific data.  Is is reasserter practice to create rules to explain away textual problems that call into question the plain sense of the word inerrancy?  Seems so.

Sorry your day is full.  God bless.  Matt, I really do like you and admire your intelligence and your “go for it” attitude.  I just think you’ve been taught theological junk when it comes to inerrancy and I wish you would deal with the textual and cultural problem in the bible rather than simply citing rules that others men have fabricated to make the problems go away.  As you know, in other posts I have referred to this practice as cerebral gymnastics.

I’ve got to run—got some family chauffering to do.

I have a Confirmation class at 10 and a house blessing at 12 noon, so this will have to be brief.  ALP thinks I’m unChristian to suggest that he is disparaging the Bible, but in reading him carefully, I do not find him saying anything good about the Bible.  Since you have told us (rather incoherently, I must observe) what you do not believe, would you try to tell us positively what you do believe about the status of Holy Scripture as God’s Word, if indeed that is a correct designation in your worldview

Your writing does not hang together at all well, but I did take note of the following sentence:
“If your choice is to accept the bible as infallible and inerrant, you have chosen without evidence (except what the Bible says about itself).”
Here you have sold the farm on your position.  Scripture’s self-attestation should be some kind of evidence to any reasonable man [i.e., person], and to a Christian man [i.e, person] which you have claimed to be, Scripture’s self-attestation is compelling evidence.  The personal theology of the Nazareth rabbi whom we call Jesus is very clear:  “the Scriptures cannot be broken.”  If anyone acknowledges Him as Lord and Saviour, God Incarnate, no other opinion is admissible.
More later.

Here are some simple statements:

Mark 7:20

And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

1 Corinthians 6

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I assume the first is not one of the “clobber” passages referred to above because Jesus is the speaker. I assume the second passage is one of Bishop Schori’s “clobber passages. However, if so, it appears to “clobber” a host of folks (it essentially describes the sinful condition of humanity)  and provides a lively hope.

I have read the arguments here today and am unconvinced that either of these scriptures should be rejected.

So as to not mask my position, to me the opening chapters of Holy Scripture are best described as lore. <a > (Accumulated facts, traditions, or beliefs about a particular subject)<a>.  I like that term albeit misunderstood by many. 

The parables of Christ are stories.  Did the parable of the good Samaritans happen exactly as it got recorded in Holy Scripture and does it matter?  I would contend that it matters nothing at all if the story of the good Samaritan happened exactly as recorded in Holy Scripture or not.  Christ’s purpose was not to relate history.

With respect to the discussion about ECUSA, if the opening chapters of Holy Scripture are history or not are to me unimportant.  Important moral and theological lessons are in those passages.  It is important that God created.  It is much less important, if important at all, how he created. 

I have my problem with biblical literalism, especially with those who create pseudo-science to match a literal view of the creation story.  There are several reasons for this, but for this discussion the important one is that they focus too much on the how and causes many people to miss the who. 

We do not need to resolve if the creation story is history or lore, in order to understand that Holy Scripture says that homosexual acts are sin.  I see the creation story as lore and should be read as such.  If it is history or not is unimportant.  The revisionists are using the discussion if the creation story is history or not to dismiss the clear condemnation of homosexual acts. 

I like many was thinking the current problem in ECUSA was gnostic until the good Father’s piece on Pelagius and the Presiding Bishop.  In reading that I started to think that there was also an element of Marcion.  This paper brings that all the more home to me. 

The surface comparison that Schori and Marcion pick and choose scripture to match what they think God should be, is very valid.  The “zinger question” on my canonical exam was to in effect, compare and contrast Marcion and Dispensationalism.  If I had the time, such a paper on Schori would be interesting.  The good Father above has made a good start on the topic, anyone want to finish the paper?

ALP,

You said:

“Inerrancy and infallibility have plan talk meaning which are different from the way you use the terms. “

I was under the impression we were discussing the principle of innerrancy in the context of exegesis? I did not know we were going to discuss the common understanding of the word. Insisting that the word “innerrancy” means one thing in common parlance and another in the context of biblical exegesis is irrevelant. The same is true for almost every theological term. The word “redemption” to those who have never been to church or read the bible evokes coupons and lottery numbers. If one were to object upon learning of the theological concept of redemption that the word “redemption” bears little resemblence to the way the word is used on the street, the objection would mean very little.

Which is why I passed on the link, which I can tell from your second paragraph, that you have not read.

ALP,
Somethings seem to remain the same.  Just as your theology has not moved an iota from your first venture onto SFIF.  To me circular reasoning is thinking that the revisionist theology will ever live within the same church as the orthodox theology.  And all the verbal gymnastics in the world will not make the current ECUSA stance historical or even biblical.  Only repentence will do that.  So once again, let us with grace and dignity, agree that the twain shall never meet on this earth and part lovingly and with prayer.  That is biblical.  Jesus never forcefed the masses nor the scribes pharisees.

ALP, Matt+ gave you the link so you would be on the same page with us with whom you debate at least on the meanings attached to the terms “inerrancy” and “infallibility”, used in the context of Biblical exegesis.  The link refers to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  Have you read that statement?  A yes or no would suffice.  It states in clear, easily understood language just what reasserters mean when asserting the inerrancy of Scripture.  It is not long and is well worth anyone’s reading, no matter where they fall on the lines of this debate.

“Are you saying that the human authors did not intend that the “begats” (historically understood) supported their contention of racial purity?  We can trace our ancestry all the way back to Adam and we’re pure, baby!  Wasn’t that what they were getting at?”

ALP,

One of the reasons I tire of discussions with revisionists is that they not only do not take the Bible seriously but so often demonstrate that by their careless readings.  The above is a case in point.  The point of the “begats” is clearly <b>not</i> to demonstrate racial purity.  The first lists of “begats” is in Genesis 5, before the story of Noah.  The story of the dividing of the nations does not take place until the Tower of Babel story in Gen 11, immediately after the story of Noah.  The story of Abraham, from whom the Hebrew “race” descended, does not take place until Gen 12.  So whatever the “begats” meant for the author of Genesis 5, it had nothing to do with “racial purity,” because the nations did not yet exist in ch. 5.

Again, Mt’s. list of “begats” in Mt. 1, has nothing to do with “racial purity,” because the list includes both Ruth and Rahab, both Gentiles.  That Luke’s list (ch. 3) had anything to do with racial purity is again preposterous, since Luke is also the author of Acts, the story of the spread of the Christian church from Jerusalem, to Samaria, and then the Gentile world.

As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, the church has a historic hermeneutic to discern which parts of Scripture are authoritatively binding, and which are not—the distinction between moral, civil, ceremonial, and ecclesial law, found in Thomas Aquinas and Richard Hooker.

The moral law is always binding, because grounded in the creation of humanity.  Ceremonial laws are not binding, because fulfilled in Christ.  Although the principles of civil and ecclesial law are permanently binding, specific details are not.

Thus the OT prescriptions against eating shellfish are no longer binding, because they are part of the ceremonial law.  The OT and even NT prescriptions and commands about slavery are not binding, because part of the civil law. 

The OT and NT prescriptions against same-sex activity are permanently binding because heterosexual marriage is part of God’s permanent intention for humanity as grounded in the creation of the human race as male and female.  This understanding is confirmed in the NT by Jesus (in his teaching on divorce) and by Paul in Rom. 1.  The so-called “clobber” passages can only be understood within this context of the Bible’s normative teaching about the purposes of heterosexual marriage and sexuality—found throughout the Scriptures.

To claim that this teaching is not binding because we have quibbles about whether the “begats” enable us to trace accurately the entire history of the human race is a magnificent red herring, and indicates a simple inability or unwillingness to read texts.  Moreover, if the “begats” eliminate the relevancy of the authority of Scripture on matters of sexual morality (which is prevalent throughout the Bible), it is not clear on what grounds Scripture could have any moral authority whatsoever.

Moreover, that there are only seven “clobber” passages says nothing about their importance or permanent validity.  After all, there are fewer passages in Scripture that discuss the eucharist than there are that prohibit same-sex sexuality.

ALP:  “1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen”...  (Hebrews 11:1ff, ESV) and “2And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:2-4 ESV).  I am not a theologian, but a layman.  I was reared in a home where Bible reading was frequent and communal devotions were held daily.  I recognize that there are numerous “difficult” passages.  However, I still believe that the Bible is inerrant and “literal” in the sense that Matt defines those terms.  The problem is not the scriptures themselves; it is our fallible, limited human ability to properly interpret them.  There are different literary genres represented in the Bible, and different historical and cultural eras represented.  The OT comes out of an oral tradition, and is not intended as a historical or scientific text.  It is, in my understanding, meant to transmit knowledge of God and his covenant requirements and blessing to his chosen people.  The NT relates the revelation of God made manifest in the person of Jesus, our Reedemer.  I don’t think it is helpful or in keeping with Christian faith to characterize portions of Scripture as “wrong” or “in error”, or “not applicable”.  <italic>cf</italic> Romans 14:13-16, Articles of faith VI and XX. 
Charles

I have stayed out of this contest of assertions, and have little to add in the way of scholarly observations . . . those would be ineffectual, given the worldviews with which the commenters *begin* with.

However, I wanted to point out something fundamental—yet again—that is revealed in this thread. 

Re: “it [divine overseeing] is part of Matt’s belief system and thus the basis for much of his teaching.”

Yes.  It is a part of my belief system and that of many other Episcopalians.

Re: “I do wish to disparage the approach to the bible that suggests that it is inerrant.  I also wish to completely discredit the idea of “divine superintending” that Matt frequently teaches.  It is a doctrine wholly without supporting evidence.  It’s just one bad idea supported by a host of other bad ideas.  It misleads people about how God works with human beings.  It is a false teaching and it is dangerous.”

ALP has not succeeded in discrediting the idea.  He has merely stated that he avidly disagrees with it and that it is a “bad idea”.  I think it is a good idea, it is one that I believe, and it is precisely a sample of how God chose to work with a certain group of human beings.  It *is* “dangerous”—to revisionists.

It is a part of my belief system and that of many other Episcopalians.

Re: “Matt, it seems that the words mean what you and those who have trained you, mean what you say they mean.  And I, who was trained in another tradition, ought to know how you use words and respond according to your way.  No thanks.  In the interest of clarity, say what you mean so that most everyone can understand it, not just people with your kind of theological training, OK.”

I grant that ALP was “trained in another tradition”—and that others were trained in this tradition.  But when you’re debating a belief of *one tradition* you should understand what that one tradition is claiming regarding the Bible first.

That tradition is a part of my belief system and that of many other Episcopalians.

Re: “El Jefe, there is informed faith and uninformed faith.  Faith does not mean “check your brain at the door when you log on to StandFirm.” I have immense faith in God.  I have less faith in our ability (mine included) to apprehend the mind of God.  I am, however, crystal clear that the idea of biblical inerrancy poorly serves the church and the world.  It is a fancy way of saying, “my bible is better than any holy books that you other folks may have.  So do it my way.” I find an arrogance and pride in such an approach to a life of faith that I see nowhere in Jesus “who humbled himself…” Jesus shows us God incarnate.  Inerrancy shows us human nature building another tower of Babel.”

Despite ALP’s assertions about what “human nature” has done with the Bible, I do believe that the Bible is better—a container of Truth—than any other “holy book”.

This is also a part of my belief system and that of many other Episcopalians.

Re: “These scriptures deserve great weight on the scales of truth because they are a basic theme.  So on the scale I would place all the scriptures alluding to hospitality, welcoming, inviting, loving, accepting—all that mushy stuff.  I’d add the bible’s teaching on baptism.  Of course, I’d include the scriptures which point out that we are all sinners.

Over against all this biblical teaching I’d place the clobber passages on the other side of the scale.  Now in my mind the weight of scripture is clearly on the side of love and inclusion.  But then to the love and inclusion I would add a few modern observations about GLBT people living in committed monogamous life long relationships.  I would add that the scriptures never mention this situation.”

“I”, “I”, and “I”—“in my mind”, “I would add” . . . “modern observations” . . .

LOL!!!  ; > )  Thomas Jefferson lives again . . .

I believe that the Bible has integrity as a unit, as it was written by a divine author.  I believe that it has miraculous and beautiful cohesion.

That is a part of my belief system and that of many other Episcopalians.

Re: “Not all of the Bible is wrong—just some of it.  Use your brain, your reason, and figure out what is worthy of God . . . “

I believe that I am not able to “figure out what is worthy of God”, since I am a fallen creature.  I believe that all of the Bible is Truthful and authoritative for my life.

That is a part of my belief system and that of many other Episcopalians.

[continued]

Re: “I just think you’ve been taught theological junk when it comes to inerrancy and I wish you would deal with the textual and cultural problem in the bible rather than simply citing rules that others men have fabricated to make the problems go away.”

I think that revisionist Episcopal clergy have imbibed “theological junk” as well.  And when they throw up “problems”, the job of the believer is to honestly assess those “problems” and explore the solutions, given the foundational principles of the integrity, inspiration, cohesion, and authority of the Biblical text—we give God the benefit of the doubt and work within His construct.

That is a part of my belief system and that of many other Episcopalians.

All of the above to say this.  The last time ALP entered conversation on this blog, we all came to the same conclusions . . . different worldviews, utterly different foundational assumptions, opposing and contradictory gospels, within one church institution.

That’s just the way it is.  Many Episcopalians agree with ALP in his assertions.  Many others agree with me in my assertions.

It’s going to be a long hard painful time within ECUSA over the next two or three years. 

But at least all of us on this thread understand why that is.  The reason is represented right here—the different gospels that the two sides believe and seek to promote.

Thanks, Dr Witt, for joining this thread, painful as it is.  The “racial purity” bit was something ALP lifted from my first comment.  I noted that this appears to be the concern for the genealogies of I Chron 1—9 (which btw do not employ the “begat” formula), and followed it up by noticing the genealogy of Ruth 4, which has the opposite intent, i. e., showing that David and David’s greater Son had a gentile ancestress in the Moabitess lady Ruth.  ALP overlooked this.  He does not think strenuously nor read carefully.
He chose to grab the inflammatory expression “racial purity” and see if he could steal a couple of bases with it.
Ethnic particularism seems to be the concern in I Chronicles, but I would not fight bleed and die for that exegesis.

Sarah, Lawrence, Matt, William Witt, et al: Thanks for this thread, and your most enlightening comments.  I have not been so aware of the thundering heresies of the reappraisers than I have since beginning to read this blog (and T19).  Marcion, Pelagius, Arius and the gnostics, syncretics and monophysites would be so proud of their followers/adherents in the persons of ALP, Spong, KJS, Tom Woodward, et al!

Fr. Wells,

Thanks for the clarification.  I confess I don’t always read every line of every interchange in these discussions, and I had missed the earlier part of the discussion. 

Your discussion of Chronicles illustrates however the importance of paying attention to canonical context.  The genealogical narratives fulfill different functions in different contexts.  The function they serve in Chronicles is not the same they serve in Gen or Mt or Lk.  What might have been relevant for one particular reason at one stage in salvation history is not necessarily relevant in another.  After the exile, it was important for Israel to maintain its national distinctiveness—for theological reasons.  This doesn’t imply—as ALP seems to think—that Israel was racist.  The NT includes Gentile in the covenant, but even today, it is important for the church to maintain its theological distinctiveness from the surrounding culture.  Especially today.

Superficial readings of Scripture—followed by easy dismissal of its authority—do not help in that task.

“thundering heresies “

My beloved mentor, Dr Carroll Simcox (sometime editor of TLC and keynote speaker at the St Louis Church Congress in 1977) was fond of saying that the worst thing about the 20th century was the mediocre quality of its heresy.  In the Patristic era we had muscular hairy-chested heresies like Arianism and Pelagianism to deal with, real challenges to the Faith, soul-destroying heresies worthy of the name.  Nowadays we have only wimpy effeminate heresies which any child who has had a half-decent Confirmation class could refute before breakfast.  Heresy is down the tube.
It doesnt thunder, it only whines. “You just can’t find good help anymore.”

I haven’t read all the comments, so perhaps this is covered above.  ALP is very exercised about the geneologies in the Bible.  I attended Gordon-Conwell for part of my theological education, and one of my OT profs said that one of the mistakes ABP Ussher made was to assume that Hebrew genealogies were like modern genealogies—exact accounting of the line of descent, including each and every ancestor.  But the Hebrews “hit the high spots” with their genealogies, skipping over ancestors who for some reason were less important than others.  They did not intend to show every ancestor—after all, Jesus is called “Son of David,” but it is not the intent of the phrase to mean that he is the immediate son of David—rather that he is a descendant of David, even with a thousand years between them.

Context and intent!  To comprehend what is meant, we need to both of those, as well as the grammatical meaning of the words and sentences.

ALP, you have placed a great deal of straw on the scales, but you are still, for the most part, arguing against strawmen.  With regard to the passages forbidding homosexual sex, you are faced with some pretty specific language.  Against them, you cite various passages about other things, which are in no way inconsistent with the “Seven Clobber Passages.”.  The command to love our neighbors does not require us to condone or promote sin.  Indeed, love, properly understood, would require us to support each other in resisting sin.  Jesus pretty clearly told us that we are not competent to stone sexual sinners, but in the same passage told the sinner to knock that stuff off.

It really all boils down to simply saying about a Biblical command, “That’s wrong.  God surely didn’t mean that.”  To be fair, you acknowledge this.  Wasn’t that what Eve said about the prohibition on eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?  Hmm.  Maybe there is a metaphor or two lurking in the Creation story.

ALP wrote:

The fact that YOUR CHOICE (not necessarily God’s) is to accept the Bible as inerrant, infallible is YOUR CHOICE—a choice made by a fallen human being and just a subject to being wrong as the rest of us on other parts of the slippery slope.

I admit it. I am indeed fallen and fallible. Yet you tell me: “use your brain, your reason, and figure out what is worthy of God”—that I, a fallen, fallible human being, ought to tell the omniscient and holy God what is worthy or not worthy of Him. To do so would be to exalt my human reasoning capability, flawed as it is, above God.

Almost Live Priest:

First, pardon the delay, I should know better than start something on a Friday, as I’m usually quite busy on the weekend.

I do not see the same problem between science and Scripture as you seem to suggest. Also inside orthodox thinking, you seem to paint all “Seven/24 hour days,” which defines some, “Day/Age” thinking is in the camp. There’s much already out there on thesubject, which I can add very little.

However I have this problem.

In my city, the Episcopal parish is kitty-corner to the Unitarian Universalist Church. At that parish I heard the rector haggle a poor seminaritian during her sermon when she referenced the Nicene Creed, “what happens if you do not believe the Nicene Creed?” She said that’s another sermon and continued.

Despite being rude, I have a deep problem with that. Maybe I’m being too simple, but TEC has the The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, & he took some vows at his ordination. This priest with his views probably should be across the road, then I’d have no issue with him.

+Chane write: “Attacks by religious traditionalists and fundamentalists against such people as The Rt. Rev. Jack Spong, retired bishop of Newark, the Most Rev. Richard Holloway, retired Anglican Primus of Scotland, Dr. William Countryman of the Church Divinity School of The Pacific and Dr. Marcus Borg of Oregon State University and the “Jesus Seminars” all demonstrate the fear of fundamentalists to possible interpretative changes to their inerrant, understanding of Holy scripture by critical theological thinking and solid Biblical scholarship.”

I take exception to this line of logic, for at some point it’s not ethical to collect paycheck when you hold views so radically different than what your organization professes. I give more wieght to Charles Bradley Templeton, Bertrand Russell, or Ludwig Feuerbach critique than I do The Rt. Rev. Jack Spong, for they were honest, Templeton especially for he once was then was not, but honest.

When a sheriff proves corrupt our society is enraged. Elected representative often fall short and there a scandle or two with regular occurrence we do not merely except them, but groan with each new one. If fact, individulas are punished if they depart too far from the party line, we want Democrats to be Democrat and Republicans to be Republicans.

I know Scripture is repeat with warnings of “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Still I’m amazed how the secular culture seems to have more of moral base for people acting with integrity (in the denotation of that phrase).

At the investiture, the mass was filled with doctrinal statements that the PB does not believe according to media interviews. One might ask, when does the departure become too great when someone honestly seek a new job? I really don’t have a problem with Unitarians, however this priest across the street, there’s something wrong if he can take a vow that says one thing but continue if he no longer can uphold it.

Thanks to all who have so thoughtfully responded.  Sorry to be so slow in getting back to you.  I had plenty of thoughts and energy on Sunday morning … but no time.  By Sunday evening I was pretty mindless (more than usual)—and very tired.

By the way, I do hope each and everyone of you has a really blessed thanksgiving holiday.  Sunday was wonderful in the divine reminder to “in all things, give thanks” – perhaps especially in times of adversity.

With regard to the your posts:  First, I have finally ready briefly on that “Chicago Statement” regarding inerrancy and infallibility and the brief explanations.  As several of you pointed out, I should have done so sooner.

I loved the Simcox quote about small heresies – really enjoyable – a great bit of theological “trash talking.”

Biblical inerrancy and infallibility are divisive ideas unsupported by any evidence except circular references to the Bible itself.  As most of you know the reason that logicians and computer programs like Microsoft Excel balk at circular references is because they PROVE NOTHING.  They simply illustrate what YOU HAVE CHOSEN (NOT GOD) to believe.  Your assertions about the Bible are no different than other faith groups claiming that they have the true Word of God in their Holy Books.

While I’m sure you would oppose even the most gentle Moslem suggesting that the Koran was God’s only truly inspired book (he’s saying his book is more inspired, more Godly, and hence inerrant and infallible) that the books YOU HAVE CHOSEN (different from what Roman Catholics choose) as the inspired – superintended – canon.  How does he know, the Koran tells him so.

BIG PROBLEM BECAUSE “END OF DISCUSSION.”  I choose to believe that the moon is made of green cheese.  What’s your evidence?  I have this paper with alien writing on it.  LOGICALLY SPEAKING there is no difference in these statements and your statement.  They are unproven, unsubstantiated assertions.

How can your statement be tested for truth?  Well, as many scholars have done, we find all kinds of evidence of human authorship, cultural bias, human time-bound understandings which clearly demonstrate the biblical literature is a human product.  On the other hand there is absolutely no evidence that any part of it is divine, let alone all of it.

If we were to “imagine” what a loving, forgiving, merciful God would want to say to his people, we run the risk of being wrong, of course, but we might find considerable agreement on some major points.  We might agree, for example, that jihad is not a terribly inspired idea from a God who loves people and wants us to learn to get along.

Sad to say but you do not exercise this freedom because you have chosen to believe that you already have all that God needs to say to the world in the collection of books you have chosen to regard as canonical.  END of DISCUSSION.

Why would a smart God who so loves the world and wants us to get along by living lives of service and sacrifice inspire one set of books above all others?  Not very smart of him.  In fact, it’s almost satanic to say to a person, “taste this fruit, it’s OK, the only reason God doesn’t want you to do this is because you’ll know what he knows.”  I would suggest that the whole “inerrancy, infallibility, divine superintending package” may be very fruit that was forbidden.  Awfully tempting though, to think that we know exactly what God knows. 

Why would he not say to the people of the world that he has inspired many human authors in many, many faith traditions and it is up to us to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Just for clarity’s sake, would someone please provide references to the “seven clobber passages”.  I plead ignorance, but I can only think of three.

Gayle, here you go:
from here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homconlib.htm

Typical conservative Protestant beliefs about homosexuality:

Conservative Christians generally believe that the Bible authors were inspired by God to write text that is inerrant—free of error. They often quote the Bible’s seven passages—often called “clobber passages” which have traditionally been used to condemn homosexuality. They have generally concluded that the Bible clearly and consistently condemns all homosexual behavior, no matter what the nature of the relationship is:
bulletGenesis 19 discusses God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in response to the rampant homosexuality of the men in the two cities.
bulletLeviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly condemns same-sex behavior; it is described as an abomination. The latter passage actually calls for the death penalty for sexually active homosexuals.
bulletVarious passages in Deuteronomy, Judges and Kings also condemn homosexuality.
bullet1 Corinthians 6 condemns “homosexual offenders,” “homosexuals,” “sodomites,” or “abusers of themselves with mankind,” depending upon the English translation used. Such will not “inherit the kingdom of God”—they will not attain Heaven after death.
bulletRomans 1 condemns both men and women engaging in same-sex behavior.  Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, believes that these verses have done more to form conservative Christians’ negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes:

      “For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as ‘homosexual’ has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination.” 2

bullet1 Timothy 1 contains thoughts similar to Romans 1.
bulletJude 1:7 reinforces Genesis 19 and condemns the men of Sodom and Gomorrah for their desire to have sex with male visitors—described in various Bible translations as “perversion” “perverted sensuality,” “unnatural lust,” “unnatural sex,” “lust of men for other men,” and “pursued unnatural desire.”

Their conclusion is obvious: homosexuality is consistently condemned throughout the Bible. Further, they interpret 1 Corinthians 6 as showing that homosexuals can be cured and converted to heterosexuality by first being saved.

They generally believe that the proper approach of a Christian to a homosexual is to convince him to be converted to heterosexuality either through reparative therapy or by becoming saved.

RE: “Biblical inerrancy and infallibility are divisive ideas unsupported by any evidence except circular references to the Bible itself.”

Yes—the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and the Divinity of Christ are also miracles unsupported by scientific, controlled variable, laboratory experiments—thus not achieving scientific certainty. 

They are also “divisive ideas”.

RE: “Why would a smart God who so loves the world and wants us to get along by living lives of service and sacrifice inspire one set of books above all others?”

God’s goal for us is not for all of us “to get along”.  His goal for us is to be conformed into the image and likeness of His son, God incarnate in the flesh, Jesus Christ.  To do that, He had to offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins, as we could not save ourselves.

RE: Many many of your other remarks in this one comment . . . you continue to demonstrate why the Episcopal church is in the mess that it is in.  You do not believe or preach the gospel that I believe and that many other reasserting Episcopalians believe in or preach.

This is not a surprise.  Just a very sad illustration . . .

RE: “END of DISCUSSION.”

We know. 

That’s the problem that we are facing, ALP, here in ECUSA.

The clarity achieved from comments like yours and Bishop Jefferts Schori, and Bishop Chane, and Bishop Bennison, and Bishop Spong, and Bishop Smith are simply blindingly illuminating.

And so . . . all of this conflict will continue and further escalate as the clarity continues to be illuminated until . . . [fill in the blank].

Sarah, doesn’t the approach:  “We have chosen to believe that we have the truth and the rest of the world doesn’t,”—isn’t the arrogance of that approach just a wee bit troubling to you?

ALP, re: “Why would a smart God who so loves the world and wants us to get along by living lives of service and sacrifice inspire one set of books above all others?  Not very smart of him [sic].”

Why, that’s just the picture of humility, you knowing better than God and all.  Shucks, you’re just so much smarter than us dumb hayseed fundies.

Re: “Sarah, doesn’t the approach:  “We have chosen to believe that we have the truth and the rest of the world doesn’t,”—isn’t the arrogance of that approach just a wee bit troubling to you?”

“Teaching inerrancy harms the people of God and the wider human family.”

“I just think you’ve been taught theological junk when it comes to inerrancy”

“I do wish to disparage the approach to the bible that suggests that it is inerrant.  I also wish to completely discredit the idea of “divine superintending” that Matt frequently teaches.  It is a doctrine wholly without supporting evidence.  It’s just one bad idea supported by a host of other bad ideas.  It misleads people about how God works with human beings.  It is a false teaching and it is dangerous.”

No more troubling than for you.  ; > )

. . . I believe that all who seek the Truth will find it.

Phil the picture of humility is you putting yourself in the place of God—I’m not claiming divine inspiration.  But you, on the other hand ...

Why is your choice saying all if it is inspired any more humble (or arrogant) than my choice saying only some of it is inspired?

Two human choices—no evidence.

I’m sure that ALP doesn’t think he’s smarter than God; he just knows that he’s smarter than anyone who believes the Bible in a literal manner.  We should be honored that he has so graciously condescended to try and lift us from our ignorance and set us on the true path of enlightenment, tolerance and all of those good New Age (old heresy) gifts that our betters in TEC (reappraisers) want to bestow upon us slope-brained, slack-jawed yokels.

However, I think I understand what he is saying about God.  Let’s try this logic.  God is smart.  I (ALP) know that it is not smart to inspire one of books above all others.  Therefore God did not inspire one set of books above all others.  Therefore the God inspired all books equally.

So ALP defines what is smart and as long as God behaves in a manner consistent with what ALP defines as smart, then God is God.  Anything that falls outside of how ALP defines smart is no behavior that can be ascribed to (his) smart God.

Of course, the problem is how do we define the word “smart”, especially when even a president of the U.S. had problems defining what “is”, “is”.  ALP might be a warm and fuzzy kind of fellow, but I’m not sure that I would accept his definition of “smart” would be definitive.  Well, wouldn’t that mean that in order for us to be able to accept what ALP has to say about God and the Bible, we would have to accept ALP’s definition of “smart”.  That would be that ALP’s inspiration what it means to be smart is above all others.

Hmmm.  Wasn’t that what ALP was saying that we can’t do?  Must be some kind of fallacy in logic beside the periennal Straw Man.

Sarah, I’m glad to see you’ve been paying attention.  It’s not often I get quoted by anyone other than myself.

While I conceed the Lambeth 1888 reads

<blockquote> (a) The Holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith </blockquote>

Which does not reference inerrancy and infallibility—how do you know it to be the Word of God to exhort us to, “in all things, give thanks.” I am truly appreciative, it seems like you’re using Scripture and discounting it at the same time.

APL - RE: “While I’m sure you would oppose even the most gentle Moslem suggesting that the Koran was God’s only truly inspired book (he’s saying his book is more inspired, more Godly, and hence inerrant and infallible).”

Actually, no, I have no problem with a good Muslim to make that claim. I expect a Muslim to say that.

IGE’s Pricple of Engagement #1
“Know your maker — seek to understand His heart and make His passions yours. Know your faith at its deepest and richest best, and enough about your neighbor’s faith in order to respect it.”

APL - RE:“You do not believe or preach the gospel that I believe and that many other reasserting Episcopalians believe in or preach.”

I agee with Sarah, it is sad. However, I add on to this the ethical element, in another thread ++KSJ is urging +Schofield to remember his “ordination vows to “uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” I say exactly!

(b)  The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

The ‘gospel’ that she preached is not in line with the historic understanding. She has called someone to do what she is not doing herself. I realize that in a relative way, she thinks she asking him to obey the “The Historic Episcopate,” but when there is a constitution, when we say some historic creeds are our statement of faith, how can she claim to be apart of that same faith? You can’t answer for her, so I’ll ask you, ethically, if we have these Quadrilaterals, when does departing from them make you no longer a Christian but something “new?”

What is your ‘gospel?’ Does it differ from the ‘Creeds?’

What do you say in Mass?

The Coptic Church in defense they were never monophysit point to the Coptic divine liturgy as their satatement of faith. Do you say one thing during one part of the litergy but believe something else?

There does come a point when you’re just faking it, so I’m more troubled by a Muslim who has no clue what they believe or one who denies Mohammed as Ali’s prophet. At point you’re out of the club and something else.

—————————-

I write Too slow!

APL: “Phil the picture of humility is you putting yourself in the place of God—I’m not claiming divine inspiration,”

Just talking like you know something you know something about? At least Phil can be a ‘dumb hayseed fundies’ and say some dead guy, John Calvin began his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” with it, or it agrees with or as “doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.”

Sarah - RE: “. . . I believe that all who seek the Truth will find it.”—PREACH IT SISTER! ... I’m sorry, we’re Episcoplians, wrong expression ... I agree.

APL - RE: “Sarah, I’m glad to see you’ve been paying attention.  It’s not often I get quoted by anyone other than myself.”—Hopefully my few token quotes will give your ego a nice buffing and continue to brighten your day.

Sarcasm asside:

APL - RE:“By the way, I do hope each and everyone of you has a really blessed thanksgiving holiday.”—Thank you & same to you.

Please sub “ALP” for “APL,” mentally I guess I was thinking “A Programming Language,” Not Almost Live Priest. Even if in disagreement, I desire to show respect for the screen name.

Hosea6:  I enjoy your posts and I can’t type that fast let alone think that fast.

Our diocese, Upper South Carolina, endorsed a theological resolution (it encompassed the Chicage Lambeth Quad, Creeds, etc.) and surprisingly enough it was passed (unanimously or almost - can’t remember).  I voted for it without problem.

I listened to Bishop Schofield on the Anglican TV link provided here and was not nearly as put off by him as fellow liberals.  A member of our congregation just sent me the Schori letter from ENS and I commented back to her, “I knew there was something I liked about this woman.”

The place where theology gets “officially debated” for TEC is CG as you know.  I don’t expect her letter to please anyone here, except that the issue is coming to a head and people will act out their decisions and accept the consequences—the “divorce” will become final and that may be to everyone’s benefit.  But there is another thread for such thoughts—just responding to yours.

Hosea6 - I didn’t even notice the APL.  Sad to say it’s not a sign of my humility but my old age.

So, ALP, is your definition, your inspiration of “smart” above than all others?

Almost Live,

You have a kind and gentle spirit, most of the time anyway. And, I know you’re sincere. But, do you feel that all these various faith traditions are actually saying the same thing in different terms? How can the gospel of Jesus Christ be true, and concepts contrary to the good news about Jesus be equally valid at the same time? Do you see what I’m saying? All the religious books of the world cannot be equally inspired if they contradict themselves as well as the gospel.

You’re young at heart, Live. I’m concerned for you.

God bless!

Let me quote Gayle, so she won’t feel left out:

“However, I think I understand what he is saying about God.  Let’s try this logic.  God is smart.  I (ALP) know that it is not smart to inspire one of books above all others.  Therefore God did not inspire one set of books above all others.  Therefore the God inspired all books equally.”

You mean, Bible vs. Koran vs. Paris Hilton’s autobiography—they’re all equally good?  How about I just pick the one that says, “Vinnie, you’re fine the way you are; all those other people are jerks”?

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving.

Vinnie,
It just sounds like you’re mocking Almost Live. It’s not right, and I don’t like your comment.

Cousin Vinnie,
We humans can and do judge the “divinely inspired” content of books that make such claims.  Some books will be more inspired than others.  Depending on our criteria (what we think God is like) we’ll choose—and we’ll have evidence (however, tendentious) for our opinions.  The view that the books you have chosen (protestant canon) are totally inspired is (in my not so humble opinion) a poor choice. 

I’m unfamiliar with Paris Hilton’s autobiography—good choice.  I am familiar with how some extremist readers of the Koran use it to justify their VIOLENT jihad—another poor choice for the Kingdom.

I have found nothing in the life, death, and resusrrection of Jesus to suggest that the smart (among other divine attributes) Father wants us divided and antagonistic towards one another.  Reconciliation is a large part of our work and HIS work as TEC teaches—that obviously involves us learning to get along with each other.

The term “jerk” is one I’d reserve for myself but I don’t believe I’ve called anyone a jerk here or suggested as much.  I know (there is plenty of evidence) that there are plenty of people here who are smarter, better educated, more informed, and generally nicer (better character) than me.  Nonetheless, the little bit of “light” that I have, I will share.  Part of being a body is that we each need to fulfill our individual function in order for the BODY to be at its best.

Grace17033,
Thanks for the kind words.  As you know I believe we’re all on the “slippery slope” of needing to evaluate content and decide on what qualifies as “divinely insplired” and what doesn’t.  All books are not equally inspired.  All biblical books contain inspired writing.  They all also contain writing that appears more humanly inspired than divinely inspired.  We’ve got to choose.

Our Judeo-Christian tradition (not TEC now but Christian) has views that range all the way from Jesus as divine son of God to Jesus as great teacher.  I’ve even heard some Unitarians describe him as somewhere above man but beneath God—neither human nor divine but somewhere in between.

I say the Nicene Creed with conviction and discomfort.  Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior.  I asked him into my life and He came.  I’m very comfortable (as one evangelistic approach—not the whole ball of wax) having people pray a sinners prayer and asking Jesus to enter into their lives.  I have done this privately in one on one conversations and every Sunday at the Eucharist.  My basic evangelistic approach is to “give as much of yourself as you can to as much of God as you understand” as a starting and continuing point.

Now, having said that, I do confess to questions, doubts, uncertainties, confusion, moment of unbelief ... about the whole Christian theological endeavor—except the idea that we are to be builders of the Kingdom here on Earth.  Part of my role as a Kingdom builder is to see to it that GLBT people are welcomed unconditionally and treated fairly where God is in charge.  I believe that the “clobber” passages when applied to same sex attraction are man’s thoughts not God’s thoughts.

I wasn’t calling anybody here a jerk, ALP. It was satire.  (Well, maybe it was closer to sarcasm.  Watching what I say can be a weakness for me, if I try to follow Biblical statements about sin.  But God made me enjoy sarcasm, right?) 

Don’t take me so literally.  There was a valid point to be made.  If I have the authority to pick and choose based on personal preference, I will choose the “holy” books, or passages in books, that please me. Has any revisionist ever chosen against what he has already decided is right?  Has anyone ever said, “The idea of homosexual sex really disgusts me, and it has been very damaging to society in the past, but I was reading the Bible and it says right here that it is OK. So, I’ll have to get over it.”

Re: “Our Judeo-Christian tradition (not TEC now but Christian) has views that range all the way from Jesus as divine son of God to Jesus as great teacher.”

No.

The Judeo-Christian tradition does not allow any teaching at all that Jesus was “merely a great teacher”.

It is true that there have been people who have taught that Jesus was merely a great teacher.

But they were not in any manner a part of the Judeo Christian tradition.

Vinnie,
You and I differ on the valid point.  To me it is that you already have - cannot escape personal preference.  You have simply chosen the Protestant Canon of the Bible.  That is your choice—not necessarily God’s. 

As to what GLBT people call the “yuk” factor, I remember as a pre-teen being curious about heterosexual intimacy but feeling a slight “yuk” (and I am heterosexual) about the prospect of such intimacy.  Do we really do that???  It seems I got over it unless ... there really is a stork!

Hosea vi. 6. says:
“the rule and ultimate standard of faith

Which does not reference inerrancy and infallibility—”

If I read you rightly, Hosea, you are quoting the Lambeth Quadrilateral and trying to claim it does not teach Biblical Inerrancy.  While you might even be right about the intent of the authors of LQ (and I’m not convinced that you are), perhaps we need to reflect on the plain meaning of “ultimate standard.”  That means a standard than which there is no higher.  That means infallible and inerrant.  If Biblical “scholars” and “critics” are permitted to say what is true and what is untrue in the Bible, then the Bible has been downgraded into a secondary level of authority.

ALP:  you write very dismissively of the Bible’s claims to being the Word of God, calling this circular reasoning.  (Some philosophers argue that all reasoning is ultimately circular, but I’m not qualified to debate that.)  Circular or not, no-one can deny that these claims are clearly there.  When the OT prophets wrote, “Thus saith the Lord,” they werent kidding around.  Here the logic of CS Lewis applies, when he argued that the claims of Jesus to be God Incarnate must be taken seriously: aut Deus aut homo malus aut lunaticus.  So it is with the Bible.  Either it is what it claims to be, the Word of God, inspired, infallible, inerrant; or an utterly fraudulent book which should get not credence at all.  Liberals love to quote the Bible, when it seems to suit their purposes.  But you cannot have it both ways.

Almost Live,

Thanks for your response. For me, it’s not that I think these “clobber passages” are not inspired. It’s just that I feel they are being totally misunderstood and wrongly applied.

For instance, Rom. one is speaking of people who have literally rejected the true knowledge of God, and are involved in idolotry. I have little doubt that Paul is referring in his mind to the practices of the Greco-Roman fertility cults which involved sex among priestesses and between men and eunuch prostitutes. There was actually a ritual sex exchange that characterized the cults of such goddesses as Cybele. In some of these cults heterosexual males would voluntarily castrate themselves and assumed women’s garments. These were sexual orgies focused in the worship of pagan dieties.

Does this sound to you like the practice of Christian people who are constitutionally gay, involved in loving, committed relationships, who love the Lord?

I could go on, and talk about some of these other passages as well. Even if there is disagreement among the scholars, surely there is room for freedom of conscience in the church.

From my perspective, this is in no way denigrating or dismissing the witness of the Scripture.

Also, as an evangelical, I’m very concerned with how many GLBT are hindered from coming to Christ, and from the church, and are even being spiritually destroyed by this whole controversy.

Grace: I think there is much more diversity in the LGBT community than you are allowing in the term “constitutionally gay.”
Growing up in L.A. (right on the Hollywood border), I always had gay neighbors.  Yes, a great many reported the experience of feeling “different” from a young age (mainly gay men).  But most lesbians I knew reported abuse or some other trauma that led them to a “choice”.
And it was not even a generation ago that advocates of LGBT were trafficing the term “alternative lifestyle.”
Among those who report a “choice”, their attitude toward the opposite sex is almost always laced with invective, stereotypes and hostility.  I would never, ever let one of my sons attend a church with a lesbian on staff, for example.
In way too many cases, LGBT reflects unhealed conflicts.  That’s another reason why the rush to SSUs and ordinations is so wrong.  We are not honest about the diversity (and problems) within the LGBT experience.

Laurence: You are correct my line of reasoning is not the Scriptural one, but drawing on Tradition. That’s becasue there are many here on this board far more qualified to engage ALP on Scripture.

However having a fine Catholic education & growing up Anglo-Cath, I can bring up ethics (which questions ALP has ignored) and the departure from the historic Faith as Sarah has reiterated.

Irony of Protestant/Catholic dialog is that liberal Catholics have more in common with liberal Protestants, those who hold to historic Protestantism are actually close in mind to Traditional Catholics, though the former have an easier time than the latter with that.

Wanting to stay on topic, please accept that with this anecdote of Papal Inauguration Mass for Benedict XVI, that after the sermon the Anglician representative leaned over the rep from Billy Graham Ministries and ask “when’s the alter call?”

We’re on the same page Laurence, I’m just choosing the melody that fits my strengths.

However, ALP, I don’t think we even signing from the same hymn book.

So what is your idea of this gospel? What is the greatest need of man?

Are you in logical conflict with the what we say we believe throughout the mass?

RE:“The place where theology gets “officially debated” for TEC is CG as you know.”

I am aware, also that resolutions that would clarify our position failed the last two conventions, however the old ones we not repealed. I do not believe GC has magisterial authority on theology, even if you do, the fact that The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilaterals have not been repeal, chipped aways at, but not outright annulled, brings a question of current TEC leadership, as well as this priests in my city, are in grave error by TEC own decree’s.

(Yes, no Biblical textual arguements, resting on logical ones, but I know Stand Firm has better apologist in those areas).

Lawrence Wells,
I think you’ve made quite a jump when you choose to define ultimate standard as inerrant and infallible.  Ultimate as I understand the word means highest—as far as one can go.  The ultimate for humans is to apply our reason, experience, knowledge, intuition, imagination—with elbow grease—to arrive at conclusions which seem to us inspired and which serve the common good.

As to the Bible being the Word of God - I’ll go with TEC catechism in BCP 1979.  The alternatives are not as you described them.  It’s not either or.  And as much as I like CS Lewis, his “Lord, liar, or lunatic” proposition completely ignores the fact that the good Lord may have had words put into his mouth—he may have been misquoted—he may have been misunderstood.  There is ample scripture suggesting that the disciples just didn’t, “get it.”

I suppose that we’re all guilty of framing issues in ways that suit our conclusions.

Grace,
I’m sure that what one group of scholars says will almost always be contradicted by what another group says.  Personally, as you know, I find your points sufficient to give us room for discussion.

If I thought this approach would get us closer to the kingdom, I’d study harder on those clobber passages.  There are enough literalists (not the folks here) who will never move beyond their plain sense meaning of the words in their preferred translation.  I’m trying to illustrate that no matter how high one climbs this “inerrancy and infallability” ladder, it’s leaning on the wrong wall.

I see only harm coming from teaching the Bible as inspired and infallible—something which it clearly is not.  It creates harm to GLBT people, harm to human unity, harm to the spirit of the person who self-righteously presumes that God has chosen these books (the believers preferred collection—Protestant Canon) to perfectly inspire or superintend or whatever.

Hosea 6:6,
As I have said above in other words, I believe ... God help my unbelief.

What troubles me even more than my unbelief—my questioning, doubting moments—is the readiness of too many people here to reveal their need for certainty and security as evidenced by their willingness to judge just who’s Christian and who’s not.

Are we not all sinners just doing the best we can to allow God to “cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of (His) Holy Spirit that we may perfectly love (Him) and worthily magnify (His) Holy Name?”

Re: “What troubles me even more than my unbelief—my questioning, doubting moments—is the readiness of too many people here to reveal their need for certainty and security as evidenced by their willingness to judge just who’s Christian and who’s not.”

I don’t judge whether you are a Christian or not, ALP.

I simply don’t believe that people who preach and teach two utterly opposing gospels [as this thread, among many others, amply demonstrates] are to be together in one church body.  Scripture makes very clear what a church is to do with false teachers.

And that’s precisely the effort and question that is going on today within the Anglican Communion.

I know what I want to happen—the Anglican Communion to establish a disciplined, boundaried, ordered life.

We’ll see if it happens.

Above I wrote “inspired and infallible” when I meant to write “inerrant and infallible.”  The Bible is inspired—just not all of it equally - some parts more and some less.

ALP, did I miss something?  I haven’t been able to find an answer to my direct question to you.

Is your definition, your inspiration of “smart” above than all others?  Also, just for the sake of clarity, do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth, his dead body experience a physical resurrection, that a true, real and living body was experienced by his disciples?  Do you believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus was a virgin at the time he was conceived?  Do you believe that Jesus was a unique entity, in that he was and is the Incarnation of the Almighty God?

These are simple questions, a yes or a no will suffice.  I don’t want elaboration, discussion or explanation.  Inquiring minds want to know, clarity’s sake and all that.

Plus it would be interesting to see if you are capable of answering a direct question, directly.

APL:
Following on with Sarah’s line of reasoning.
“I don’t judge whether you are a Christian or not, ALP.”
Ditto, that’s a hard word!

OED gives 5 catagories for the noun, w/ subcatagories. CCC 1289 agrees with Article 26 in summary ‘All baptised persons.’ Article 17 is more helpful that by ignoring the word Christian and speaking to the Elect, but stating we’re not the one who declare who are the Elect (even though our in our sin, we’d love to).

</blockquote> RE:” ... God help my unbelief”</blockquote>

Mine as well ALP! Mine as well!
———————
Sarah went to exactly where I was heading
“I simply don’t believe that people who preach and teach two utterly opposing gospels [as this thread, among many others, amply demonstrates] are to be together in one church body.  Scripture makes very clear what a church is to do with false teachers.”
</blockquote>I meant to write “inerrant and infallible.” The Bible is inspired—just not all of it equally - some parts more and some less.</blockquote>

I’d say these are related, first Scripture is move from its historical and self-stated purpose, then the room for other ‘gospels’ immerges. Sadly, the move is not without safeguards & challenges, as even in Rite II C, there’s good classic theology (pardon the personal commetary, it’s SO seventies in language).

So my pointing to our history, outside Scripture, is asking, “who moved?”
——————
Sarah writes:“And that’s precisely the effort and question that is going on today within the Anglican Communion.

I know what I want to happen—the Anglican Communion to establish a disciplined, boundaried, ordered life.

We’ll see if it happens. “

Advent is soon, we wait in expectation!

blockquotes didn’t work out - see above & readers can see where what is coming.

Jesus was silent before his inquisitors.  I’m not that smart.

No, smart is not the highest—probably loving, forgiving, just, merciful are higher attributes.  Smart is important, too.

Now here’s the really dumb part—you hooked my ego when you challenged me to answer “obviously loaded” questions directly.  But here are my direct answers,
NO
NO
YES.

Had you asked them differently, “Do you believe in the virgin birth, do you believe in the resurrection or Jesus, do you believe in the resurrection of the body, do you believe Jesus is God Incarnate—had you asked these traditional questions without loading them up with your interpretation of their meaning, I would have said, YES, YES, YES.

Now you’re upsetting my world, I’m the kid with the LD, you can’t take my role away from me!

Cheers on “Yes, Yes, Yes!”

ALP, we all already knew your answers to the questions, tragic though they are.  They are revealed by your foundational theology.

I will be saving this thread and using it to help people in other dioceses as they search for clergy.

Many of them have FINALLY learned that revisionist clergy have cleverly changed the meaning of the creeds and the definitions of words *privately* in order to “pass muster” and get chosen by naive vestries and search committees.

This thread—among many other examples from others—amply demonstrates what we have all learned over the past three years.

I recognize that because you hold to a different religion than I do, that you have no reason to be ashamed.

But what you and your fellow clergy have done to traditional vestries and search committees is despicable.

I hold the actions of your fellow clergy in contempt.

To put it in more bald terms, I hold Spong, Crossan, Borg, and Susan Russell’s actions—honest brokers of a different gospel—in far far less contempt than I do the actions of clergy like you.

I shouldn’t be shocked, since I teach laypeople this stuff.

But to see it revealed—yet again—as it has been revealed to so many parishes in dioceses all over ECUSA over the past three years is simply breathtaking.

I say all of the above while being convinced that I could happily enjoy a nice cup of coffee and conversation [non theological] with you because you are a nice person.

I’m just sorry that you have the care of people’s souls.

God willing, traditionalists will learn together how to recognize priests like you . . . and stay far, far away.

God willing, traditionalists will learn that their interpretation of scripture, creeds and other statements is just that—their interpretation—not God’s.

What saddens me is the judgmental, accusatory tone you just displayed.  You apparently haven’t the slightest appreciation of the broad church concept that has been the beauty and genius of Anglicanism.

As far as wanting to serve in a church full of righteous and “faithful” people (as you interpret those terms), no thanks.  The Lord, himself would have to return and place his shepherd’s crook firmly around my neck and drag me to such a place should HE want me there.

On the other hand, having “vented,” if he got me there (and only He could), I would do my best to serve Him by serving them.

I remain astounded and humbled at the continuing levels of charity and civility expressed on these pages. I couldn’t do it—never got the hang of turning the other cheek. ‘Discussions’ with ALP and others who share his views are, to me, a waste of time. He belongs to a different church, so his opinions about my church are unwanted and unneeded. I am reminded of the Republican party in its first years (post 1994) in charge of the House and Senate. They ‘shared’ and ‘sought compromise’ and ‘wanted bipartisan support’. Didn’t work, and now the Dems are back in charge. Reappraisers don’t like reasserters, think us dumb or ignorant, think us biased and judgemental, and will <never> think otherwise. Why waste the time listening to their opinions? Just curious.

Re: “What saddens me is the judgmental, accusatory tone you just displayed.  You apparently haven’t the slightest appreciation of the broad church concept that has been the beauty and genius of Anglicanism.”

ALP, you’ve already said that when you said: “Sarah, . . . isn’t the arrogance of that approach just a wee bit troubling to you?”

And I responded with rather telling quotes from your previous statements that demonstrated precisely the “judgmental, accusatory tone” that you accuse me of. 

Funny—when revisionists “judge” theology it’s a good thing—it’s “appreciating the beauty and genius of Anglicanism” and it’s holy and pure.  When reasserters “judge” theology it’s a Very Bad Thing, and we are “judgmental”, “accusatory”, and “have not the slightest appreciation” of “the broad church concept”.

Of course . . . I don’t *mind at all* your demonstrating “judgment” in determining that my theology, as you put it, “harms the people of God and the wider human family”, is “theological junk”, “one bad idea supported by a host of other bad ideas”, “false teaching”, and “dangerous”, among other choice chestnuts.

Why don’t I mind?  Because we believe two different gospels, ALP, and it’s only natural that you should think the gospel that I believe to be all of those things you’ve listed above, and I to think the same of yours.

The funny thing is, though, that you then turn around and pontificate nobly about how my tone is “judgmental” and “accusatory”, and speak about how I do not have “appreciation of the broad church movement”.  Ironically, the members of the broad church movement of even 50 years ago would no more acknowledge your theology as Christian than I do.

One of the great treasures of Anglicanism is its ability to navigate between Rome and Geneva, and its conciliar locus of authority.  It is *not* a great treasure of Anglicanism for the Episcopal church to encompass varying religions while naming it “Christianity” nor redefining the Creedal language to encompass ALP’s non-belief.

RE: “As far as wanting to serve in a church full of righteous and “faithful” people (as you interpret those terms), no thanks.”

Good—then I hope that you will be honest and state clearly to the search committees and vestries that you do not “believe that Jesus of Nazareth, his dead body, experienced a physical resurrection, that a true, real and living body was experienced by his disciples?” . . . That you do not “believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus was a virgin at the time he was conceived?”. . . That you do not believe that God would “inspire one set of books above all others?” . . . And that you DO believe that “Not all of the Bible is wrong—just some of it.”

If you can be honest with search committees in that way, then you will achieve the status of a Spong or Crossan—honest brokers of a new gospel.

RichardP: The clue is above when I answerd his question about Muslins. He asked if I’d mind if they held had an exclusivity claim, my response was that I’d be more nervous if he didn’t.

“Know your maker — seek to understand His heart and make His passions yours. Know your faith at its deepest and richest best, and enough about your neighbor’s faith in order to respect it.”

Biblical priciple written generically. Be so sure of what you believe that you are not afraid to be challenged. When meeting Muslin or Buddhist we need to adopt a posture of humility. ALP uses the same words, but with different forms (see my play with the Madam of VA verses Madam of NYC—same word BUT VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS), so it’s a different religion, one demanding to submit to the current understanding of science as supreme, but ignoring the fact science actually has a whole set of assumptions as well.

BTW—about science - Kendall gave a sermon on the matter.

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?page_id=9428

God has revealed Himself, but in the form He chooses.

Truth & love. Sticking with tradition, I don’t have to accept error, for “error has right,” but people do. When I was in my more rebellious phase the people who loved me the most were not those who accepted my behavior and challenged my beliefs.

Guys,

Wait a minute here.  Sarah you are being way too hard with Almost Live. Why is it assumed that this priest is preaching a different gospel? I’m very conservative theologically, and fully affirm the virgin birth of our Lord, and the bodily resurrection. But, are we “saved” through intellectual assent to the virgin birth or even the bodily resurrection, or by faith in Jesus Christ?

I see that Almost Live has affirmed his belief that Jesus is God incarnate. He accepts the diety of Jesus Christ.  Sarah, it is not right for you to automatically assume that this man is proclaiming a false gospel, and is being deceptive. (I’m assuming you’re a man, ALP. Sorry if I’ve gotten this wrong. )

And, surely, all Christians struggle at times with uncertainty, doubt, and even unbelief. We all need to be loving and encouraging each other on in the faith, discussing these issues together.

Grace,

We changed the usual questions to synonymous ones, read the top part of ALP answer. The bottom part is what you want to hear, read the top part.

Sarah, I don’t know that ALP is really hiding his views.  That may be too much of a leap for me to take on the available evidence.  But I can confirm your impression that there are a lot of Episcopal clergy who seek to fly their heretical craft under the radar.  (Bp Schori pilot allusion, there.)

Grace,

Faith is not just a schleiermachian “feeling of dependence.” It has content.

Classically it consists of three things:
1. Right knowledge of the Truth
2. Assent to that knowledge
3. Surrender to the Person and Work of Christ.

The problem is that you cannot get to 3 unless you have a right understanding of 1. Why? Because otherwise you will not be surrendering to the true Christ revealed in the scriptures, but rather to some sort of wish-imaged Christ of your own imagination. An idol.

This is why when Mormons claim to have “faith in Jesus Christ” we must say, “not if you really believe what you claim to believe about him.” Becuase in that case, they worship an idol.

But the mormon idol of Christ is no more egregious than the gnostic one suggested by Spong, Crossan, Borg, and, apparently ALP. This is not the Christ of the scriptures but the Christ of vain imagination.

Thus, Sarah is perfectly justified in her comments.

Timothy,

I know what you’re saying. But, have you considered that not all involved in homosexuality are truly constitutionally gay? Perhaps there are heterosexual women who were terribly abused as children who really do have an aversion to men who then become involved with women. Perhaps this is the reason why reorientation kinds of therapy seem to be effective with some, and not with others.(These folks were not constitutionally gay to begin with.) Or perhaps for some people, there is an element of bisexuality which is involved here.

I certainly do not think this is a one size fits all situation. Each one of us should be seeking God’s will, and His best for our lives.

Grace: your willingness to talk with charity and honesty to both sides is admirable.  However, you are taking a step too far in your last comment: “But, are we ‘saved’ through intellectual assent to the virgin birth or even the bodily resurrection, or by faith in Jesus Christ?”

Of course, we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, but that is only possible because of His Resurrection.  To try to hand wave ALP’s repudiation of this historical fact as a mere lack of “intellectual assent” is to hide the fact that, if he cannot affirm it, he has not, in fact, placed his faith in Jesus in a Christian sense.

As far as his writings reveal, ALP, like many reappraisers that you must admit you’ve witnessed for yourself, is not, “struggle[ing] . . . with uncertainty, doubt, and even unbelief,” he’s glorifying and promoting uncertainty, doubt and unbelief.  The Scriptures are clear as to how we should regard one such as this.

As Sarah has said, there are two religions, one which contains the fullness of God’s revelation through Christ Jesus, and one which is a religion of nothing.

Grace, my sister in Christ, both sides are not always equally correct, and I urge you to see that many reappraisers are working very hard to knock the foundations from beneath the Gospel.

RE: “I remain astounded and humbled at the continuing levels of charity and civility expressed on these pages.. .. ‘Discussions’ with ALP and others who share his views are, to me, a waste of time. . . . Why waste the time listening to their opinions? Just curious.”

Well, Richard P, I need to distinguish between my dislike for ALP’s theology, gospel, worldview, etc, etc. and my interest in him as a human being.  I’m sure that he is a good sort, though we believe different gospels, and though those mutually opposing gospels are in the same organization.  But I’m friends with all sorts of people who don’t have the same faith as I do, or the same politics, or the same personality, or whatever . . . [not that I would presume to be ALP’s friend—I’m just saying that friendship, if not fellowship, is possible with most people].

Some day, though, this will all be worked out, and we’ll all be in separate organizations of integrity, he in his with his gospel, and I in mine.  At that point, won’t tensions and antagonisms be greatly relieved?  Perhaps ALP and I will drink hot tea or a breve and talk tennis . . . ; > )

But more importantly, this conversation has been read by thousands of Episcopalians. 

Do you think they’ve learned something?  Do you think they’re slowly gathering steam, gathering information, putting two and two together?  I think so—I talk by email and phone with them every day—people just like you, only still within ECUSA and plodding along, figuring things out.  So many Episcopalians have contacted me or others throughout ECUSA to talk and ask for help, as they’ve contacted others like Matt and Greg and Jackie and Andy and Kevin Kallsen and John Guernsey, and [insert one of hundreds of names here].  And they’re learning what they need and it’s dawning on them what happened to their parish, or to their diocese . . . . and they’re getting there.

People change and grow, RichardP, and I’m observing it.  Even “moderate” Episcopalians are changing and growing and raising a hand and asking for help to figure things out.

Threads like this, exchanges between Matt and others, Greg and others, Kendall Harmon and others, articles that further articulate issues and ideas, are very important.

StandFirm is in the teaching and information business—in a “churchy” sense or language, we offer discipleship opportunities in the blogsphere and in other venues.

And if we can’t meet moderates or “traditionalists” where they are then there will be less opportunity for growth all round.

Those are my thoughts, FWIW.

Cheers,

I’m off to my trail run!!!

; > )

Re: “Sarah, I don’t know that ALP is really hiding his views.

You may be right, Cousin Vinnie.  But the telling part is that ALP admits that if he had been asked these questions here—““Do you believe in the virgin birth, do you believe in the resurrection or Jesus, do you believe in the resurrection of the body, do you believe Jesus is God Incarnate”—he could have answered in the affirmative.

But since he was asked these questions here—“do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth, his dead body experience a physical resurrection, that a true, real and living body was experienced by his disciples?  Do you believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus was a virgin at the time he was conceived?  Do you believe that Jesus was a unique entity, in that he was and is the Incarnation of the Almighty God?—he had to answer no for two of them.

Now imagine that you are on a vestry and you ask your prospective priest if he can answer the first set of questions in the affirmative.  And the clergyperson smugly answers yes, all the while neatly redefining the traditional meaning of the words and concepts to equal what *he desires*.  The poor vestry doesn’t have a chance . . . and through the months that follow, if they hire him, they’ll wonder why his sermons and actions don’t match their interview of him, until one day . . . they figure it out.

It happens—nowadays—all the time within ECUSA and is a source of great trauma.

What a terribly deceitful thing to do.

Re: “Why is it assumed that this priest is preaching a different gospel? I’m very conservative theologically, and fully affirm the virgin birth of our Lord, and the bodily resurrection. But, are we “saved” through intellectual assent to the virgin birth or even the bodily resurrection, or by faith in Jesus Christ?”

Grace, Please note that I do not say that ALP is not “saved” or is “saved”.  I have no idea about that.

I only state the he has clearly articulated—over and over and over again on this thread and on others—a gospel that in no way emulates the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Again—he does not “believe that Jesus of Nazareth, his dead body, experienced a physical resurrection, that a true, real and living body was experienced by his disciples?” . . . He does not “believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus was a virgin at the time he was conceived?”. . . He does not believe that God would “inspire one set of books above all others?” . . . And he *does* believe that “Not all of the Bible is wrong—just some of it.”

I could go on and on and on.  He has stated many many many more beliefs that in no way are the Christian gospel.

That does not mean that he is not a Christian.  It simply means that he does not assent to or teach the faith.

This does not mean that he is a bad person.  He’s just like any other person who does not assent to the faith.

Only thing is . . . He’s an Episcopal priest.

Grace . . . do you recall some months ago your decrying our statements that many Episcopal priests could not recite the Creeds without their fingers crossed?

Exhibit #13098.

I’m played out, folks, here on this thread.  ALP is who he is, a creature loved of God.  I am always conscious on these threads that revisionists will not change in their beliefs or foundational worldviews through blogs.

But I am convinced that every time one of these threads runs its course . . . another Episcopalian reads it and says . . . “hmmmmm . . . this doesn’t look so good . . . things seem worse than I had imagined . . . I’ll have to investigate further . . . maybe ask my priest a few probing questions . . . maybe have lunch or supper with some of my buddies and see what we need to do about this . . . “

And that’s all good!  ; > )

Sarah it may have already been said but you have just touched on the essence of the problem.  You know, you should have been a lawyer because you are excellent at cross examination and direct as well.  You see, I simply know what you believe relative to basic theology if you are a PCA clergy.  I don’t have to guess, qualify or examine the candidate.  This is why I cannot see how ECUSA can be reformed.

ALP writes, in part: “God willing, traditionalists will learn that their interpretation of scripture, creeds and other statements is just that—their interpretation—not God’s.”

Baloney!  Jesus said, “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”  How do you interpret that?

Your corrupt, unfaithful, schori-like beliefs are helping to lead many astray.  There will be an accounting for all of this. Unfortunately, you may not believe that either.

ALP,as usual more of the same neo-christian tripe,thanks for proving the truth of the Scripture by your words(2 Tim.3:3-4),if you’re working so hard to disprove and disgrace the truth of the Scripture then the truth must be hammering your pseudo-christianity.
2 Peter 1:16-21
1 John 1:1-3
Still true,then and now

Oops,my apologies,2 Tim.4:3-4

Alright friends,

I’m back at another stab at digging myself deeper into the ditch. For one thing, I feel badly talking about Almost Live when he isn’t even around!!  It’s true. No one can completely know someone’s heart and mind but the Lord. Ultimately, He is the final judge and discerner of the thoughts and intents of all our hearts.

I think that the good news is that Jesus died for our sins, that He was buried and rose again, that by faith in Him, in the work of the cross we are put right with God.  Anyone who denies this gospel, regardless of their sincerity and good intentions is not a Christian believer. Someone cannot reject the unique divinity of Jesus and the Biblical concept of the atonement, and be a Christian, or preach the gospel. There’s no judgement in me saying this but, I mean it would just be an oxymoron.

However, I think it’s very possible for someone not to believe the Scripture is all fully inspired, to dispute the matter of Christ’s birth, and still preach the gospel. I’ve actually known people folks who do not accept a literal interpretation of the virgin birth, but still affirm the full divinity of Christ, the incarnation. I must admit that this position makes little sense to me, and we could get into that. But, there you have it!

I also realize that there are clergy in every denomination who do not fully affirm the creeds of the church. What I’m disputing is the linking of a GLBT inclusive kind of position with heresy. I’ve personally know Christians who are even very liberal theologically who may not accept an inclusive position. And, others who can be quite conservative theologically and evangelical who do. Do you see what I’m saying? There’s just not always this direct correlation. In part, it depends on why someone is taking the position.

Also, I think we should do our best to be loving and caring with each other. There’s no point in making comments that are almost certain to drive people away and to shut down the discussion before we even have a chance to try to understand or work through some of these issues together.

Now please be gentle in your comments, folks. I’m actually trying to do my best to share here. Phil, I love you too>

RE: “There’s no point in making comments that are almost certain to drive people away and to shut down the discussion before we even have a chance to try to understand or work through some of these issues together.”

Context, context, remember context, to keep this in context. ALP in his first post “What’s good for the goose ...” begging for debate, in fact he continued a ending about gymnastics (that can set me off, but only for dragging that sport into things [*Grin*]).

If this were a questioning soul then the approach is VERY different. Know your audience. I spent half my time trying to figure out if ALP were a Unitarian, but he seems to chosen a different side of the horse to fall off in terms of classic understanding of the Faith.

However, thank you, Grace, for keeping us accountable to form and not just subject.

“However, I think it’s very possible for someone ...to dispute the ...literal interpretation of the virgin birth, but still affirm the full divinity of Christ, the incarnation. “

Grace, it makes little sense to you because it is impossible.  There is a reason why those that dispute the “literal” virgin birth (it is unclear to me how you could have a “figurative” virgin birth) also generally dispute the “literal” physicial death and resurrection of Christ.  If both of these are not a historical, “literal” events, then Jesus was not the “perfect” sacrifice for our sins (see Hebrews and the liturgy you recite every Sunday), rendering us UTTERLY WITHOUT HOPE. Dead.

Hope is ultimately what this is all about.  Like you, I want to spread this Good News all other sinners who are as undeserving as I am, and as miserable as I once was.  That includes those that disagree with me, including those within my former denomination that have strayed so fundamentally from the Truth.  However, in doing so I cannot be yoked with those, particularly those in ecclesiastical authority, that have not accepted the “literal” Christ discribed above.  In the words of Apostle Paul, “Do not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers. …What fellowship has light with darkness?”  I can pray for them, dialogue with them, love them, be friends with them.  I honor their rights as citizens, and acknowledge their accomplishments and contributions.

But I can’t voluntarilly be yoked to them.  God prohibits it.

Grace,
Perhaps you have not been around for the last 3 years.  Perhaps you are just now engaging this conversation.  However for most of us ( and certainly for me), the conversation between liberals and orthodox is over.  A separation is imminent.  I have spent much time in the last 3 years listening and talking with revisionists over their beliefs and mine.  However, that conversation for me was over forever when ECUSA elected Killer Kate at GC06.  Such audacity in the face of all that has gone in the last 3 years shows either total ignorance or total arrogance.  It is now time to go our separate ways.  Sorry, but “the dialog” is over.

Sarah,
I’ve priested (if there is such a verb) far too long to every want to mislead a vestry or congregation about who I am, where I’ve come from, and what I believe, and what I don’t believe.  I have made a point at my last two assignments as part of my introduction to very frankly share the above info—and follow it with the statement that “as a priest on trial”—try before you buy—please let me, your wardens anyone know if you find me unsuitable for service to this parish.  Just speak up and I’ll be gone—you are not going to be stuck with me. 

As to being nice person and someone with whom you could converse on non-theological topics—from time to time I am that person.  My tendency is to keep to myself even though I enjoy socializing in small doses.  Sometimes I believe that I’m one of those people who loves humanity, it’s just people I can’t stand ... sometimes not.

I, too, am aware of your audience and as I suspect you know I have sought to expose some of your (not yours personally but yours “generically conservative”) more extreme positions.

The arrogant judgments that I have offered are simply that theologically I see many of the conservatives yere as having made poor theological choices.  I have sought to illustrate why “inerrancy and infallibility” is a poor decision by stating that it harms people and that it divides people.  Jesus was in the healing and unifying business.  Instead of tearing down walls, your theology builds them.

I don’t know if you simply don’t believe that your views divide and harm—or you rationalize the division and harm as being somehow biblically justified.  You all here are smart and caring—and yet you fail to see the damage you do that is right in front of you.  I’m not sure how you are able to deny or overlook or justify hurting the people you hurt and dividing the people you are called to bring together.

I know you derive great pride in your analysis of two religions in the same church.  For “generic” you, it’s not enough for us to worship with you, to share creeds and scriptures with you, you now insist on a spirit destroying conformity of interpretation of mystical events that were reported to us from a Jewish way of life from 2000 years ago.

That millstone some of you are fond of brandishing may one day jump up and surprise you when you are able to see clearly just who is putting it on whom.

ALP, I don’t mean to jump in between you and Sarah (who is a far more capable representative of orthodoxy than I).  Assuming you and I eventually meet Jesus (I hope you will grant me that favorable assumption) one of us may have a difficult question to answer.

For me, “Vinnie, why did you get your knickers in a twist about gay bishops and homosexual marriage?  You could have saved yourself a lot of agita.  Those rules made a lot of people unhappy.”  Me: “Well, it says right here that homosexual sex is an abomination to God, and I thought it really was God’s Word.”

For you:  “ALP, why did you support homosexual sex when My Word clearly says it is forbidden?”  ALP: “You were serious about that???”

I hope Jesus will plead my case if I’m wrong:  “Father, go easy on the Paisan.  Several schmucks wrote it down wrong and led all these people astray.”

ALP, not walls, foundations. Solid foundations. And pardon me for saying so, but your theological choices seem to embrace - air. “Division” is a result of human choices and occurs constantly. As Sarah pointed out somewhere the other day, voting in an election is “division.” Your “good theology” looks like “bad theology” to me.

<i>For “generic” you, it’s not enough for us to worship with you, to share creeds and scriptures with you</i>

You don’t share these things with us, you turn them into meaninglessness. Pageantry and show without substance. The words mean nothing if they mean everything/anything at all. That’s the same as the abyss. Scripture means nothing if it’s a smorgasbord for everyone to choose just which dainties they’ll have on their plates. If the most central tenets they convey are denied. (And I’m not talking about the passages about homosexuality.)

ALP - who says Jesus did not come to divide?  Look at Matt 10:34-39.

oscewicee,
without evidence you have no foundation—simply an opinion oft repeated.  The reason you have no evidence in your theological opinion is because none exists—the bible is neither inerrant nor infallible.

TEC understands our mission as one of reconciliation—bringing people together as Jesus did.  He did speak of division—a recognition that some people would refuse to accept certain tribes, classes, sexual orientations, etc. as full members of the divine family.  In fact members of the same family would disagree regarding Jesus and his Kingdom.

Worship is not so much about saying words—any sinner can mouth words with or without understanding—and I don’t believe it’s about conformity of belief as you suggest—it’s about the inclination of the heart—submitted and surrendered to God and offered to God.  When you judge another person’s worship, you have clearly put yourself in God’s place.  You have no such window into a person’s soul.  I warn you against judging a person who sincerely desires to worship the Lord with you.

I believe it would please God for us “liberals and conservatives” to worship together.  Apparently there are some of you who are too spiritually pure to please the Lord in this way.

ALP - we cannot worship together, otherwise you and I would be bearing false witness that have the same beliefs, and we obviously do not.  When I read what you say, I cannot but think of Paul’s warning in 2 Tim 4:3-4 and James in James 3:1.  I pray you take them to heart, but I doubt you will.

<<For “generic” you, it’s not enough for us to worship with you, to share creeds and scriptures with you, you now insist on a spirit destroying conformity of interpretation of mystical events that were reported to us from a Jewish way of life from 2000 years ago.>>

ALP - I’m not sure I understood the last part of this. Clearly between the reappraiser and reasserter camps, there never was conformity of interpretation of the events. Why is it a bad thing to make this evident, as Sarah and others are doing?

I do want to know what my church leaders believe and don’t believe - I will be entrusting my children’s religious education to them and the community that supports them. There are a lot of ersatz forms of Christianity around, and I don’t want my kids confusing that with the real deal.

Almost Live,
I realize that you’re feeling angry and offended right now, and maybe this is not the best time to talk. But, here it goes. I personally agree with you that liberals and conservatives should worship together in the church. And, no one can completely know another person’s heart, or judge where he is at with God.

My own husband is considerably more liberal than I am theologically. He is a Christian universalist, and does not accept a belief in Hell. We disagree about other matters as well. But, Live, we do agree concerning the gospel. He can affirm that Jesus is truly God as well as man, that His death puts us right with God, and that even the grave could not hold Him. He just thinks that eventually the entire world will be redeemed through the work of Jesus.

I think as a church it is important that we honestly talk and discern together matters that are totally essential to the Christian faith.  God loves us so much!! Would He not reveal Himself truly to the church, especially in matters relating to “salvation?” We do need to agree concerning the gospel. Otherwise, what is there really left to share together as a church at all?

Live, are you able to agree with what I’m sharing here so far?

Sometimes it’s helpful to be reminded of why I left ECUSA after GC 76.  ALP has put me further into his debt:

“When you judge another person’s worship, you have clearly put yourself in God’s place.  You have no such window into a person’s soul.”

Everything has changed except the cliches!  Judgmentalism!  Window’s into men’s souls!  (Well, things have changed somewhat with the advent of PC language.  Cant say the M word anymore!)

ALP has explained to us the Bible is not infallible, inerrant, trustworthy (although somehow it may be inspired).  So among the erroneous passages we must count
I John 4.1, that appalling statement about “testing the spirits whether they be of God,”
and Matt 7.16, “by their fruits ye will know them.”

Seriously, judgmentalism is not condemned in the NT, it is virtually commanded of us.  “for with what judgment ye judge, so shall ye be judged.”  My judgment is that ALP is a perfectly nice person, but is not a Christian and should not be a priest.

ALP:
Between us, I’d agree with Sarah and love to do coffee talking about non-theological matters, I noticed you avoided my questions but it seemed like we heard all the same stuff. If someone said line of logic # 1253 than you looked up the rebutal to 1253, but if you offered your reason # 543, then precast answer to 543 was offered.

There is evidence, many who set out to disprove ended up convinced (Webster as one). Then scripture warns us that the evidence will be more on the legal rules, so that we can still choose to rebel and turn to idols and be turned over to our our desires and lusts. I really do not believe you came to Stand Firm asking these questions.

Still, thank you for your input!

Maybe the smart thing to do was to not say anything after “END OF DISCUSSION.” I don’t believe anyone “won” anything, but maybe you have Grace’s sympathies, however this is a record that we don’t have to be intimidated by your line of reasoning.

The sad thing is that once I would have been and would listen to your line of reason. I’ve touch that hot stove, ah, other people on Stand Firm, you don’t have to, I can tell you it’s hot and it’ll burn you.

As the classic view being divisive, oh yeah, I was exiled from all my friend of the world. My faith cost me something. However, I found a unity with actual believers greater than TEC, it’s a huge Body. Other fiths can respect my devotion and ask me questions.  So purely based on experiential evidence, I’m sorry but I’ve found the opposite of your logic to be true.

RE"sexual orientations, etc”—Biblical reference please.

You should know better than that. It’s like +Chane’s:
“And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the Law to Moses?
And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the sacred Quran to the prophet Muhammad?
And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God? “

One Islamic tradition (questionable), One Bible truth (no problem) and one complete change to the text (RED FLAG). You spoke to Moses? Sheep who don’t know better can be decieved, that’s why I used ethics.

That’s the deception Sarah is talking about. You keep accusing us, “[when we] will learn that their interpretation of scripture, creeds and other statements is just that—their interpretation.” Well, I’m notinterpreting if I’m returning to a classic understanding, you seem to accuse, but you seem to be the one adding to Scripture something that’s not there. You’re not accountable for +Chane’s change, but you are for trying to bring a distinction that Scripture does not have in “orientation,” not a far step to try to line out an act.

As a repentant hetrosexual sinner, I have deep regret for any you lead astray. I honestly believe you mean well. I think you do see a loosing of God’s decrees as a way to reach out to more folks. I also do not think you’ve followed the ramification all the way through. Approaching Scriptures that I could not change, but must wrestle with the text, I’ve found God’s Love in Leviticus and the first few chapters of 1 Chronicles.

Sarah,
Thanks for the gentle flogging. I suppose this is what blogging is all about, so I withdraw my objections to the continuing conversation with my adversaries. I have no theological training but I’m a pretty good engineer, so I posit this: one cannot make something out of nothing. One cannot take energy and create mass. Therefore the universe as we know it was created. Therefore someone or something created it. Thus the Genesis story is accurate, if not literally true. QED. Everything else derives from that most ancient of formulae. To deny any part of the essence of the Bible is to deny it all. As for ALP and others, it is simply not honorable to mouth the Nicene Creed in front of others, if you don’t believe it. Accept it all, or accept none.

Hi Alp,
>without evidence you have no foundation

I’m not sure what “evidence” there is for any religious beliefs beyond the evidence of the heart.

As for the inerrancy of the Bible, you will get no argument from me that there are things in the Bible not to be taken literally. But we have centuries of Biblical exegesis from which to draw. Why should I believe that suddenly in the late 20th and early 21st century, a handful of Episcopalians know better than St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc., etc.?

>TEC understands our mission as one of reconciliation—bringing people
together as Jesus did.  He did speak of division—a recognition that some
people would refuse to accept certain tribes, classes, sexual orientations,
etc. as full members of the divine family.  In fact members of the same
family would disagree regarding Jesus and his Kingdom.

I should clarify that I don’t have any problems with tribes, classes, sexual orientations, etc. and will cheerfully share the cup, and the pew, with all believers and fellow sinners. I am less troubled than many here about homosexuals in the priesthood, knowing that no priest is sinless, anymore than the rest of us. I would *prefer* that neither homosexuals living an active homosexual lifestyle nor divorced heterosexuals serve in the priesthood, but I am far more troubled by the absence or tortuous twisting of fundamental Christian beliefs. I don’t expect each of us to believe exactly, detail by detail, the same thing, but there are basics that define Christianity and redefining those terms to make them mean something else doesn’t equal shared beliefs.  Particularly, priests and bishops, responsible for the teachings of the church, should believe those central tenets. You seem to say, yes, I believe them, but then you acknowledge that you believe them as you redefine them. The twisting of plain words, the insistence that, really, words don’t mean anything, is a very liberal thing and a very useless, hopeless, life-stealing thing because it robs us of our ability to communicate and share.

>When you judge another
person’s worship, you have clearly put yourself in God’s place.

But teachings are something else. Priests and bishops are responsible for the teachings of the church that form our children and affect us all. The teachings that TEC seems to offer today are “Let’s love everybody but the orthodox and do whatever we please, because it’s all the same to God.” Orthodoxy seems to be the only unforgivable “sin.”

> I warn you against judging a person
who sincerely desires to worship the Lord with you.

As I think I’ve said before, I will worship with anyone who sincerely desires to worship the Lord, and pray that we all find our way to him. But I am no longer sure that we are worshiping the same Lord and yes, that matters.

>Apparently there are some of you who are too spiritually
pure to please the Lord in this way.

I am by no means spiritually pure, I wish I were. But there is a big gap between being a believing sinner and being someone who rewrites the faith to suit the culture.

Harry—and others who feel so strongly that we must separate,

Jesus worshipped with people—really worshipped—in spite of their different views of Him, of God, of moral matters.  He celebrated the first Eucharist “on the night before He died” with people who did not understand who He was and what he was about. 

I suspect the purists in the crowd accused him for that! 

Your “we can’t worship together” song is uninspired and uninspiring!  It is unholy—not of God—and I don’t care what bible verses you can point to to support your bias.  God brings people together.  He reconciles.  He redeems.

Jesus died for us—all of us—not just you neo-puritans.  Do you really think that he gives a rat’s rear end that our understandings be just alike?  Isn’t it enough that we incline our hearts to Him, bend our knees to Him, lift up our hearts to Him, confess our sins to Him, receive forgiveness from Him? 

When did he place you in charge, anyway?

I think that it makes sense to have patience with those who do not yet know how to allow themselves to take the Bible literally yet. Those of us who see the truth of the Bible must recognize it as a perfect tool designed by a creator more perfect than we can imagine. “Then why would He put things in the Bible that would be so difficult for people to believe?” Because the Bible is a perfect tool it will sometimes force people away from it for a time to simply draw them back later when they can no longer deny the truth of it. In this way people’s faith will have been forged from deeply contemplating the Bible for themselves directly and not simply because their mothers and fathers told them to believe some things in some book.

This is Gods gift to us that we are given the choice to accept or deny the Bible ourselves. This is not a choice to be taken lightly and every good Christian should take the time to read and reread every passage in the Bible that they either do not understand or that they do not believe. Please trust that God has left messages for each and every one of us perfectly sculpted to unlock our hearts to the truth of Gods love for mankind. These messages may send you on what seem like distant journeys away from God but please remember that God is always present and always willing to accept us into his love. We need only see that it is always before us.

If some theory in science can be tested and repeated with consistency and appears to contradict what is in the Bible then I would offer that the person viewing the contradiction has revealed to themselves a message coded in the Bible meant specially for them. Investigate this apparent contradiction to the fullest extent that you are able and then turn back to the Bible and see if now you don’t understand the truth of it. Take your time. Trust in the Bible to be a perfect tool for you to heal from all that ails mankind.

Matthew 5:43-45:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

Isn’t it enough that we incline our hearts to Him, bend our knees to Him, lift up our hearts to Him, confess our sins to Him, receive forgiveness from Him? 

Almost There ALP! Only one thing you lack - “go and sin no more.”

He was Savior of my life many years before He became my Lord, “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”

You have the first two of the three Matt+ listed above.

Hosea6:6,
I certainly believe in “go and sin no more.”  People have trouble repenting of sins that others see that they themselves do not see—me and thee are those people!

Well, I’m sure glad for all the nice people on Stand Firm who have posted to help you see.

I do wish you and your family a wonderful Thanksgiving!!

ALP - I see further discussion with you is pointless, since you seem to think you are the one in charge.  I am sorry to say that all I hear when I read you are the famous words “Did God really say ...” Gen 3:1.  I am sure you will also claim to apply those words to me.  But I have the Scriptures to back up what I believe and know God says.  You just state what you believe with no basis in anything other than you own opinion.  So have a Happy Thanksgiving, and I will pray for you and all those who have been lead astray by the prince of this world.

P.S. I will wear the badge of “neo-puritan” proudly, and yes God does care when you misrepresent Him.

Alp said:  TEC understands our mission as one of reconciliation—bringing people together as Jesus did. 
ALP - Here you have again set out another one of the issues that divides us -
Our mission is not to bring people together but to BRING THEM TO CHRIST.

Jackie,
From BCP 1979:  page 855
Q.  What is the mission of the Church? 
A.  The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ

Aside from agreeing with Jackie’s post without quibbling, I want to genuinely thank all the posters.  I have learned from our discussion. 

One of the learnings was that I discovered a website by googling “religious tolerance - biblical interpretation” that I found helpful. 

Sometimes in the heat of discussion, my tongue gets sharper than courtesy and respect would dictate.  I’d like to think I was offering “Godly rebuke” but I know better—sometimes my ego gets hooked and God has little to do with the rebuke.  My sincere apologies to all who may have been stung by my tone or my words.

I realize that I am leaving questions unanswered and remarks unaddressed.  If anyone would like to pursue the conversation privately, please have Matt, Greg, or Sara email me privately with your email address and I’ll respond.  I’m not saying this out of ego—but I know the frustration that can exist when we’ve put out what we feel is a really important question to us—or a really good point we’ve made—and it goes unaddressed.  I’ll do my best to answer or address any of you who may have such feelings.

I was hoping to make the point that there are many people who approach the Bible differently than you here who do take it quite seriously—Matt’s redefinition of “seriously” notwithstanding.

Let my repeat my genuine best wishes to all for a really blessed Thanksgiving.  May you spend the day with family and friends, may your team win the game, may the calories you consume burn themselves off during what will surely be some power naps.  May those of you who are traveling be safe. 

God Bless you all.

Any member can contact another member via email by clicking on Your Account (located at the top of the page to the right of Welcome).  Once there click on Private Messages (on the left), then compose message.  Type in the screen name as it appears in a post of the individual you wish to contact. This will send an email directly to the poster without revealing email contact information. 

Happy Thanksgiving to you also, ALP.  I have found that when we obey the commandment to bring disciples to Christ, Christ does all that other hard work for us.

Jackie and ALP,

This is the truth. When people come to Christ, overtime, God’s spirit does bring reconciliation and unity together. It’s unavoidable. I find the more time I spend with Christian believers even if I don’t at first agree, the next thing I know I’m loving them more and more. I’m impressed to pray for them. I can’t even help myself.  It’s definitely a work of God!!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

Someone asked, “What was the author’s intent in writing the “begats? “

The “begats” of Genesis 4 and 5 represent a very old kinship pattern. Kinship patterns are like cultural signatures. Analysis of the pattern shows that Abraham’s ancestors were great chiefs of the houses of Nok (Enoch or Hanoch) and Kano (Kain).  Only the first-born sons are listed, as these great chiefs of the Paleo-Dominion observed the rights of primogeniture.  Before a man could take over the territory of his father and become chief in his place, he had to have 2 wives. The wives maintained households on a north-south axis.  Their households marked the boundaries of the chief’s territory. One wife was a half sister (as was Sarah to Abraham) and the other a patrilineal parallel cousin (as was Keturah to Abraham).  The pattern continues even beyond the time of Abraham.

Another feature of this kinship pattern is that the brides named their first-born sons after their fathers.  So we note that Lamech’s daughter Naamah (Gen. 4) married her patrilineal parallel cousin Methuselah (Gen. 5) and named their first-born son Lamech, after her father.

By taking the Genesis 4 and 5 information seriously, we are able to reconstruct a good picture of the kinship pattern of Abraham’s people.  The Bible provides key information that allows us to connect the dots.