USA out?
So, Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) has issued his statement after the Episcopal Church in the USA held its General Convention. I’ve admittedly not had the chance to read this (long!) document myself yet but, from early reports, it sounds like the Episcopal Church will not in future be in full membership of the Anglican Communion. (Although it will almost certainly get an invitation to the next Lambeth Conference in a few years, and their new Presiding Bishop Katharine Schori will be at the Primates Meetings, so nothing’s certain.) I have to say that, sorry as I am to see this split occurring (and it’s not a good thing to have to witness), I’m actually more worried about the churches and leaders who are still “in”. In particular, there are certain African bishops who (it seems to me) embody the Spirit of Christ far less than the troubled Episcopal Church. It was undoubtedly foolish of the Episcopal Church to elect a bishop who was in an active committed gay relationship before the Episcopal Church itself had decided to start officially blessing such relationships. But it is surely more foolish to support (enthusiatically!) laws effectively banning even the discussion of homosexuality, or to make statements promising violence against Muslims, or to ignore the plight of the poor, or to play party politics.
On this ship of fools, can we all really stay the course?
pax et bonum
Follow comments using Co.mments.com
Add to your del.icio.us bookmarks
Honestly, I think they’ve got bigger problems than homosexual or female bishops. This is a case of Biblical authority, as evidenced when the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church overwhelmingly refused to even consider a motion, D058, that affirmed Jesus Christ as the only name by which any person may be saved.
Even the LA Times, a liberal paper with no real dog in the fight, recognizes this.
To quote Al Mohler:
Following the paper’s logic, the opponents of the ordination of women and homosexuals are linked by a common thread — a refusal to see the biblical instructions as “a reflection of merely human customs that can evolve.” Or, as the paper more pointedly argues, conservatives stand in the way of progress because they refuse to discard the “cultural chaff” found in the Bible, along with the “spiritual wheat.”
The editors of The Los Angeles Times deserve credit for acknowledging what so many others deny — that the issues of women serving as pastors and unrepentant homosexuals serving as pastors are inescapably linked. A common hermeneutical thread binds these two questions together. The hermeneutical jump necessary to justify women pastors (or women bishops, etc.) is merely a precursor to the jump required to support homosexual pastors (or homosexual bishops, etc.).
The paper’s editors place themselves on the wrong side as they editorialize on these issues, but at least they understand the link that binds them together. That’s more than I can say for some theologians.
Let’s not equivocate a rogue African Bishop with an entire rogue American church. Both are wrong, but only one has an enormous impact on the faith.
Hammertime () (URL)
3:17pm on 28 June 2006
I agree with your point that women priests and acceptance of gays are linked – but not simply. One can quite legitimately accept one and not the other, without hypocrisy or inconsistency, for they are distinct issues. One interesting thing, though, is that the “conservative” element within ECUSA will have its work cut out staying together, because it’s made up of some who ordain women and some who do not, some who ordain the divorced-and-remarried and some who do not, and so forth. Indeed, some of the more prominent conservative voices are apparently divorced and remarried, which will be especially interesting if they try to align themselves with the African churches, most of whom (in line with literalist biblical interpretation) reject this practice, especially in the priesthood.
Finally, “Let’s not equivocate a rogue African Bishop with an entire rogue American church. Both are wrong, but only one has an enormous impact on the faith.“ Oh, I agree (although the “rogue” status of these bishops is too often denied by conservatives because of how useful they are as allies). And it’s the African bishops I worry about. Disputes about sexuality are peripheral to the Christian faith – it’s not at the core of who we are. But a Primate threatening violence against his neighbour and refusing to aid the poor is bad. And some of what’s going on elsewhere in Africa is even more shameful (like some of the churches in Zimbabwe, which are little more than the religious wing of the government).
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
6:50pm on 28 June 2006
I agree with your point about the challenges of the conservative Anglicans, especially with all of those discordant positions.
I disagree with two points – one, that the dispute is about sexuality or interpretation and not authority. As we discussed in a different issue, something cannot mean what it does not. “A bishop must be the husband of one wife” does not mean “A bishop does not have to be the husband of one wife”. This literally and undeniably entails that the Biship is (1) A man, (2) married, and (3) married to one wife.
The only option left to interpretation may be “one wife”, because it does not specifically say whether that is “non-polygamous” or “non-divorced”. I believe that one can believe in Biblical inerrancy and Biblical authority and interpret it both ways. My next series will cover that specific issue.
Thus, as a bishop must be a man and married, that excludes women and homosexuals from the bishoprick. It may exclude divorcees who have remarried.
I understand the Bible the same way the early church did. That is why I am such a proponent of church history. Ignoring the doctrinal statements of those who walked with Christ and the apostles leads us to heresy. I’d be interested to see what you think of that idea.
Hammertime () (URL)
4:30pm on 29 June 2006
None of us can claim that we “understand the Bible the same way the early church did”. We simply cannot, because we have learned too many new tools in 2000 years, and gained too much baggage. Nor should we try to do so slavishly. To take another old example, the early Church supported slavery but we condemn it. To deny that we reinterpret the Bible is to lie to ourselves. Again, Jesus said that the Spirit would come to “lead us into all truth”; unless we want to claim that this leading stopped at some point and we became perfect in our knowledge of God, we must expect to learn new things. Some of which may contradict what we always believed the Bible to say (as has happened in the past).
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
4:36pm on 29 June 2006
Comparing the theocratic and health laws of Israel with NT guidance for conduct of Christian service is duplicitous. You know better – it is NOT valid. Why don’t we just discard the whole list of bishoprick qualifications as culturally absurd? Why not discard any verse we don’t like? Why do you or anyone else get to pick and choose? While I knew you disagree with me, I am, in a word, shocked at your chosen method.
I do not agree that any teaching at all from the NT can be “set aside as culturally conditioned”. Furthermore, the fact of slavery’s existence does not mean the early Church “condoned” it. It was a fact of the time. Nowhere in the writings of the fathers do we see exhortations to purchase slaves or participate in the slave trade. THAT is what we are discussing – not what the Bible and the church leave unaddressed (what some take to mean “condoned”), but what it prescribed.
Allow me to restate my position – I interpret the Bible the way the early church did, as evidence by the writings of the pre-Chalcedon fathers. I have very few differences with their agreed interpretations, but those in which I differ are not the ‘casting asides’ that you think are somehow OK, but such variances of interpretation as is evidenced by the “one wife” of bishop qualifications.
Please point out the NT prescriptions which you think can be cast aside, and note the Biblical justification for such, if you don’t mind. Show me your justification for picking and choosing. I may be overreacting – but in this case, I don’t think so.
Hammertime () (URL)
6:31pm on 30 June 2006
It’s not duplicitous. Once we discard the idea that the Law is one obligatory whole that must be obeyed, we’ve already conceded the principle. In addition, the way that the Law is sometimes divided up into “health”, “theocratic”, “ritual” and so forth simply begs the question of how we carry out this process. Often, the verses that we keep are embedded in a whole raft of other verses we discard, with no change of context. How do we decide that one portion is about ritual cleanliness but another is “universal” holiness?
As for NT teaching – do we, then, support the practice of slavery, telling someone enslaved (perhaps a woman from Eastern Europe who is enslaved in the sex trade, or any of many other places in the world where slavery still exists) that it’s OK, they’re meant to be slaves but God loves them anyway? Or do we proclaim loudly that slavery is evil and that the slave should strive to be free? The Early Church did nothing to remove the practice of slavery, and encouraged slaves to be content with their lot. Christians owned slaves happily for hundreds of years. Now, we would condemn anyone who owned slaves and claimed to be a Christian.
As for another NT idea that I don’t agree with, I would include the role of women (in church, in families and in society). I prefer to follow the teachings of Paul that “in Christ there is neither male nor female” to his teachings that women are to be subordinate to men. There’s an inconsistency there that we can resolve one way or the other, and I choose to follow what I believe to be the path Christ marked out for us, of including women fully. And it’s not easy to accept some portions of the modern view of women’s place while rejecting others – for example, the idea that women shouldn’t vote is grounded in exactly the same place as the idea that women are subordinate partners in marriage, and that women should not contribute to worship and teaching in church. And yet I doubt you would support disenfranchising women!
I’m not asking that we cast aside all moral teaching – that would be wrong. What I am claiming is that moral teaching must be revisited (not necessarily revised, though!) when culture changes; otherwise, we risk misunderstanding it. And that some principles that we once believed to be Right are, in fact, later discovered to be Wrong, and that slavery and the role of women in society are two huge examples of this. The OT laws are another example. The NT is rather clear that the law has no hold on Christians and I would stand in that tradition. That’s partly why I resist strongly the idea that much of the OT law must be incorporated into Christianity without question. Sure, some of it shows Christian principles at work – and yet the reason that we obey that law is not that it is Law but that it accords with Christian principles. As our understanding of Christian principles develops, we may discard or adopt different laws, as happened with the dietary and circumcision laws in the earliest days of the church.
As for how we decide which portions stay and which go, this is why I’m always banging on about the community of believers. It’s not a task that any individual can decide. It’s a task for the Church, as it is led by the Spirit. And, like any such journey, we cannot know at the outset what the destination will be. Some pull us one way, others pull another, and still others refuse to leave the safety of home. Time and the grace of God will eventually tell, but we cannot refuse the journey. To insist that we remain at all times and in every way identical to any period in the Church’s history (be that apostolic era, Chalcedon, Aquinas, Tridentine catholicism, Reformation piety or modernist evangelicalism) is to refuse to journey with God “into all truth” as He has promised us. We must be careful how and with whom we journey, of course, but God never stands still with us, because we never know all that God would have us know of Him.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
7:25pm on 30 June 2006
Perhaps you don’t understand what I am saying.
Early church culture is not Biblical prescription. I don’t have a problem with revelation in culture. I have a problem with complete denial of scriptural prescriptions. The Bible states that church leaders are to be men. The verse you and other use to try to eliminate NT prescriptions for sex roles is specifically about salvation and adoption as heirs unto the promise. Your use of context in one case (our discussion of soteriology) and utter abandonment in another (here) is baffling.
Feel free to note my hypocrisy in holding to one single OT law that is not part of the NT. I am Christ’s, not Moses’, as are you. Thus the entire New Covenant applies to us. I am not arguing for any “rule” or “law” of the OT. My use of the terms health and theocratic were meant to show the context of the laws. As it is, if they were found in the NT, I wouldn’t wear mixed fibres or eat prawn.
One’s conduct does not change whether our boss is an evil man or good man – we are to do all as unto the Lord. This means we flee immorality, whether it is born of our own lusts or some boss/owner demands it. The NT and the early church encouraged slaves not to revolt and treat their masters with respect. Christians endure some pretty horrific things for their faith, but fleeing from persecution has been an option since the start (Mt 10:23, 24:16, Mk 13:14, Lk 21:21, Acts 14:6).
That said, since slavery is NOT commanded in the NT, stop using it to justify discarding the role prescriptions of the church and the family. If we are going to argue (meaning have a discussion), I’d like to keep it narrow as possible. If slavery were a prescription, then it can have value for the argument. As it is not, it is useless and merely a distraction cast out.
“he idea that women shouldn’t vote is grounded in exactly the same place as the idea that women are subordinate partners in marriage, and that women should not contribute to worship and teaching in church”. Same issue. Voting for political representatives is utterly foreign to the NT. Family and church, however, have prescriptions. We can debate the interpretation of “submit”, but we cannot argue that it means “be ruler of”.
Why do you limit the “community of believers” to those in your specific community,limited by space and time? You find the position of the Global South in opposition to yours, and you reject it, despite their majority status. However, even more striking is your rejection of 1900 years of believers who rejected such ideas as homosexual and female priests. Why is this?
I admit I have not done much to reduce the scope here, because I tried to respond to everything. Honestly, if we can just work on the “community of believers” part here, we can wrestle with Biblical authority vs. inerrancy vs. interpretation at a different time. I think the “community of believers” is honestly the more interesting subject for us, as we both agree upon its incredibly important role.
Hammertime () (URL)
8:27pm on 30 June 2006
Sorry if my previous comment was off target! I think I may well have missed your point.
“The Bible states that church leaders are to be men.“
See, this is part of my problem. The NT also states that it’s an offence in the sight of the Lord for men to have long hair, or for women to have short hair. Do you think that this is a rule for all times and cultures, too? Because Paul’s defence of it is very similar to his defences of keeping women out of leadership.
The problem is that not all teachings in the NT are universal. As a case in point, take Paul’s letters to Timothy, in which he famously tells Timothy to drink wine. This hasn’t stopped many biblical literalists from being militant teetotallers; similarly, it shouldn’t be used by drinkers to justify alcoholism or to cause problems to others who are alcoholics.
In most of his letters, Paul is writing to specific places with specific problems. As a result, he suggests specific solutions, and as a result he writes quite different, even clashing, things because they are addressed to quite different situations. This isn’t news to you, of course – we have to take this into account when we read the letters in order to understand properly. However, the same logic surely means that, if we want to apply the biblical teachings to our own time and place, we similarly need to be careful of context and culture. Is it necessarily true that, because Paul in his culture writes that “nature itself” teaches that women should be subordinate, this applies to our culture, in which it is not accepted that nature implies anything of the sort?
We need to do better than that if we want to suggest that women are unsuited to leadership in the church. We have to point to specific, concrete and universal reasons why women may not lead. And these reasons must not rely on stereotypical roles (man as master, woman as nurturer) because these are stereotypes only – they are only true generally and do not apply to all men or women; at best, they would suggest that fewer women than men should be leaders – they cannot show that all women lack the ability or calling to leadership.
“Voting for political representatives is utterly foreign to the NT. Family and church, however, have prescriptions.“
This is true, but irrelevant. How can we say that women are incapable of leading a household but capable of leading a nation? Or that women are unsuited to making the decisions that face a family but perfectly capable of weighing the issues that are required to choose a politician? If women are unsuited to leadership/headship/authority then they are unsuited. It’s not consistent to claim that they are suited to the major things but not to the minor things. If nothing else, surely that is the logic behind Paul’s insistence that a leader manage his family well – because if he cannot keep his family going then he won’t be able to keep his church going.
This is why it is absolutely relevant that we consider how we see women in wider society. If we’re happy with our assumed cultural perspective that women should have the right to earn a wage, have the vote, even run for public office, how can we then claim that they are to be submissive and are unsuited to run a family? There’s a clash of cultures here and the only consistent choices are to return women fully to their position of submission in all things (becoming once more property) or to allow women full status as independent adults with the same rights and responsibilities as men. To say that we’ll stick with the Bible where’s it’s been explicit (because the issues actually arose in the original culture) but not where it’s silent (because the issues simply didn’t arise) isn’t a good answer. It’s the blind literalist’s defence.
“Why do you limit the “community of believers” to those in your specific community,limited by space and time?“
I don’t do that. I believe, as I said, that the community must decide. But I find myself on certain issues in the group that believes that change is being demanded of us by God. As such, I argue for my position, but I remain a member of the church and abide by its policies.
However, I will note that my community sides with me on some of these issues. The Church of England believes that women may play a full role in leading the church. Most of the Anglican Communion ordains women to leadership roles, even if not to the full priesthood. And if you’re going to insist that the whole “communion of saints” over the centuries agrees to any change in doctrine then nothing would ever change in the slightest degree – which kills off any idea of the Holy Spirit “leading us into all truth” and rather assumes that the knowledge and experience of the apostolic era were complete and perfect to face all challenges.
“Honestly, if we can just work on the “community of believers” part here, we can wrestle with Biblical authority vs. inerrancy vs. interpretation at a different time.“
You could be right. Although we should probably have a main post or two on it, to keep it on topic! I’ll add it to my list
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
09:45am on 03 July 2006
The NT also states that it’s an offence in the sight of the Lord for men to have long hair, or for women to have short hair. Do you think that this is a rule for all times and cultures, too?
Yes I do! It remains that “long” hair on men is an offense and “short” hair on women is as well. Here is how I think you and I come to an agreement on this – the culture defines long and short.
The problem is that not all teachings in the NT are universal. As a case in point, take Paul’s letters to Timothy, in which he famously tells Timothy to drink wine.
Of course not. Jesus telling his disciples to take next to nothing with them and to kick dust off of their feet as they evangelize isn’t universal either. However, Paul’s letters as a whole are perscriptive for the church throughout all time – especially when we find the same themes repeated throughout them, such as the church and family structure.
This is true, but irrelevant. How can we say that women are incapable of leading a household but capable of leading a nation?
Because one is the church and the other is not, John. The Scriptures give prescription for the church and the family. We are not looking for “Paul’s logic”. We are looking for the revelation that is given to us, and to attempt to eliminate scriptural prescription based on what we think Paul’s logic is is rejecting the inspiration of scripture. If some people want to look for voting rules based upon scripture, that is their problem. The Scriptures do not declare women “incapable leadership”, as you state. They simply state that God has selected men for family and church leadership.
Furthermore, I fail to see any scriptural prescription prohibiting women from being equal. Roles and responsibilities are prescripted – as is the equal value of each person, regardless of race, sex, or socioeconomic status. Do not use faulty use of scripture by some as your excuse to dispense of the text. Your use of “submission” belies that implication – that it somehow means less than equal. It does not, but instead shows that God will hold the man responsible for his household, and thus he must be the final decision maker. This does not condone household totalitarianism, but simply provides order. Abuse of the text does not invalidate it!
To say that we’ll stick with the Bible where’s it’s been explicit (because the issues actually arose in the original culture) but not where it’s silent (because the issues simply didn’t arise) isn’t a good answer. It’s the blind literalist’s defence.
Similarly, your evolving revelation method only means that the text will mean what we want it to mean, which is a recipe for disaster. Instead, we take it for what it says, apply it to our lives, and seek the Holy Spirit where it is silent. The thing is, it is seldom silent on significant issues, because where the specific issue is not prescribed, principles are.
I look forward to the post on community!
Hammertime () (URL)
7:00pm on 05 July 2006
If you mean what I think you do, surely that’s a cop out! If “long” means whatever our culture does, that’s just the same as saying that the entire restriction was cultural. If our culture says that 18” hair on a man is OK, and 1” on a woman is OK then there is no longer any restriction. Your qualification that culture defines long and short has exactly the same effect as my statement that the entire restriction was cultural.
“Paul’s letters as a whole are perscriptive for the church throughout all time“
Perhaps here we have the crux. And my question is simply: Why? Why do we regard Paul’s words as absolutely prescriptive, when we do not regard Christ’s words in the same way? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way round.
“How can we say that women are incapable of leading a household but capable of leading a nation?”
“Because one is the church and the other is not“
But it’s not. The family and the nation have (surely) much the same position in regard to “the church” and any supposed spiritual roles of women and men. If a woman is not allowed to run a family, how can we allow her to run a country, or a city, or a post office?
Even when it comes to the church and women’s position, I still want to know what it is that makes women innately unsuited to leadership. A mere statement in the Bible that “I do not allow women to lead” is not enough. Especially not in the face of the huge changes in our views of women – views that are (outside leadership in church) apparently supported by the huge majority of Christians of all denominations. If we no longer see women as subhuman property (as cultures did when Paul was writing), can we really simply leave the statements about women as they stand without analysis?
Equality of value is all very well, but without equality of treatment it is meaningless. We cannot maintain that women are just as valuable as men while barring them as a category of human beings from certain activities. Simply saying that women are suited to domesticity and men to leadership is untenable – and yet that is what your position amounts to. Many men do not like and cannot perform leadership. Conversely, many women do and can. Are we really to believe that God made them with these gifts and then bars them from using them?
“your evolving revelation method only means that the text will mean what we want it to mean“
Not at all. Scripture is the prime record of God’s self-revelation and as such cannot be simply discarded. But it must be understood properly – and that understanding changes and develops over time. Similarly, we have learned new things about God that are not written in the Bible at all (such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the idea of salvation by grace alone, neither of which is explicitly laid out anywhere in the Bible). And sometimes that means changing how we have understood portions. As you’ve agreed, that includes portions of the NT as well as of the OT. The principle isn’t controversial. It’s only the specific instances that cause problems.
“it [the Bible] is seldom silent on significant issues, because where the specific issue is not prescribed, principles are“
But when we’re trying to discern the principles that apply to a specific situation, the process is often not simple. As in voting for particular political parties, or choosing jobs, or most of the other issues about which Christians disagree. It’s not that one group “follows the Bible” and the other doesn’t – it’s that both groups attempt to follow the principles they read in the Bible but apply them differently.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
09:35am on 06 July 2006
Why do we regard Paul’s words as absolutely prescriptive, when we do not regard Christ’s words in the same way? Um, we don’t. I actually don’t know what you are referring to. When Jesus is prescriptive, it is so. They are all God’s words anyway, aren’t they?
The family and the nation have (surely) much the same position in regard to “the church” and any supposed spiritual roles of women and men. If a woman is not allowed to run a family, how can we allow her to run a country, or a city, or a post office?
Because one is prescripted, based upon God’s plan for the family and the church. He does not give us prescriptions for public or private office – those are merit based (whether the merit is the right one is not the discussion).
Scripture is the prime record of God’s self-revelation and as such cannot be simply discarded
Isn’t that exactly what you are advocating with this statement?
A mere statement in the Bible that “I do not allow women to lead” is not enough. Especially not in the face of the huge changes in our views of women – views that are apparently supported by the huge majority of Christians of all denominations.
How many Christians will have to agree that Jesus is not the Way, the Truth and the Life in order for you to reject it? We only know that based upon the same evidence – Scripture and tradition. That is the natural progression of your argument.
Hammertime () (URL)
4:43pm on 06 July 2006
What’s interesting is that, in discussing hair length, you’ve now followed precisely the procedure that I was suggesting! You’ve set aside the literal reading of the text and abstracted from it a general principle that means that we can set aside the literal reading (men’s hair must be short) provided we don’t offend against our current culture. So, as I’ve been saying, all Christians carry out this practice, and we mustn’t deny that we do. The argument isn’t about whether it is permissible to do this, but about when and where it is permissible.
[The roles of women in society.]
Do you really see no contradiction in allowing women to rule countries but insisting that they remain submissive in families? Indeed, how is this possible, when (according to that theory) a married woman would have to defer her decisions to her husband? I don’t believe that we can divide “family” from “society”.
“How many Christians will have to agree that Jesus is not the Way, the Truth and the Life in order for you to reject it?“
But that won’t happen. We’re talking about the living Body of Christ here. Outright rejection of Christ isn’t possible for the Body. But learning new things is possible, right and proper. You’re right, in the sense that taking things to an extreme is usually harmful. But the same things in moderation can be healthy and even necessary – medicines, exercise, rest, passion…
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
08:23am on 07 July 2006
Curiously, I fail to see how I dropped the literal reading of the text. It says, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” (1 Cor 11:14-15) I still hold that men’s hair is to be shorter than women’s (as the text says), and that the definition of long and short is defined by the culture (verse 16), which we are not to offend by shaving our head or having a flat-top (women) or sporting Motley Crue like locks (men). That is exactly what is says. If it said “Men’s hair must be above the collar and off the ears” and I said “men’s hair lenght is defnined by the culture”, THAT would be following your procedure.
Women’s roles – Yes, I really see no contradiction. I never see where the Bioble says women are incapable of leadership, only that the man is to head the household and the church, and that God will hold him responsible for the acts of the family. Do I think it is harder for women to lead? Absolutely – but it is not a Scriptural position to prohibit women from leadership.
But that won’t happen
I disagree. Well, sort of. If you are prepared to separate those who claim to be Christians (who are many) with those who are CHristians (who are few), I agree with you. However, few churches make such a distinction.
Furhtermore, I disagree that it won’t happen. It already has in many denominations. It’s not that Christ is rejected, but that he is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life that has been, in that the necessity of belief in him (John 3:16), and the requirement that your faith be in Him alone has been tossed aside by many who call themselves Christian. Universalism continues its march through the “churches”.
You;ve given me great food for thought, and the combination of this post, the one on Modernism and today’s have set me up for a series on Biblical truth. However, it will have to wait, as I promised one on divorce and remarriage first!
Hammertime () (URL)
1:54pm on 07 July 2006
Hammertime () (URL)
1:55pm on 07 July 2006