Should the ECUSA apologise

[TomUK]

Should ECUSA apologise for the consecration of a homsexual bishop?

[chalice_thunder]

Apologize? No.

Should Martin Luther have apologized for the Reformation?

Should Rosa Parks have apologized for not giving up her seat?

Should Jesus have apologized for healing on the Sabbath?

[Bonifatius]

But would it be wise not to apologize and then risk the breach of the Anglican Communion??

I personally do not have a problem with Bishop Gene Robinson, but honestly I think it would be good to find a way to keep us together ... not to mention our ecumenical partners in the RC and Orthodox Churches ...

[chalice_thunder]

Perhaps a recognition that parts of the communion has been hurt by our actions is in order. Maybe even an apology...though I am not sure about it. Because, when I make an apology, I usually intend to not do the hurtful action again.

But the Church needs to continue to recognize the full inclusion of gays and lesbians - which includes the sacrament of ordination - not because we are gay and lesbian, but because we are BAPTIZED Christian ministers. And, by extension, that is going to hurt the communion again and again.

Rather than an apology, I think ALL sides of the communion need to stay open to dialog, repentance and reconciliation.

[TomUK]

As Dr Eames said, the announcement today wasn't a judgement- rather, it was a way of opening further dialogue and communication with all members of the communion. Absolutely we must all be prepared to remain in discussion and debate about the issue, and hopefully the Lamebth conference will make that a more practical possibility, provided its recommendations are met. One final point, if all sides are willing to remain in discussion, then ALLl sides MUST be prepared to concede on a number of issues. This is a debate between all branches of the communion, and all branches must be seen to be making an effort, rather than some in the church who are far more willing to just sit and wait, and hope that ultimately their side will be the victor.

[seeking.IAM]

I did not vote in your poll since I obviously am not Episcopal/Anglican, except as a "step-child" since Methodism sprang forth from the Anglican Communion. Recently, I have begun to question whether I wished to continue with Methodism. When I questioned and decided to look elsewhere, I first chose to visit the Episcopal Church as a possiblity for my new church home. I have been attending an Episcopal Church and have felt very comfortable there. I might have joined except that this whole matter as become a "stopper" for me, at least for now.

The bind that I see is that either way it goes, there is great risk of leaving someone out. I have chosen not to join until I see if the future of the Episcopal Church leaves me out. I wonder how many folks like me there are out there, and what the long-term impact is on all of this for the ECUSA?

I would hope the ECUSA/Anglican Communion finds a solution that honors conservative thinking without calling conservatives "bigots" while also honoring liberal thinking without branding liberals as "heretics." I believe thinking on both side is rooted in sincere belief about what should be the nature of Christianity.

I wonder if it's possible for the ECUSA to find a solution that keeps people together while honoring their differences? Until then, I stand and wait, maybe along side others like me?

A respectful guest and convert waiting-to-happen,
seeking.IAM
<><

[chalice_thunder]

As Dr Eames said, the announcement today wasn't a judgement- rather, it was a way of opening further dialogue and communication with all members of the communion. Absolutely we must all be prepared to remain in discussion and debate about the issue, and hopefully the Lamebth conference will make that a more practical possibility, provided its recommendations are met. One final point, if all sides are willing to remain in discussion, then ALLl sides MUST be prepared to concede on a number of issues. This is a debate between all branches of the communion, and all branches must be seen to be making an effort, rather than some in the church who are far more willing to just sit and wait, and hope that ultimately their side will be the victor.

I agree with much of what you say, TomUK. I just wonder how much more the anglican gay and lesbian community is going to be asked to concede. We are often treated as second-class, yet we are also often leaders of ministry and mission.

[chalice_thunder]

I did not vote in your poll since I obviously am not Episcopal/Anglican, except as a "step-child" since Methodism sprang forth from the Anglican Communion. Recently, I have begun to question whether I wished to continue with Methodism. When I questioned and decided to look elsewhere, I first chose to visit the Episcopal Church as a possiblity for my new church home. I have been attending an Episcopal Church and have felt very comfortable there. I might have joined except that this whole matter as become a "stopper" for me, at least for now.

The bind that I see is that either way it goes, there is great risk of leaving someone out. I have chosen not to join until I see if the future of the Episcopal Church leaves me out. I wonder how many folks like me there are out there, and what the long-term impact is on all of this for the ECUSA?

I would hope the ECUSA/Anglican Communion finds a solution that honors conservative thinking without calling conservatives "bigots" while also honoring liberal thinking without branding liberals as "heretics." I believe thinking on both side is rooted in sincere belief about what should be the nature of Christianity.

I wonder if it's possible for the ECUSA to find a solution that keeps people together while honoring their differences? Until then, I stand and wait, maybe along side others like me?

A respectful guest and convert waiting-to-happen,
seeking.IAM
<><

This is a great post - thanks so much!

I served a liberal cathedral congregation for 8 years. (talk about heaven for me!!) While we strove to be in dialog with the conservatives in the community, it was often apparent that they felt somewhat marginalized. The result was that leadership worked hard at including all the members of the community - striving to listen to all voices. We took our baptismal vows to heart: seeking the face of Christ in every person, and respecting the dignity of every human being.

It was difficult (downright painful for some!) at times, but it made us all stronger.

[Bonifatius]

Dear all,

as far as I understood the Windsor report, it doesn't say that the consecration of Gene Robinson in itself was right or wrong. It just states that in regard of the rules of the Anglican Communion it was wrong to go forth with it although other parts of the communion and the ABC were against.



In my eyes the crucial point is whether ECUSA ("the strong in faith") will be willing to drop these consecrations in respect of other parts of the communion ("the weak in faith") until we come to a common understanding. Maybe this solution which St. Paul recommended when asked about the meat of animals that was used in pagan rites could be way for us too?

[Bingley]

I think both sides in this controversy can and should apologise for behaviour that does little to bring honour to Our Lord's name.

[ahab]

Perhaps a recognition that parts of the communion has been hurt by our actions is in orderThe report outlines that this action was a breach. We already knew that. The subsequent breaches included alternative episcopal oversight being offered form one part of the Anglican Communion to another. I am somewhat surprised this was mentioned as this did of course follow the first breaches, ordination of Robinson, same-sex blessings and ordination of Jeffrey John as Dean and his teachings, during a period of supposed restraint and reflection. But the Church needs to continue to recognize the full inclusion of gays and lesbians – I am afraid not. The church already has celibate homosexuals and ex-gay in ministry. What is being promoted here is same-sex sex, that’s contrary to Lambeth 1.10, let alone the scriptures.
Lest be quite clear here. The CofE and the Christian church includes homosexually orientated people. It does not exclude them as we even have examples of such people on this forum (ie Homosexual Film Shows Change Can Happen) What it does exclude is those who promote same-sex sex. That is scripturally correct and the majority are going to keep it that way as Paul and the other NT writers reveal we must.This isnt a case of saying sorry for mant people as Paul is quite clear (1 Co 5:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+5:9&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)) "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people– " This was to the church, believers not unbelievers. We are to reach our and associate with all unbelievers to tell them the gospel, we are also to be toleratant of one another 2 Tim 2:14- etc, but not to tolerate willfull continuous disobedience on certain issues 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 11:4, Gal 1:1-8)


Griswold doesn't believe Paul understood, but Paul understood Greek and Roman culture and religion very well, and he was an expert in Jewish law and prophets, ie. the scriptures that Jesus knew and fulfilled. Anyway Paul 'was taught' received his revelation form Jesus.

[PaladinGirl]

This is just my personal opinion. I don't know. I say leave it up to them.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ahab - does the phrase "honest disagreement about the teaching of Scripture" mean anything to you? Or do you assume that those who disagree with your stance are conciously rejecting Scripture?

[ahab]

Karl -Liberal Backslider,

Ahab - does the phrase "honest disagreement about the teaching of Scripture" mean anything to you? Yes. Does the scripture mean anything to you? Griswold believes its limited by lack of understanding.Or do you assume that those who disagree with your stance are conciously rejecting Scripture?On the contrary, generally there are often different revelations from scripture, in this case however I have put the scriptures and my stance. How do you deal with these scriptures and where are those that support same-sex sex. Also would you like to respond to the Lambeth statement and present contradictions, rather than just make a comment about my stance (which seems to be acknowledged by Eames as more with the majority)

[Cjwinnit]

What an unholy mess.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl -Liberal Backslider,

Yes. Does the scripture mean anything to you? Griswold believes its limited by lack of understanding.
He might well be right. It's certainly the case that what we are looking at today, with monogamous same sex relationships, may well differ considerably from what the Scriptures are talking about.

On the contrary, generally there are often different revelations from scripture, in this case however I have put the scriptures and my stance.
You mean "On this issue there isn't room for honest divergence of interpretation". So where does this leave people who do disagree with your interpretation?

How do you deal with these scriptures and where are those that support same-sex sex.
Unfortunately, discussion of both these questions would break CF rules for this forum - discussion of this long deceased equine is restricked to particular fora.

Also would you like to respond to the Lambeth statement and present contradictions, rather than just make a comment about my stance (which seems to be acknowledged by Eames as more with the majority)
Sure. It's a shame that Eames has come to the conclusion that he has to allow the conservatives' threat of schism to over-rule the honest conclusions of the ECUSA.

[ahab]

Karl Liberal Backslider,



It's certainly the case that what we are looking at today, with monogamous same sex relationships, may well differ considerably from what the Scriptures are talking about.

Well I would say monogamous same-sex relationships do because there is no countenance to sexually active same-sex monogamous relationships in scripture. So in this respect it is a different gospel to the one Paul preached. Paul says “If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Thats the problem, this may be a move of God rather than an unholy row. All same-sex sex references are condemned and sexually active monogamous relationships are exclusively marriage between a man and a woman. What we have therefore seems to be a made up scenario apart from the one given by Paul and the NT writers.

But my point is not about same-sex sex, but that Bishop Eames acknowledged Lambeth 1.10 as what the Communion should adhere to and what the ECUSA and Canadian provinces have breached. You mean "On this issue there isn't room for honest divergence of interpretation". So where does this leave people who do disagree with your interpretation? It leaves them in disagreement to Lambeth 1.10. As I said my stance, the scriptures and Lambeth 1.10.Sure. It's a shame that Eames has come to the conclusion that he has to allow the conservatives' threat of schism to over-rule the honest conclusions of the ECUSA. No absolutely not! Bishop Eames didn’t write the report on his own, he wrote it with others. Bishop Eames also said that the majority of the Anglican Communion have been hurt by the ECUSA breach. The idea that a majority adhering to an agreed current position should be the ones to leave is some sort of denial of reality. My point is that Lambeth 1.10 is the default agreement for the Anglican communion and if that is 'conservative' then the Anglican Communion 75 million can be comnsidered largely conservative as is the 200 odd million Evangleical Alliance laregly conservative, as is the 1 billion Roman Catholic church largely conservative, as is the several hundred million Eastern Orthodox church which is laregely conservative. Should most of Christendom leave their church if they dont accept what liberals want? :scratch:

These are the crucial points we are still discussing:)

[ahab]

The thread title is whether the ECUSA should apologise. I believe the report suggests and appology for the hurt not for the actions. In this respect I believe the ECUSA may already have complied with that request and I've no doubt sincerely as well.

What I am saying is, the problem remains, in those who are still in breach of and intend to continue to be in breach of Lambeth 1.10

[chalice_thunder]

The report asks for an expression of regret - it does not ask for an apology. Frank Grisowld has already expressed regret for the hurt that much of the communion has felt. This is different than an apology for actually consecrating Gene. He goes on to say that it is an extensive report and it will take much time for the whole communion to digest it and respond to it.

[ahab]

Hi Chalice_thunder,

Yes, what you have written more precisely is what I understand.

[J-Tron]

I think that an apology for causing hurt and for leaving so much of the international bodies out of what is clearly a very sensitive decision making process is appropriate. This can be done without apologizing for the act itself.

I think that an apology from those bishops who have extended their reach into other provinces without the consent of the bishops there should also offer apologies for taking such a hurtful action. Again, not an apology for the substantive belief that alternative care is needed, but for the hurt that has been caused.

All of this "majority" versus "minority" talk is quite premature since we have no sense yet of how our decision making as a Communion is going to work. We're trying to put the wheels on the car as it rolls down the road. This is beyond daunting.

I found some parts of the report troubling, but one thing that I believe was well placed was the emphasis on our scriptural heritage (that Anglicanism has always valued the scriptural witness as our authority, understood as a vehicle by which we may interact with Christ who is our true authority). And the report's call for a theological and scriptural explanation for ECUSA and New Westminster's position on same sex relationships makes sense.

Why are we afraid to do this? I am fully in favor of Bishop Robinson's ordination and of blessing monogamous, committed unions between gay and lesbian people. I think there are good theological grounds for making such a case. But we have shrunk away from doing that in our haste to make moral hay.

These are serious matters. And I believe, as do many in my province, that we cannot just wait around indefinitely when the lives and hearts and minds of a good number of our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay or lesbian are at stake. But we do have the time to slow down and contemplate, to make a rationale appeal to scriptural and theological principles, to risk our selves in the process of appealing to the Spirit. Isn't that what being Anglican is all about? Isn't that the great theological tradition we inherited from Cranmer, Hooker, Law, Baxter, and others?

[ahab]

Chalice_thunder,



However what you wrote on the previous page, which has simply kicked off the debate about sexuality again, has not been addressed. The report is about the way forward for the Anglican communion not the issue of sexuality. You wrote But the Church needs to continue to recognize the full inclusion of gays and lesbians - which includes the sacrament of ordination - not because we are gay and lesbian, but because we are BAPTIZED Christian ministers. And, by extension, that is going to hurt the communion again and again.That’s the debate on sexuality not the Windsor report. It is also not quite true. There are celibate homosexuals in ministry already!

You may think the Anglican communion needs to recognise full inclusion of ordained gays and lesbians but others think that the church must resist this. As it stands it seems you are saying those that have breached the agreed position of the Anglican communion will continue to do so despite Lambeth 1.10.

[ahab]

Hi J-Tron,



I suppose that as we are already forgiven by the cross and have no condemnation in Christ Jesus (providing Paul understood) then we should applaud the Windsor Report for recognising this and not demanding apology and discipline or punishment.

However, in the light of the calls for restraint and reflection following the ordination of a practicing promoting gay bishop, and subsequent same-sex blessings and appointment of same-sex promoting deans, it is hardly surprising that bishops have extended their reach into other provinces. They have after all only disobediently extended into disobedient provinces.All of this "majority" versus "minority" talk is quite premature..Well yes it is in the sense you say but Bishop Eames did say in the press conference that the majority have been hurt.And the report's call for a theological and scriptural explanation for ECUSA and New Westminster's position on same sex relationships makes sense.That is a good point but as Bishop Griswold doubts the validity of scrioture on this issue it is difficult to see how.Why are we afraid to do this? I am fully in favor of Bishop Robinson's ordination and of blessing monogamous, committed unions between gay and lesbian people. I think there are good theological grounds for making such a case. But we have shrunk away from doing that in our haste to make moral hay.What scriptural grounds. We have been over this again and again. Gen 2, Gen 19, Lev 18, Matt 19, Mark 10, 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim, Romans 1, Hebrews 13:4. If Bishop Griswold doesn’t think the NT writers understood about the issue, what possible reason is there for scriptural authority, certainly nothing refering to countenance same-sex sex or sexually active monogamous homosexual relationships.

[julian the apostate]

ahab<<I suppose that as we are already forgiven by the cross and have no condemnation in Christ Jesus (providing Paul understood)

a ringing endorsement of grace!!

rough draft of proposed apology to anglican communion at large:

dear anglican communion,

the episcopal church of the usa would like to extend our deepest apologies for
well,
being episcopalian

sincerely,

julian the apostate
acting pontiff for the ecusa, who still in fact, welcomes you

[BarbB]

... Griswold believes its limited by lack of understanding.On the contrary, generally there are often different revelations from scripture, in this case however I have put the scriptures and my stance. How do you deal with these scriptures and where are those that support same-sex sex.... [/font]

I find it interesting that if Griswold believes that the NT writers had no understanding of homosexuality, does he also believe that Solomon had no wisdom when he penned the following:


ECC 1:9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

ECC 1:10 Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

I have yet to discover any idea/action/sin/whatever which has not been addressed in the Bible. My own, especially, which I would have said were due to "modern life". :(

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

At whatever level the writer of Ecclesiastes was right, there is a level at which he was wrong.

Computers were new.
The internal combustion engine was new
The printing press was new.

and so it goes on. There are new things under the sun. We can't just proof-text, when a clear reading is demonstrably wrong. We need a better engagement with the text than this.

This is my major beef with fundamentalism. It quotes the text. It doesn't engage with it. It interprets the text one way and denies that this is an interpretation.

[chalice_thunder]

ahab<<I suppose that as we are already forgiven by the cross and have no condemnation in Christ Jesus (providing Paul understood)

a ringing endorsement of grace!!

rough draft of proposed apology to anglican communion at large:

dear anglican communion,

the episcopal church of the usa would like to extend our deepest apologies for
well,
being episcopalian

sincerely,

julian the apostate
acting pontiff for the ecusa, who still in fact, welcomes you

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to julian the apostate again.


:bow: Oh great pontiff! ;)

[chalice_thunder]

My friends, in a spirit of gentle humor, I invite you to make a quick visit to this site (http://www.wibsite.com/features/windsorreport/) which is kind of a précis of the Windsor Report.

[TomUK]

My friends, in a spirit of gentle humor, I invite you to make a quick visit to this site (http://www.wibsite.com/features/windsorreport/) which is kind of a précis of the Windsor Report.

:D

[ahab]

Hi Julian the apostate,



ahab<<I suppose that as we are already forgiven by the cross and have no condemnation in Christ Jesus (providing Paul understood)Yes I agree, I believe Jesus has died once and for all and we are forgiven. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. But i dont believe we receive that forgiveness for those sins if we are practicing and promoting those sins. We can only receive the grace and forgiveness by repenting with thanks and joy. We need to remain in Him John 15 and His words in us. :) How can His words remain in us if we don’t think they are His words but of writers who didn’t understand?:scratch:

[ahab]

Karl -Liberal Backslider,

Sorry but whats new about same-sex sex? When did same-sex sex come about then?

[ahab]

So my question remains. The setting up of the report recognised that this is a schism-able issue. Bishop Griswold and liberals have demonstrated their belief that the scriptures are fallable, so its isnt any good asking these people to give scriptures, they just make things up like monogamous stable faithful, loving same-sex relationships, which is their own gospel.
There isnt much point in a monitorium in line with resolution 1.10, asits already been signed up to and breached. Unless Bishop Griswold and the like undertake to agree to preach and adhere to Lambeth 1.10?
Secondly many are now left supposedly under Bishops who dont preach and adhere to Lambeth 1.10. So what happens? Same-sex sex is considered wrong mostly by religion, the world and its atheistic and humanistic views primarily allows people to express their sexuality as they wish. It is the to the disbeliveing world that some Gay and Lesbian Christians look to for support.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hi Julian the apostate,



Yes I agree, I believe Jesus has died once and for all and we are forgiven. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. But i dont believe we receive that forgiveness for those sins if we are practicing and promoting those sins. We can only receive the grace and forgiveness by repenting with thanks and joy. We need to remain in Him John 15 and His words in us. :) How can His words remain in us if we don’t think they are His words but of writers who didn’t understand?:scratch: Jesus never once spoke on the subject. I do not believe that Paul's words are Jesus' words.

Let's drop the pretence the objection is about the Lambeth resolution. If the Lambeth resolution had affirmed same sex relationships, the same conservative Anglicans would still be objecting to them.

You ask "what is new"? I will tell you what is new, compared with Bible times. Equal, monogamous, life-long commitment between members of the same sex. This is because we now, in the West, rightly or wrongly, base marriage upon romantic love. In NT times it was not so; it was based on social contract. The social contract did not allow for same sex marriages, so a committed "married" relationship was meaningless in that culture. Today, it is perfectly conceivable to imagine a "married" relationship between two people of the opposite sex, and this is what is new.

[ahab]

Karl – Liberal Backslider,



Jesus never once spoke on the subject. I do not believe that Paul's words are Jesus' words.What subject? Also if Paul’s words are Jesus words then you disagree with Bishop Griswold about the NT writers, or are you saying Jesus didn’t speak the word of God?Let's drop the pretence the objection is about the Lambeth resolution.Then you cant have understood why the Eames commission was set up. The reaction is becuase of the breach of Lambeth 1.10 and the liberal reasons for its breach. If the Lambeth resolution had affirmed same sex relationships, the same conservative Anglicans would still be objecting to them.Yes they would, so too the evangelicals etc. However the reality is that Lambeth stated that same-sex sex was not in accordance with scripture. You ask "what is new"? I will tell you what is new, compared with Bible times. Equal, monogamous, life-long commitment between members of the same sex. But that is only new becuase man has decided what he wants. The Holy Bible, not only reveal that marriage is the place for sex, in a faithful man/woman relationship, and that same-sex sex is wrong, but describe what has happened in the past when man has decided man will do what man wants.The Word of God does not change because man decides to look at things his way.

[ahab]

However, the report requests the ECUSA to effect a moratorium on the ordination of bishops living in same-sex union and on same-sex blessings. Is this likely to happen?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl – Liberal Backslider,



What subject? Also if Paul’s words are Jesus words then you disagree with Bishop Griswold about the NT writers, or are you saying Jesus didn’t speak the word of God?
Please read what I said. I said that Paul's words were NOT Jesus' words.

Then you cant have understood why the Eames commission was set up. The reaction is becuase of the breach of Lambeth 1.10 and the liberal reasons for its breach.
No, I understand that perfectly. I'm not talking about why the Eames commission was set up - I'm talking about why you've got your knickers in a twist over gay clergy.

Yes they would, so too the evangelicals etc. However the reality is that Lambeth stated that same-sex sex was not in accordance with scripture.
Indeed. But that's not the point. Using the Lambeth resolution as a reason for objecting to gay clergy is dishonest - you're really against it because you think the Bible is against it.

But that is only new becuase man has decided what he wants. The Holy Bible, not only reveal that marriage is the place for sex, in a faithful man/woman relationship,
But it doesn't define whether social contract, romantic love or any other basis is the right one for marriage

and that same-sex sex is wrong,
No, that's your interpretation. Others do not see a blanket ban in the tiny number of verses that you are alluding to.

but describe what has happened in the past when man has decided man will do what man wants.The Word of God does not change because man decides to look at things his way.
The Word of God is Christ, not the Bible. But as a somewhat side issue, tell me - what do you think are the bases for doctrine in the Anglican church?

[ahab]

Karl – Liberal Backslider,



Please read what I said. I said that Paul's words were NOT Jesus' words.

Ah yes sorry, my apologies.

I wrote quoting John 15 and you said Jesus never spoke on the subject. What subject? As to the NT writers not understanding my point is how can they not understand if what they are writing is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Paul presents his case on more than one occasion in his letters that he receives his revelation directly from Jesus, and “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

Now Paul wrote Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim. Who wrote “monogamous faithful homosexual relationships”? No, I understand that perfectly. I'm not talking about why the Eames commission was set up - I'm talking about why you've got your knickers in a twist over gay clergy.Really, then why did you say drop the pretence that the Eames commission is about Lambeth 1.10? The Eames commission was set up because of the breach of Lambeth 1.10

I don’t disagree with any of Lambeth 1.10. Here are the points that were breached.

in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;

cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor

ordaining those involved in same gender unions;Indeed. But that's not the point. Using the Lambeth resolution as a reason for objecting to gay clergy is dishonest - you're really against it because you think the Bible is against it.I don’t object to gay clergy. When did I say that? Where does Lambeth 1.10 say that? But it doesn't define whether social contract, romantic love or any other basis is the right one for marriageWell it describes the truth about marriage. What you mean by social contract, sounds like the man made bit. All our love, to God and to man, including in marriage should be based on agape, as the love God has shown and continues to show us, yes? Marriage requires this above all, but almost certainly should include phileo (romantic) and eros intimate.

Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” 1 Cor 7:2 “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.” "Anyone who looks at another woman lustfully commits adultery in his heart." Matt 5:28 So who are the sexually immoral that don’t keep the marriage bed pure, I pray and hope they will not be eternally condemned? Others do not see a blanket ban in the tiny number of verses that you are alluding to.That is my interpretation, but how can you have an interpretation on the verses that you don’t think are Holy Spirit inspired. Have you got a single verse that supports your views. The Anglican Communion interpretation is contained in Lambeth 1.10 The Word of God is Christ, not the Bible.Where did you get that idea from, the Bible? Jesus is the word and the truth. He says His words are Spirit and they are life, those who remain in him and His words will be set free. Those who believe and repent and ask receive the Holy Spirit, thats my personal testimony and true for me as well.But as a somewhat side issue, tell me - what do you think are the bases for doctrine in the Anglican church?Side issue? What’s Lambeth 1.10 based on, pixie dust:scratch: It was for freedom that Christ has set us free:clap:

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ahab - it's just like the Hallowe'en thread. I could waste half an hour just addressing your misunderstandings of what I've already said, before even addressing your points.

The problem is you flalsely equivocate, all the time. I say that Paul's words are not Jesus'; you jump to "you don't believe that Paul's words are inspired". Non sequitur. That is why discussing with you is fruitless - you translate my position into a misrepresentation of it and then argue against that.

Life's too short.

[ahab]

Karl – Liberal Backslider,



I think you are ducking the issue. My points concern the scriptures and the Lambeth 1.10. if you cant comment on the scriptures and Lambeth 1.10, there must be something wrong.
I don’t disagree with any of Lambeth 1.10. Here are the points that were breached.

in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor
ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
Do you disagree with these, the standard of teaching and understanding agreed by all the primates at Lambeth 1998?


The issue was that Bishop Griswold didn’t think the NT writers understood homosexuality, but if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit (Spirit again you notice) then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God. The Holy Spirit leads us in all truth and reminds us of all Jesus said. John 14:26. The point is that Paul is taught by Jesus so what he writes is what Jesus wishes to impart.


Also Paul wrote Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim. But who wrote “monogamous faithful homosexual relationships”? I don’t see it in my Bible, I see faithful man and woman Matt 19, Mark 10, Gen 2, Heb 13 and I see same-sex sex as condemned Lev 18, Gen 19, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim, Rom 1. These are simple questions.

Eternal life isn't short :clap:

[pmcleanj]

You state

if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit ... then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God.

Does this sentence sum up a premise that you believe?

[ahab]

Hi Pmcleanj,

Does this sentence sum up a premise that you believe?
Well yes, I believe the Holy Spirit is of God. Paul for example claims he was taught by Jesus.
:)

[julian the apostate]

ahab<<<Yes I agree, I believe Jesus has died once and for all and we are forgiven. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus. But i dont believe we receive that forgiveness for those sins if we are practicing and promoting those sins. We can only receive the grace and forgiveness by repenting with thanks and joy. We need to remain in Him John 15 and His words in us. :) How can His words remain in us if we don’t think they are His words but of writers who didn’t understand?:scratch:

i dont know what the last sentence means, it might not have been refering to me, i also do not understand why everything i now type is in italics,, however

regarding Jesus' words, i agree

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven

bold type not mine, it is because i cut and pasted, which has returned my font to normal

in any event, this is all antinomian almost, dont judge dont condemn forgive

because you cant repent under the law

the biggest enemy of christendom lies in our own hearts
it is legalism,
if a law had been given that could make us righteous then Christ has died in vain

ahab<<But i dont believe we receive that forgiveness for those sins if we are practicing and promoting those sins

you stopped sinning?

[chalice_thunder]

the biggest enemy of christendom lies in our own hearts
it is legalism,
if a law had been given that could make us righteous then Christ has died in vain


This bears repeating.
Thank you, julian!

[pmcleanj]

That's once.

I asked whether If the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit
then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God. is a premise that you believe,

To which you replied "Well yes, I believe the Holy Spirit is of God."

I didn't ask whether you believed that the Holy Spirit is of God. You are answering a different question from the question that I asked. Answering a different question from the question that was asked, will make having a discussion more difficult.

However, using your answer, and using the formal logic that

If A=B
and F(x) is a function of a single independent variable,
then F(A)=F(B)
and acknowledging that the word "is" is the grammatical operator equivalent to the logical operator "=",

your original premise can be re-written as:

"if the writings are inspired by/of God,
then [the writings] aren't the understandings of the writers but of God."

Does the sentence
if the writings are inspired by/of God,
then the writings aren't the understandings of the writers but of God."sum up a premise that you believe?

[AveMaria]

I just caught up on this thread, and was struck by something regarding the discussion/debate between Anglicans and non-Anglicans.

We're coming from very different places and using language very differently. And we're not hearing or understanding each other.

There is a phrase, often said about Anglicanism, which I think bears repeating:

'Anglicanism is not a set theology but a way of thinking theologically'

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program!

[Rev. Smith]

As others have expressed I do not believe that the ECUSA owes the Communion, God or the world an apology for seeking the truth, and acting in good faith on thier understanding of that truth. The "expression of regret" that should be offered is exactly what was asked for (at least as I read it) - an expression of regret for the pain that the Church's actions caused together with a commitment to seek consensus in the future with the rest of the Communion.

I think it is equally important that our conservative brothers and sister churches also express their regrets over the disharmony their actions have caused, from challenging Bishop Robinson through placeing themselves under the authority of African and Asian Bishops. While I hope we can all understand the desire for episcopal oversight that is theologicly compatable, to do so precipitiously sowed at least as much disharmony and discord at the acts of the more liberal communities.

Now onto the selfish question - The Old Catholic jurisdictions are in communion with the Anglican Church - if there is a split in the future, who do you think will "get" us, the liberals? conservatives? Both?

[TomUK]

A question i would far rather hear the answer to is who would you be willing to let join you?

[Rev. Smith]

A question i would far rather hear the answer to is who would you be willing to let join you?
All are welcome to God's table; anyone professing Christ is welcome to our worship and our sacraments: No questions asked, no "litmus test" for purity or dogma; Those who seek are invited to find within our community.

[CSMR]

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven
in any event, this is all antinomian almost, dont judge dont condemn forgive

Do you believe that Jesus is implying that someone who holds no morality, nor belief in God, and therefore cannot judge or condemn anything, will not be condemned?
This can't be the case, since Jesus is so concerned to preach the law.

A pair of verses that I have only noticed recently cast light on Jesus' meaning.
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
I believe that this is the attitude that Jesus is telling us we should have, with the important additional statement: in judging, we recognise the law, which judges us. And in being forgiven, we recognise the mercy, which forgives others.

We should not judge in the sense of hate the other as a sinner and desire wrath upon him. But we should recognise sin, and in love rebuke (which does not imply superiority) and desire to bring God's mercy to the other person.
the biggest enemy of christendom lies in our own hearts
it is legalism, if a law had been given that could make us righteous then Christ has died in vain
That is very true. Christ makes righteous. Nevertheless without the law there is no concept of righteous. Always repentent, always believing; that is what we should be.

[julian the apostate]

csmr<<< Do you believe that Jesus is implying that someone who holds no morality, nor belief in God, and therefore cannot judge or condemn anything, will not be condemned?
This can't be the case, since Jesus is so concerned to preach the law.

oddly enough, that person would at the very least be the servant who would be subject to less stripes, but since all people have an innate sense of morality that person may be hard to find, but if such a one could be found to exist they would be better off than the merely religous

we are not under the law we are under grace- there is no law
if we seek to be justified by the law we are severed from grace

for us to judge gives a wrong place to the law, it puts us under it- we think it gives life,it gives death in condemnation, we cannot stand this so we judge others - it is a bitter thing

- if we judge we are no longer doers of the law but judges

as long as we kid ourselves that we are under the law and are able to keep it , we automatically involve ourselves in thousand of little bits of license every minute of every day - as we excuse or condemn ourselves based on our rather imperfect concept of what the law is

csmr<<< This can't be the case, since Jesus is so concerned to preach the law.

Jesus the lawgiver? no Jesus the grace giver,
seems most of what he said about the law basically boiled down to we dont even begin to understand it in the first place much less keep it

the law has led you to believe you are a sinner, congratulations join the club - but once Christ has come the law is gone

we now know we are sinners by rejecting the kindness and friendship of God

otherwise the bible is reduced to the most unwieldy cumbersome sticky confusing self-help manual ever invented , whose sole purpose is to make people feel good about following to the best of their understanding what the heck is in there

not exactly the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, and living waters and so on
not to mention good news

the way you have received it so walk in it

[ahab]

Hi Julian the Apostate,



I don’t know which of us has the worst alias, apostate or that dreadfully bad king Ahab.:)



Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven Absolutely, but we don’t people when we rebuke sin do we? in any event, this is all antinomian almost, dont judge dont condemn forgive because you cant repent under the law No I would say it wasn’t antinomian in the slightest. the biggest enemy of christendom lies in our own hearts it is legalism, if a law had been given that could make us righteous then Christ has died in vain.. you stopped sinning?

No. You stopped repenting and confessing?



It is about “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.”

I am free not to sin in Christ Jesus and empowered by the Holy Spirit to avoid the cage of legalism, and the swamp of licence. Halleuiah:clap:

[ahab]

Hi Pmceanj,



Please accept my apology, you are correct in that I didn’t answer the question exactly. Let me clarify. Yes, if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God. That is because the Holy Spirit is of God.




Let me clarify further as to exact answers and questions.The word Bishop Griswold used isnt even understood by all on this thread in exactly the same way and there differing definitions for it in the dictionary. However the word he used isnt what the scriptures condemn anyway. One can hardly expect the NT writers to have understood something we aren’t clear on. The point is however is, is the scripture from the Holy Spirit or from all the different writers understanding? We after all differ in our views on this issue, but the different OT and NT writers over all those centuries didn’t differ.

[ahab]

Hi AveMaria,:wave:



I just caught up on this thread, and was struck by something regarding the discussion/debate between Anglicans and non-Anglicans. The Anglican communion is very broad. Anglicans are coming from different places as we see from the reason for the Eames Commission. Lambeth 1.10 is the Anglican standard.:)

[NewToLife]

In my opinion no apology should be made unless it is truly heartfelt and I suspect that if that were the case the actions concerned would not have occurred anyway.

I was previously a member of the CofE and think that this issue delineates quite clearly how the liberal and conservative wings of Anglicanism no longer truly understand one another. The liberal wing in particular has heavily misjudged the conservatives on this matter, it appears that they believe that this issue is similar to the ordination of women and that if they went ahead a few hardcore coservatives would leave to become catholic and the others would simply learn to accept the new status quo. However, this is unlikely to happen with the ordination as bishops of active homosexuals simply because to accept such a practise demands that the conservatives implicitly endorse that which they see as sinful, they are effectively being asked to betray their faith by the liberal wing which does not understand this at all.

As an ex Anglican I have to say that I doubt that the two positions on this matter can maintain any kind of meaningful communion together. Someone is going to leave, the only real questions are who leaves and when do they go?

[ahab]

Hi newtolife,



Yes I agree in that I am a sure the expression of regret of hurt to the rest of the communion is indeed heartfelt. As an ex Anglican I have to say that I doubt that the two positions on this matter can maintain any kind of meaningful communion together. Someone is going to leave, the only real questions are who leaves and when do they go?Nevertheless, Bishop Eames and the commission have, it appears, pronounced the boundary of unity for the communion. If there is a moratorium as a result of this report to adhere to Lambeth 1.10, then the talk of who may be ‘leaving’ is clarified by a line in the sand of Lambeth 1.10 as it stands.

Any promotion contrary to Lambeth 1.10 at as stands at present therefore, can now recognised as being a sign of leaving communion. IMO.

Also as you imply, it tends to be liberals against the orthodox, traditional, evangelical etc rest, as the theology dictates the position on the relationship between the Holy Spirit and scripture.

[pmcleanj]

Yes, if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God. That is because the Holy Spirit is of God.

Yes, I agree that "the Holy Spirit is of God" is a necessary condition in order for this logical premise to hold (and in fact, it is probably more orthodox to say, with Athanasius, that the Holy Spirit *is* God). However, that is not a sufficient condition to support your logical premise.

The premise contains a conditional statement, and a consequential statement. Each comprises three components: a subject, a verb, and an object. Like this:

IF.. [the writings] [are inspired by]......... [the Holy Spirit]
THEN [the writings] [are the understanding of] [God]


The premise holds only if each component of the first statement is equivalent to each component of the second. We can see trivially that the subjects are equivalent, as they are formally identical. We have agreed that the objects are equivalent. Where we disagree, and where Karl Liberal Backslider disagrees, is that the verbs are equivalent. Using an OED equivalence gives and substituting it in gives

IF.. [the writings] [are prompted by divine influence of]..... [God]
THEN [the writings] [are the intelligence and apprehension of] [God]

The formal equivalence between the two verbal phrases is still not obvious.

Perhaps you can persuade us as to why we should agree that "are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" should be held to be equivalent.

[ahab]

Hi Pmcleanj,

You have missed the point about as completely as is possible. Firstly the word Bishop Griswold said the NT writers didnt understand isnt what the NT writers have written about anyway.
But having tried to cast doubt on what is written lets remeber that as John says he has seen and heard "I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony." and "The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. " Another of those people is Paul. Paul says "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" and "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. "
You see it is not something man has even made up, ours is to believe or not.
Perhaps you can persuade the majority of the Anglican Communion as to why a Bishop should doubt the gospel given by God?

[pmcleanj]

That's twice

Hi Pmcleanj,

You have missed the point about as completely as is possible. Firstly the word Bishop Griswold said ...


I may have missed the point, or you simply may not have made your point.

You may have noticed that some people have trouble communicating with you. I have noticed that. I am trying to address the trouble, by dealing with what you say in small segments. I am not dealing with your comments regarding Bishop Griswold. I am dealing with your premise that
"if the writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit then they aren't the understandings of the writers anyway but of God." I contend that this statement represents inspired Scripture as something other than what it is.

Your premise can hold true only if the verb clauses "are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" have equivalent meaning. My understanding of the two clauses is that they are not equivalent. I checked the words in the OED, and by my reading the OED doesn't represent them as being equivalent. If you can help me understand why they should be taken to be equivalent, then I can move on to the next point in your chain of reasoning. Otherwise there is no point in moving on, as the chain is broken at its first link.

Why should the verb clauses "are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" be taken to have equivalent meaning?

[ahab]

Hi Pmcleanj



It’s a breakdown in communication, I agree with you there, and sadly indicative of the divide in the communion.

"are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" are indeed not precisely equivalent and neither is the Holy Spirit limited to merely inspiration or merely understanding, nor is the Holy Spirit of man, but of God. Bishop Griswold is talking about man’s understanding, what most of the Anglican communion is talking about God’s revelation.

The truth about the scripture is that Paul says what he preached is not something that man made up but received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. So same-sex sex is condemned by Paul because he has been revealed this by Jesus. As there are different definitions and understandings of the meaning of the modern word ‘homosexuality’ we don’t even need to know what Bishop Griswold means by it, the NT writers don’t talk about homosexuality but same-sex sexual acts which they did know about and the pronouncement on it is revelation from God not man.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hi Pmcleanj



It’s a breakdown in communication, I agree with you there, and sadly indicative of the divide in the communion.

"are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" are indeed not precisely equivalent and neither is the Holy Spirit limited to merely inspiration or merely understanding, nor is the Holy Spirit of man, but of God. Bishop Griswold is talking about man’s understanding, what most of the Anglican communion is talking about God’s revelation.

The truth about the scripture is that Paul says what he preached is not something that man made up but received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. So same-sex sex is condemned by Paul because he has been revealed this by Jesus. As there are different definitions and understandings of the meaning of the modern word ‘homosexuality’ we don’t even need to know what Bishop Griswold means by it, the NT writers don’t talk about homosexuality but same-sex sexual acts which they did know about and the pronouncement on it is revelation from God not man.
I think that makes it three times. Why will you not address the point?

[pmcleanj]

Three times. Oh well.

"are inspired by" and "are the understanding of" are indeed not precisely equivalent

Well, they didn't need to be precisely equivalent. Merely sufficiently closely equivalent in the context where they were used, to support the premise that

"If the writings are inspired by God,
Then the writings are the understanding of God."

Alas, if that first link in the chain of logic can't be demonstrated, there's no point in pursuing the rest of the chain. It is indeed a breakdown of communication, indicative I believe far more of the low standards for formal logic maintained in modern society than of any perceived divide in the Anglican communion.

[ahab]

Hi Pmcleanj



Your logic isnt faulty, but if you had addressed what I said you would have seen that the Holy Spirit is something that encompasses the inspiration to man and the understanding of God. Trying to ascertain the logic of equivalence will surely lead you to what the Holy Spirit isn’t.



Try now to address what I wrote.

The truth about the scripture is that Paul says what he preached is not something that man made up but received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. So same-sex sex is condemned by Paul because he has been revealed this by Jesus. As there are different definitions and understandings of the meaning of the modern word ‘homosexuality’ we don’t even need to know what Bishop Griswold means by it as the NT writers don’t talk about homosexuality but same-sex sexual acts which they did know about. The pronouncement on it is revelation from God not man.

[ps139]

Closed temporarily for staff review.