Singapore: Shadow and Substance

A perceptive article from Charles Raven. Read it all here:

Although not attended by great fanfare and ceremony, something quite remarkable seems to be happening in Singapore at the fourth Global South to South Encounter. We are seeing the emergence of a global Anglicanism of substance, displacing the shadow Anglicanism of institutional pragmatism. Institutions which until recently had the appearance of substance – the Anglican Consultative Council, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates meeting and the Archbishop of Canterbury himself – are now taking on an unreal quality as shadows of a discredited past while the GAFCON movement, dismissed by many at its inception in 2008, is turning out to have foreshadowed a fundamental realignment which is now beginning to express itself in new structures.

The shadow quality of the old order was inescapable in both the medium and the message of Rowan Williams’ address. Due to a ‘full diary’ his was a virtual presence by video and his message amounted to little more than yet another call to continue with ‘careful listening’. So it is not surprising that Dr Williams politely absented himself this time round since it is clear that he has nothing new to say.

At the previous South to South encounter at the Red Sea in 2005, the Global South primates held him to account for his well known sympathy for the homosexual agenda and when a private request to repudiate those views failed to elicit a response, it was reiterated in a public letter which also called on the Archbishop to be more decisive: ‘We are disappointed’ they wrote ‘with your deferring to “process.” You seem to keep saying, “My hands are tied.” We urge you to untie your hands and provide the bold, inclusive leadership the Communion needs at this time of crisis and distrust’. In response, Dr Williams reaffirmed the Covenant process as the only way forward and concluded rather crisply: ‘If this letter is a contribution to that process of debate, then it is to be welcomed, however robust. If it is an attempt to foreclose that debate, it would seem to serve very little purpose indeed.’

This persistent attachment to process is not simply an academic habit. It owes a great deal to Dr Williams’ Hegelian optimism that truth will somehow emerge through a synthesis of opposites and serves to downplay the biblical antithesis between the truth and the lie, creating a climate in which the previously unacceptable gains plausibility. In an interview for the current issue of The New Yorker magazine, questioned about resolving the seemingly intractable problem of women bishops in the Church of England, he  observes “I suppose it’s by using as best I can the existing consultative mechanisms to create a climate” and “You can actually ruin a good cause by pushing it at the wrong moment and not allowing the process of discernment and consent to go on”.

Given that  Dr Williams has consistently refused to disown those writings which provided a theological rationale for the gay lesbian movement within the Church from the late 1980’s onwards, referring to them as his ‘private’ opinions as distinguished from the ‘official’ position he is obliged to articulate in view of his office, it is reasonable to assume that TEC’s sexual agenda  also qualifies in his mind as ‘a good cause’. That he can say in his Singapore address that the decision to consecrate partnered lesbian Mary Glasspool  to the episcopate ‘cannot speak for our common mind’ is not contradictory; it simply means that given the current state of the ‘common mind’, this is the wrong moment to push the innovation.

[......]

Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini’s  address on the following day set out the basis for new Anglican structures noting “We need a new way forward. We are no longer in communion with Rowan (Williams) or TEC or Canada. After all the biblical reflections we are still in a state of crisis, nothing has been resolved over the years. The Windsor Report, the Primates Meetings recommendations, the Lambeth Conference 2008 and the Windsor Continuation Group have all failed to bring any change in the drastic situation of the Anglican Communion.’ He proposed that the Global South should reconstitute itself to include all orthodox Churches and Dioceses with leadership focussed in a Council of Primates based on ancient Conciliar practice.

This entry was posted in Anglican Communion, Anglican Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Singapore: Shadow and Substance

  1. Gerry O'Brien says:

    Finally a statement that says what is needed to be said…. from Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini “We need a new way forward. We are no longer in communion with Rowan (Williams) or TEC or Canada.”

    It is long past time that this be said and now is the time for it to happen.
    Now is the time to move forward and into the strength of the Jerusalem Declaration.
    Now is the time to say good bye to Canterbury, TEC and the ACoC and the evil that they are spewing forth. Williams will not lead, KJS and TEC are leading into the abyss and the ACoC is calmly following both just like the little dog, wagging it’s tail.
    It is time for ACNA and the Global South and Southern Cone partners to move out of this quagmire of filth and evil.

  2. stuck in Toronto says:

    It would seem that the following scripture disagrees with #1

    2 Timothy 2:23-26
    But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
    And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
    In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
    And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

  3. Warren says:

    Stuck (#2), and the “foolish and unlearned questions” that you are concerned about are . . . ? 2 Timothy is a pastoral letter. Are you sure you’re applying the passage properly given the context in which it was written? Who is the person in a position of spiritual leadership to whom you’ve directed your comment?

    How about the same text from The Message (which you have said you like):

    Refuse to get involved in inane discussions; they always end up in fights. God’s servant must not be argumentative, but a gentle listener and a teacher who keeps cool, working firmly but patiently with those who refuse to obey. You never know how or when God might sober them up with a change of heart and a turning to the truth, enabling them to escape the Devil’s trap, where they are caught and held captive, forced to run his errands.

    Doubtlessly some may think (and perhaps for good reason) that I’m engaging in an inane discussion.

  4. Gerry O'Brien says:

    Stuck #2:
    Let those who have ears – hear!

  5. stuck in Toronto says:

    Warren are you saying that this passage is not applicable to all God’s servants but rather just to those in your so called “spiritual leadership” meaning Timothy in this “context”?
    If so you are mistaken. Read 2Timothy2:2, And stop picking fights with your betters.

    Hear what, Gerry?

  6. Warren says:

    Stuck (#5), I’m saying that I try to understand the context of Scripture so that I can properly interpret it. This passage may have a broader application, but it was aimed specifically at a leader. And how does your 2 Tim 2:2 hermeneutic handle 2 Tim 4:13? (Yes, I’m getting really inane and I don’t want to know the answer.)

    Anyway, you never explained what “foolish and unlearned questions” you were referring to in your original comment.

  7. stuck in Toronto says:

    Warren #6 First let me congratulate and compliment you on not biting on my attempt at a red-herring. Of course I don’t think of myself as better than you-or anyone else, for that matter. I was referring to St. Paul. As He is the author of your question may I suggest that this might be best understood through the Holy Spirit and not by your own designs.

  8. Warren says:

    Stuck (#7), some days I wonder if, for one of us at least, English is not our native tongue. I’ll let others be the judge of whose comments are the least decipherable.

    Let’s do this by numbers:

    1. Gerry makes a comment in #1.

    2. You quote a Scripture in #2 that you say disagrees with Gerry’s comment.

    3. The Scripture you quote says, in part: “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid.”

    4. In #3 and #6 I ask what “foolish and unlearned questions” you are referring to.

    5. In #7 you respond: “I was referring to St. Paul. As He is the author of your question may I suggest that this might be best understood through the Holy Spirit and not by your own designs.”

    6. As usual, I have no idea what you’re talking about and see my question as still unanswered.

    7. Rather than learn my lesson and drop the issue, I press on with this comment.

    8. Hopefully someone finds all of this amusing and not just painfully tedious.

  9. David says:

    Hopefully someone finds all of this amusing and not just painfully tedious.
    I chuckled, if that helps.

  10. Richard says:

    “We are seeing the emergence of a global Anglicanism of substance”. We’re actually seeing a restatement of the same old Protestant Calvinism coupled with fundamentalism and a world view that still enslaves women and imprisons and executes gays. What has emerged is an incredible arrogance, sense of superiority, and lack of perspective that doesn’t even consider that Anglicanism has never been what they are trying to turn it into. Instead of recognizing that there are differing historic expressions and strands of Anglicanism, now they claim to be the one only legitmate expression. It is a substance that has never been a good thing for Anglicanism or for the people it hates, judges, and excludes.

  11. Warren says:

    Richard (#10), normally when I ask this question of those defending the ACoC or TEC I am studiously ignored, but perhaps you will condescend to answer: what is your view of the Bible?

    While your at it, what part of Calvin’s Institutes do you believe to be unscriptural?

    Your comment forces me to conclude that, in your conception of love, the behaviours and attitudes of the one being loved must be accepted unconditionally and without judgement for that love to be valid. And the biblical warrant for this position is . . . ? You appear to be well qualified to comment on hate and judgement.

  12. Richard says:

    Actually, I didn’t say anything remotely like the words you attribute to me in your “conclusion”. I don’t know where that came from. My approach to Calvinism, Catholicism, Protestantism, or any other “ism” isn’t under discussion. I am simply pointing out, that since the Reformation, Anglicanism has had conflict over various theological positions, but has always maintained some kind of “middle way” (via media). Anglicanism is not Calvinist, which was made quite clear in the 17th Century. We seem to be refighting some very old battles.

  13. Richard says:

    By the way, one’s “view of the Bible” is a question of immense generality. I believe the very traditional Anglican statement (it is in the Prayer Book and in the BAS Ordination services), that “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain all things necessary for salvation.”

  14. Warren says:

    I think you know what I’m getting at, Richard. The question, in addition to being of “immense generality”, is also of immense importance, and lies at the heart of the drift of the ACoC and TEC away from the Anglican communion at large. Although the word “inerrancy” did not exist at the time the 39 Articles were framed (and, in particular, Article VI to which you allude), I believe it is essentially the position they held and what they meant by, “In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.” Do you hold to inerrancy as defined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (of which J.I. Packer was an original signatory)? Do you at least hold to infallibility? Or do you have a more “nuanced” view of the authority of Scripture?

    My approach to Calvinism, Catholicism, Protestantism, or any other “ism” isn’t under discussion.

    You may choose to not discuss these topics, but you brought them issue up in the first place and it is rather disingenuous to slam Calvinism and then walk away as though you said nothing.

    I am simply pointing out, that since the Reformation, Anglicanism has had conflict over various theological positions, but has always maintained some kind of “middle way” (via media). Anglicanism is not Calvinist, which was made quite clear in the 17th Century.

    I have read so many different and conflicting views of what the “via media” really was/is, that I just ignore it. The concept doesn’t seem to be well rooted in Scripture anyway, but rather a political compromise made out of expediency.

    We seem to be refighting some very old battles.

    And your point is? Sin is rather old, too.

  15. Warren says:

    I aplogize for my failure to properly proof read my preceding comment (#14). Hopefully my meaning is still clear.

  16. Kate says:

    It is a substance that has never been a good thing for Anglicanism or for the people it hates, judges, and excludes.

    No – it welcomes everone as we are, and encourages us to grow spiritually. It allows the Holy Spirit to convict, comefort, heal, and grow us in Christlikeness.

  17. Kate says:

    Richard, I note that your IP originates in the same city I live in. I encourage you to come to an ANiC church (there are two of them) for a couple of months and actually meet and talk to some of us, really get to know us. You will find that your stereotypes are inaccurate. If you email the blog (address on the contact us page), I’d be happy to help.

  18. Richard says:

    I have made no statement that would “stereotype” ANiC people. I wasn’t even thinking about them. ( Why do people constantly put words in my mouth?) I was talking only about the so-called new Anglicanism “of substance” that emanated from Singapore. I am personally acquainted with a number of local ANiC people and clergy and I happily know what I am missing.

  19. Richard says:

    In response to Warren, you rightly say that “Biblical inerrancy” is not a term found in the prayer Book. It not an Anglican idea at all-it comes from the Protestant Fundamentalism of the late 19th century that was actually new. Your strategy seems to be to uncover any reason to doubt my orthodoxy. Then you can call me apostate, according to your judgement, and reject anything I have said. My answer, which is absolutely Prayer Book and orthodox stands. Anglicanism has not sought to define everything to a fault nor to include or exclude based on anyone’s “test”. Elizabeth the First said that we “should not make windows into any man’s soul”. I won’t do it if you won’t.

  20. Richard says:

    Warren et. al. Just to be precise and clear. Anglicanism (The Church of England) rejected Calvinism in the 17th Century. It was accepted in Scotland and is found in Presbyterianism and some Reformed traditions. John Calvin was not an Anglican. How simple is this?

  21. Warren says:

    Richard, the word “inerrancy” may come from the 19th century, but you are wrong to assert that the “idea” is that recent. Do I want to test your orthodoxy? Maybe “test” isn’t the right word, but, since the purpose of your commenting on this blog appears to be to criticize the ANiC and ACNA, I think it is quite reasonable to ask you about your beliefs. Apparently you are reluctant to be forthcoming. Do you have any questions about what I believe? 1 Peter 3:15 says, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” Are you interested in the beliefs and doctrines for which the ANiC stands, or are you primarily concerned political issues?

    Anglicanism (The Church of England) rejected Calvinism in the 17th Century.

    I don’t recall asking anything about whether or not the CoE adopted Calvinism. You made a derogatory statement about Calvinism and I asked if you had any biblical basis for rejecting anything in Calvin’s Institutes. Now you’re skirting the issue. By the way, do you have any reference for your assertion about the CoE rejecting Calvinism? I find the 39 Articles to be quite reformed in tone, and I suspect the word “rejected” is hyperbolic. Since I’m a member of a Presbyterian church, I have some understanding of the connection between Presbyterianism and Calvinism.

    My answer, which is absolutely Prayer Book and orthodox stands.

    The Prayer Book is fine. What about the Bible? Is your answer “absolutely Bible”?

    Elizabeth the First said that we “should not make windows into any man’s soul”. I won’t do it if you won’t.

    Other than for the sake of better understanding of history, why should I give two hoots about what Elizabeth I had to say about Christianity? On another thread you seemed quite eager to look into the souls of “Duncan and Harvey” and make judgements. Have you peered into your own soul to examine what you truly believe?

  22. Richard says:

    For you, Calvinism, ACNA, AniC, Biblical inerrancy, etc. are sacrosanct. Fine. But my comment on Singapore wasn’t about any of these things. I didn’t even think about Duncan and Harvey, although I have mentioned them elsewhere. But NOT here, so stick to the subject. I didn’t take a “swipe” at Calvinism, I just pointed out that we’re seeing it in Singapore and that it’s not classically or traditionally Anglican. Any history of the Church of England, the Reformation, British Parliamentary democracy, the Prayer Book, etc. makes this clear. Why do think a King was executed and another restored? Why do you think dissenting groups left the Church of England in the 17th Century and went to the Netherlands or New England or joined other non-Anglican (dissenting) groups? Why is the Church of Scotland separate from the Church of England? What did the end of Cromwell’s Commonwealth mean for the English Church? Why did the English Church reject requests from Calvinist groups to alter the Prayer Book, resulting in the prayer Book of 1662? Do you need any further “documentation”? I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. So do you. No problem.

  23. Warren says:

    Richard (#22),

    For you, Calvinism, ACNA, AniC, Biblical inerrancy, etc. are sacrosanct.

    Your words, not mine.

    . . . so stick to the subject.

    You’re new to this blog, aren’t you? I defer to the admins concerning “sticking to the subject”, not other commenters.

    I didn’t take a “swipe” at Calvinism, I just pointed out that we’re seeing it in Singapore and that it’s not classically or traditionally Anglican.

    If no one else thinks that Richard didn’t take a swipe at Calvinism when he said:

    We’re actually seeing a restatement of the same old Protestant Calvinism coupled with fundamentalism and a world view that still enslaves women and imprisons and executes gays.

    I’ll retract my assertion that he did.

    Do you need any further “documentation”?

    You appear to view Calvinism through the lens of ecclesiology rather than the lens of biblical interpretation and doctrine. Have you ever cracked open Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion? Actually, I’m not much concerned with Calvinism in relation to this thread, but you brought it up.

    I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

    300 years ago, this probably would have been enough. Today, unfortunately, it doesn’t mean a whole lot.

  24. Warren says:

    Careful readers will note that I forgot a “close quote” in the above comment (#23). fixed – admin

  25. Kate says:

    Richard, we set a pretty high standard for charity and civil discource here, and you are treading very close to the line. Try to be polite, please.

  26. Kate says:

    #18 As ANiC is a part of the “Anglicanism of substance”, the connection seems pretty obvious to me. As far as you “happily know what you are missing”, I rather think that you don’t. The invitation still stands.

  27. Richard says:

    I apologize for being uncivil, but I would ask to be treated with civility. I’m not sure why Warren keeps hounding me on Calvinism and the Bible. What needs to be said that hasn’t been said? Calvinism is wonderful-for Calvinists. I am not attacking it per se, I’m just saying that it has little to do with Anglicanism, either Evangelical or Catholic. I did not invent historical facts, which I notice you have ignored. The question of my belief in the Bible is more than loaded, since anything I say can and will be used against me, since he wants me to “make his day”. The question probably means, “Do I believe the Bible in exactly the same way he does?” or “Am I a Biblical literalist/fundamentalist?” as these terms are currently used. The real question would be “How do I interpret Scripture?” and would Warren approve. If not, am I to be treated as a Gentile and a tax-collector. Often one hears the expression “the plain teaching of Scripture” or something like that. If Scripture is so plain, why is it used by everyone from Roman Catholics to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and far beyond to support their positions? The fact is that Scripture is always interpreted, even in the New Testament-for example the Ethiopian eunuch who asks to have Isaiah explained and is baptised. Scripture is not always so plain, or there would never have been denominations, reformations, wars, etc. Even the devil quotes his interpretation of Scripture when Jesus is tempted and Jesus quotes Scripture back. We can trust Jesus. But we must remember that the Church came before the Bible and it is the Church’s book. It must be viewed through the lens of the community for whom it was written. Also, there has been much scholarly work done over the centuries to interpret Scripture and we cannot ignore this. yes, there are scholars of various viewpoints, but nevertheless they are doing interpretation. What happens when newer, more authentic texts are discovered, when something is viewed as history or archeology, or when we must use some of the tools of science? Are we to assume that God forbids us to use His gifts of intellect? A mediaeval Christian would have believed that the world was flat, that diseases were punishments from God and that only the Pope could speak for Christ. Reformers came to another conclusion. Millennial sects another, Anabaptists, another, and so it goes. Even the most basic study of the New Testament shows that we are all interpreting in one way or another to answer questions that are not easily explained away. For example, if there are four Resurrection stories in the four Gospels, each quite different, do we blend them together, or assume one to be more correct? Or if all are correct in their own way, how was the evangelist interpreting the Resurrection? Every basic parish or personal Bible Study must ultimately deal with different points of view, or perhaps accepting the point of view of one person as definitive, but then that person is also interpreting. In the end, the question is not “Is the Bible true” in the factual sense, but how have we treated Scripture as God’s living Word, so that it continues to speak to us and how do we apply it to our lives and the world around us? In every age people have sought to answer that question. I do not doubt the Truth of the Bible as we see that Truth in Jesus, the Word made Flesh, and the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But however “conservative”, “liberal” or anything else we may be, our minds do not read the Scripture exactly as it was read a hundred, five hundred, or a thousand years ago. We cannot help this, since our world view and life experiences compel us to seek insight that makes it relevant to our own time and situation. And we cannot do otherwise when Jesus is seen as the Living One who we see in Scripture, in the world, in each other, and in ourselves, as he reigns in our hearts and as the Lord of heaven.

  28. Kate says:

    You have been treated with patience and civility. Warren is just trying to understand where you are coming from.

    The question of my belief in the Bible is more than loaded,….The real question would be “How do I interpret Scripture?” and would Warren approve. If not, am I to be treated as a Gentile and a tax-collector.

    You are jumping to conclusions here. Please give Warren the benefit of the doubt that you are asking us to give you.

  29. Warren says:

    Richard (#27), despite your attempts to characterize me as such, I’m not a heretic hunter. That said, you came to this blog to defend the ACoC and criticize those who believe it has drifted into apostacy to the point where communion must be broken. Since the authority of Scripture is at the heart of the matter, you should not be ashamed or afraid to state where you are coming from.

    There is much more harmony regarding Scripture, across the spectrum of evangelicalism, than you are willing to admit, and you are trotting out tired examples of apparent discrepancies that most conservative biblical scholars have little trouble with. I am not going to call you names as you seem to fear, but I think I understand the postion you are coming from well enough to know that we would find it difficult to find fellowship.

    I am in the curious position of being seen as a fundamental, conservative, biblical literalist by someone by yourself, while I’m viewed as an overly open-minded (although still opinionated) evangelical with questionable liberal leanings by the staff and many of my fellow students at a Bible Institute where I’m taking some courses. I think it helps me keep a balanced perspective. I am able to readily fellowship and find a common bond with Christians across a wide range of denominations. I struggle, however, to find common bonds with those in the ACoC.

  30. Richard says:

    First, you said that it wasn’t good enough for me to say that the Bible was the Word of God, nor that it contains all things necessary for salvation. Even the 39 Articles do not go beyond that, exept to say that we we must do and beleive things in accordance with Holy Writ. You were not satisfied with replies that are more than adequate, so how else would I interpret your question, as leading and provocative as it was? Now you have moved on to the issue of Apostasy (with an s, please). This is a word, like heresy, that is easier for the accuser to use than for the accused to answer, since its definition varies according to the questioner. You have to define apostasy so I would know what the grounds are for such an accusation. Traditionally, apostasy would be the rejection of the Catholic Creeds, which define th nature of Christ and the basic tenets of the Christian faith. No matter how orthodox each of us claims to be, heresy hunters could probably find ways in which we harbour its seeds. Calling any Church apostate, especially when you are claiming not to be, is quite a serious matter. Despite what individuals may say or do, the Anglican Church of Canada has not rejected the Catholic Creeds and takes Scripture seriously, just not in the way that you choose to. Apostasy is not about the interpretation of Scripture by itself. It’s interesting that there is no mention of the Bible in the three Creeds. I assume that you base this accusation of apostasy on the acceptance of homosexual relationships and the willingness, on the part of some, to bless them. There have always been gay clergy and bishops, so the issue of the ordination of such persons only hinges on whether or not they or the Church are willing to be honest about it. So, I presume, you base the “apostasy” of the ACoC on the way it uses Scripture in relation to its treatment of gay persons. After all, there is much more in the New Testament, even in the words of Jesus Himself, about divorce, but we have given Communion to, and remarried divorced persons for nearly fifty years and no one called the ACoC apostate for doing that. The New Testament forbids women to speak in church, yet they have been ordained for nearly thirty-five years and only a few (none from the Evangelical wing) called the Church apostate. In fact women have had strong ministries in many of evangelical parishes. So even in the face of clear Biblical opposition, these two changes were made, mostly because of compassion and because people were open to interpreting Scripture in new ways. BUT, when gay people asked to stop hiding in fear and to be accepted as they were made, or as they are, Scripture was interpreted again, but in different ways. Some emphasized the compassion of Jesus to the outsider, especially those shunned by the religion of Jesus day, as well as treating gay people who are living lives of faithfulness in the same way we treat everyone else. Another interpretation said that it was a sin to be gay, or a sin to be in a relationship with another person of the same gender or variations on these. I will not go into all the arguments on both sides. Even though we had agreed to disagree in the past on the meaning of Scripture, or to put unity ahead of conflict, the gay issue was the breaking point, ostensibly because of the way people interpreted Scripture against gay relationships, but also because of the way some people individually felt about gay persons and the way they believed the Church should feel. We cannot deny or ignore the human side of this issue. Churches who use Scripture to reject the inclusion of gay persons should also be willing to apply it to divorced persons and the ministry of ordained women with equal vigour. Apostasy is an unkind word, to put it mildly. It is also inappropriate. The interpretation of a few verses of Scripture does not constitute apostasy. It is not an issue that supersedes everything else in the Bible, especially the words of Jesus Himself, calling us to unity (John 13). No one in the ACoA is officially saying that we have abandoned the Catholic Faith, the Divinity of Christ, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and so on. It is also a strong and perhaps unkind statement to say that some Christian groups are in schism, which is another matter that Jesus seems most concerned about and contrary to Scripture. That part of the Gospel seems less important. I can’t understand why.

  31. David says:

    Richard,
    A suggestion: your comments would be much more readable if you split them into paragraphs.

  32. Warren says:

    Richard (#30), as David stated, your unwillingness to use paragraph breaks has me on the verge of giving up on this conversation. Give your poor readers a break!

    First, you said that it wasn’t good enough for me to say that the Bible was the Word of God, nor that it contains all things necessary for salvation.

    You’re putting words in my mouth again – especially the last clause. I have no problem with the Prayer Book statement, but I don’t know what you mean when you say the Bible is the Word of God. Based on other things you have said, I think you mean something different than I.

    You were not satisfied with replies that are more than adequate . . .

    Adequate in your mind I suppose.

    Now you have moved on to the issue of Apostasy (with an s, please).

    Good pick up. I agree there’s no excuse for poor spelling. If I may respond in kind, however, you regularly capitalize catholic when you are using the word in a small ‘c’ sense.

    So, I presume, you base the “apostasy” of the ACoC on the way it uses Scripture in relation to its treatment of gay persons.

    You got me wrong, here. I’ve written many comments on this blog, but this isn’t an issue I’ve had much to say about. The authority of Scripture is the big issue with me – in case you haven’t figured it out.

    The New Testament forbids women to speak in church, yet they have been ordained for nearly thirty-five years and only a few (none from the Evangelical wing) called the Church apostate.

    I know you won’t agree, but, in relationship to the church’s response to homosexuality, you’re comparing apples and oranges. I also think you don’t have much direct experience with North American evangelicalism writ large; right or wrong, I know plenty of Christians who will have nothing to do with churches where women are ordained. The Bible doesn’t explicitly list it as a sin along with other sins, and for me it’s a secondary issue.

    Traditionally, apostasy would be the rejection of the Catholic Creeds, which define th nature of Christ and the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

    No argument here. Bear in mind, however, that the Creeds were framed to counter heresies that had crept into the early church and were causing problems. They were not intended to replace Scripture.

    It’s interesting that there is no mention of the Bible in the three Creeds.

    And your point is? Do you think bishops who framed the Creeds had a low view of the canon (with the understanding that the NT canon was not yet fully agreed on when the Nicene Creed was passed)?

    There have always been gay clergy and bishops, so the issue of the ordination of such persons only hinges on whether or not they or the Church are willing to be honest about it.

    The Church has always been less than perfect and went through a real low point for about 1000 years.

    Another interpretation said that it was a sin to be gay, or a sin to be in a relationship with another person of the same gender or variations on these. I will not go into all the arguments on both sides.

    It is really one side, with a relatively tiny enclave off on the side. Since you seem to denigrate any literal interpretation of the Bible, I can see why you see this as strictly an interpretation issue. I have some familiarity with the “for” argument and find it wholly uncompelling.

    No one in the ACoA is officially saying that we have abandoned the Catholic Faith, the Divinity of Christ, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and so on.

    If by ACoA you mean ACoC, I don’t buy it. I suppose your way out is that official must mean a vote at General Synod followed by a formal statement by the Archbishop. The complete inability (and I would argue unwillingness) of the ACoC to discipline clergy who hold heretical views speaks loud and clear. If government acted the same way, I’m sure you’d be waving the BS flag all over the place. By the way, I suspect the vote at General Synod will come in time.

    It is also a strong and perhaps unkind statement to say that some Christian groups are in schism, which is another matter that Jesus seems most concerned about and contrary to Scripture. That part of the Gospel seems less important. I can’t understand why.

    Jesus also had much to say about the Scribes and Pharisees, and, since I hold to a position of infallibility and inerrancy, I don’t put the rest of Scripture on a lower level than the gospels or put less emphasis on what Peter and Paul had to say.

    You’re obviously reasonably well informed on issues, yet you act surprised that a split occurred that was decades in the making. In my opinion, what is now ANiC and ACNA took far too long to act and just put off the inevitable. I believe they bent over backwards and did somersaults in their efforts to avoid schism; all to no avail.

    P.S. If you want the last word, don’t use paragraph breaks. I’ll concede defeat.

  33. Richard says:

    Whether or not I take the Bible “literally”, the point is that even those who claim to do so pick and choose what they want to emphasize and what they choose to ignore. Most of my points have gone unanswered. Scripture opposes usury, for example. (My earlier examples: the Ordination of Women or the remarriage of divorced persons seem to have had no response.) Usury is the charging of interest. No Bible-believing literalist should countenance such an unbiblical practice, yet Biblical literalists seem to have mortgages or car loans without any problem. This is getting tedious, so I’ll stop at that example. There may be typos or errors, but generally a small “c” is used for the adjective and the large for the noun, or that is my intention.

    With all due respect, you have claimed to be a Presbyterian and have emphasized your admiration of Calvin and your belief in Biblical literalism. You can’t project these on to historic Anglicanism nor assume that, if you have encountered this kind of Anglicanism, that it is normative, ever has been, or ever will be. I can’t see what your agenda or purpose may be, other than to enjoy an argument.

    I might suggest visits to a number of Anglican churches of differing worship styles and theological outlooks to see the breadth and comprehensiveness that Anglicanism always has been able to accomodate. We have “high church” worship with Latin anthems, processions and incense and places where the music is by guitars with hands raised in the charismatic manner. No one version of Anglicanism is the last word, which brings me back to the beginning of this discussion, since this wideness, which has been our strength is now being threatened.

  34. Richard says:

    THREE THINGS for Warren with apologies.
    1. You did mention the Ordination of Women, but did not respond specifically about it is squared with Scripture that would seem to forbid it. You just said that it was apples and oranges with homosexuality, but not your issue. By the way, it really is a similar issue, since they both have to do with gender and the priesthood, etc.-I know, don’t get started.

    2. When I said that the “Evangelical wing” did not call the Anglican Church apostate, I was not referring to Evangelicals in general. I meant specifically Anglican Evangelicals. (Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics have been traditionally the two ends of the spectrum. Anglo Catholics had much more difficulty with the O of W.)

    3. The disciplining of clergy for their views is much more complicated for Anglicans than you think. Anglo Catholics and Evangelicals could each find heresy on the other side and in everything between. A bishop cannot be personally biased or capricious. We have not been a Church that deals with doctrine with banishment or depriving someone of a position without serious reason and we have accomodated a wide spectrum for centuries. A Church court, trial, etc., is an expensive and difficult undertaking, not to mention the issue of civil action if someone feels wronged. Banishing dissenters or defrocking suspected heretics is fraught with problems and not really the way we have done things for generations.

  35. Kate says:

    Richard: Bishop Michael Ingham has written books in which he has said that he doesn’t believe in a literal resurection. If that isn’t cause for discipline, I don’t know what is.

    Re: Usury See article 8:

    Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

    The prohibition of usury was a civil precept – therefore not binding on Christians.

    Re WO: A compelling argument can be made both for and against WO, from scripture, by people who wholeheartedly desire to submit themselves to scripture. Such can not be said for same sex marriage.

  36. Kate says:

    The wideness of Anglicanism has always been one of style, not substance. ANiC also has parishes that vary from high church to low church and everything in between. The changes that the ACoC are trying to make are changes of substance. There is a world of difference.

    I’ll also point out that Warren is quite familiar with Anglicanism, having been a churchwarden at St. Alban’s for a number of years, before the military took him away from us. :-(

  37. Richard says:

    Dear Kate-I might be forgiven for assuming that Warren was not Anglican because he, in fact, said that he was a Presbyterian in an earlier post.

    Regarding usury, there are thirteen references in the Old testament and two in the New Testament, considerably more than anything that be inferred to be about homosexuality. The article you quote above would actually seem to support the prohibition of usury “no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral”. In fact this was an important issue historically and much more than a civil precept. For example, only the Jewish community (ironically) could borrow or lend in the Middle Ages, since Christians were prohibited from doing so.

    With regard to Michael Ingham, he may not be “orthodox” as you would define “orthodoxy”, but the specific term “literal resurrection” isn’t found in the New Testament. I have never heard it before and I assume you means “literal understanding/belief” in the resurrection. There have always been Bishops, clergy, and laity, and not all Anglicans, who have questioned the way we believe in the Resurrection and Michael Ingham isn’t unique. I don’t agree with him, but it’s his opinion. Deposing anyone on doctrinal issues is complicated, since it would have to be proven in court that there is one single view of Scripture about the Resurrection that the whole Church has always consistently believed and applied everywhere. It would also mean that no one would be free to express an opinion, no matter how orthodox, on any subject, since there would always be someone who could find some fault or another. What constitutes Faith is really the issue.

  38. Warren says:

    Richard (#33, 34 & 37), maybe this is a cop out, but I’m becoming rather bored of this conversation. I’ve seen the same few arguments (and rebuttals) trotted out again and again, and opinions never seem to change. Presuppositions and views on the authority of Scripture are just too different.

    I believe you are the “Derek” who has been posting recently at Anglican Samizdat and I gave you an idea of my church background on the “Hawking Silverware” post. Good luck at trying to pin me down denominationally. A great blogger, who recently left us after a short battle with cancer, spoke often of the post-evangelical wilderness. This is where I find myself much of the time. I can be mostly at home in many places of worship, but never feel completely at home in any of them.

    My foray into Anglicanism was relatively brief, but it had a more profound impact on my understanding of the Christian faith than any of my other church or denominational experiences. It also opened my eyes to the importance of sound doctrine and the need for church discipline. I definitely have a soft spot in my heart for Anglicanism – quite a change for someone who grew up in a church in the 60s that, even then, viewed the Anglican church with great suspicion. I may return; but not to the ACoC.

    The Lord’s will will be done, but I believe that, despite the gnashing of teeth of many in the ACoC and TEC, the ANiC and ACNA will be blessed and prosper; while the ACoC and TEC will continue to diminish. I pray, however, that God would still bring revival to these impoverished churches.

    Thank you for using paragraphs.

  39. Richard says:

    Dear Warren-Before i say goodnight and goodbye, I just want to say that this conversation was a very interesting experience. Of course, the problem with internet conversations is that their anonymity craetes false impressions and enables conversation where people don’t actually connect on any level. We just talk past each other, make assumptions, and reinforce stereotypes. My assertiveness here is not my actual character, but there is no humanity on a computer screen. I have chosen to make some more extreme or pointed statemtns because that seems to be the tone of this sight and to make sure no one misses my points. But, alas, minds are made up and even the facts count for nothing.

    As for the ACoC being impoverished (TEC is not on my agenda), I find that statement very uncharitable and inappropriate, since your idea of a Church that is NOT impoverished seems to depend on its literal intepretation of Scripture and outright discrimination against gay people and other undesirables, sinners, etc. Are those the signs of richness? You might consider that there are good people who truly seek to do God’s will and work for Him in all churches, including the ACoC, as impoverished as they may be. True riches are in heaven.

  40. Kate says:

    We just talk past each other, make assumptions, and reinforce stereotypes….But, alas, minds are made up and even the facts count for nothing….outright discrimination against gay people and other undesirables, sinners, etc.

    This would be a funny comment if it weren’t so sad. Are you willing to take a long hard look at the assumptions and stereotypes of ANiC that you cling to so closely? For example, there have been a number of gay people in my parish who are struggling to lead godly lives, and we support them. In fact, there is one man in particular who would be more than willing to tell you his story, I could introduce you to him. You could ask him if he feels discriminated against.

    Are you willing to spend some time at St. Alban’s or St. George’s and actually see how we live, how we follow Christ, how we welcome everyone, how our pastors love us and encourage us to grow in Christ?

  41. Kate says:

    but the specific term “literal resurrection” isn’t found in the New Testament. I have never heard it before and I assume you means “literal understanding/belief” in the resurrection.

    From John 20:

    26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

    Seems to me that Jesus was literally there.

  42. Richard says:

    I wasn’t attacking you for having a “literal” belief. I was just suggesting that it was a confusing term. It means “to the letter” or “as written”, or even “symbolically”. However you can believe in Scripture literally, becuase it is about written words. The description of the meeting with the disiples from John you provide (the Thomas story) is not about a literal, but a physical/actual encounter with the Risen Lord. They didn’t believe “literally”, they believed in the actual experience of touching and hearing. Jesus was not “literally” there, he was “actually” there! This surpasses what is merely literal.

    I notice that responses (to me) usually contain words or expressions that are emotionally loaded and infer qualitiies or feelings about me personally that are not about my actual words. These are sometomes called “weasel words”. If what I have said is “sad”, then any response from me is even sadder, plus it diminishes me on a personal level and negates not what I have said as much as my character and motive for saying it. This is unfair, to say the least. I am sad when I see it, however.

    I am happy that some gay people have found a home at St. Alban’s and that you support them in the way the wish to be supported. But you would have to admit that not all gay people would be equally happy there, depending on their view of their own homosexuality. Would you accept a gay person who is comfortable with their own sexuality and happy with their lives in general and are good Christians? Or would you consider that a basic contradiction? If they wanted to be “cured” of homosexuality or find some way to disconnect from it or even repent of it, would they be more welcome? Your acceptance of homosexuals is indeed selective and not all gay people feel that they are burdened by being who they have always been.

    At this point we must diverge and agree to disagree, since the nature of homosexuality and its relatinship to the Christian faith is not an issue we will resolve. Thank you.

  43. Kate says:

    They didn’t believe “literally”, they believed in the actual experience of touching and hearing. Jesus was not “literally” there, he was “actually” there! This surpasses what is merely literal.

    And that means what, exactly? My whole point in bringing it up is that Michael Ingham has stated, repatedly, that he doesn’t believe that Jesus was literally, physically, actually, resurrected from the dead, and that if the ACoC wanted to remain authentically Christian something ought to have been done about it.

    Would you accept a gay person who is comfortable with their own sexuality and happy with their lives in general and are good Christians? Or would you consider that a basic contradiction? If they wanted to be “cured” of homosexuality or find some way to disconnect from it or even repent of it, would they be more welcome?

    Church isn’t always supposed to be comfortable. We all sometimes need to be challenged about how we are living. There have been many times in my Christian life that I have been challenged by a sermon, or by my bible reading, or by my interactions with brothers and sisters in Christ, to make life changes. In direct answer to your question, there are much more important things about a new person who walks through the door than who he or she is sleeping with, or how greedy, or pridefull, or gluttonous they are. The most important thing about them is that they need a saviour. However, once Jesus is our saviour, then these words apply:

    1 Cor 6:11

    9Or do 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, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And 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.

    Which one of us has not been guilty of one of the things on that list? We are all welcome as we are, but if we stay that way, the church is not doing her job.

  44. Kate says:

    I note that you didn’t answer this:

    Are you willing to take a long hard look at the assumptions and stereotypes of ANiC that you cling to so closely?

  45. Richard says:

    I find the word (malakos) for homosexuals translated “effeminate” or “self-abuser” in the King James Version and as “male prostitute” in the NRSV and NIV. It derives from the Greek word for “soft”, but in fact no one knows its exact meaning for Paul and the original meaning may have been lost. I have no doubt that I should look further. My point is that this passage can be used or interpreted in a number of ways and we read into it what we want.

    Believe it or not, I have taken a long hard look. Why do you think I am on this site? As I have said, I am personally familiar with laity and clergy from the ANiC. Read Matthew 7.1-12.

  46. Richard says:

    Matthew 7.1-12
    7‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s* eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your neighbour,* “Let me take the speck out of your eye”, while the log is in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s* eye.

    6 ‘Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.

    7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

    12 ‘In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

  47. Kate says:

    My point was that we are all sinners, but we ought not to expect the church to affirm our sinfulness; rather, we should expect the church to challenge us to grow. The passage on judgement is not relevant to my point at all.

    12 ‘In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

    If I am doing something that will result in my separation from God, I would want my brothers and sisters to (gently and humbly) point it out to me.

  48. Kate says:

    I don’t intentionally read into the Bible what I want. I seek to find out what it really means, and submit myself to it.

  49. Richard says:

    To compensate for any previous errors:
    I Corinthians 6:9:
    The passage: In his first epistle to the church at Corinth, Paul lists many activities that he believes will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (heaven). Robertson’s Word Studies refers to this passage as: “a solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members.” 1

    Unfortunately, the Greek original from which many English language Bibles have been translated, is ambiguous about two of the groups who are condemned.

    The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:

    “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (Emphasis ours)

    This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. Unfortunately, many of the translations do not differentiate between:

    Persons who are sexually attracted to others of the same-sex, but who are celibate and do not act on their desire, and
    Persons who are are sexually active and who act on their sexual attraction to others of the same sex.

    The two activities of interest — shown above in bold — have been variously translated as:

    effeminate (KJV, NASB): In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility.

    homosexuals, variously described as: “men who practice homosexuality,” (ESV);
    “those who participate in homosexuality,” (Amplified);
    “abusers of themselves with men,” (KJV);
    “practicing homosexuals,” (NET Bible). This translation would refer only to persons with a homosexual or bisexual orientation who is sexually active with persons of the same sex. It would not include persons who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, but who are celibate.
    “homosexuals,” (NASB, CSB, NKJ, NLT, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English);
    “homosexual perversion,” (NEB);
    “homosexual offenders,” (NIV);
    “liers with mankind,” (Rhiems); and
    “homosexual perverts.” (TEV)
    “passive homosexual partners.” (NET Bible)

    Although “homosexual” is a very common translation, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:
    If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.

    The second term is “arsenokoitai” in Greek. The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. “Arsen” means “man” in Greek. So there is no way that “arsenokoitai” could refer to both male and female homosexuals. It seems that the translators gave in to the temptation to widen Paul’s condemnation to include lesbians as well as gay males.

    Unfortunately, the term “homosexual” is commonly defined in two different ways: as a behavior (engaging in same-sex activity) or as a sexual orientation (being sexually attracted only to members of the same sex). Most of the biblical translations appear to refer to behavior rather than orientation.

    male prostitutes, also described as “men kept for unnatural purposes.” The term “male prostitutes” (NIV, NRSV, CSB, NLT) can be interpreted in modern times as men who are paid to have sex with men only or with women only or with men or women. The original Greek appears to refer only to male-male contact.

    catamites, or boy prostitute. This is a young male who is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB, James Moffatt). These translations provide another example of a theme that runs throughout the Bible: the transfer of guilt and punishment from guilty perpetrators to innocent persons.

    pederasts: male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile (an adult who molests young children) or abusive hebephile (an adult who molests post-pubertal teenagers).

    perverts: a person engaged in some undefined activity that is one of the dozens of sexual activities that some consider to be perversions. (Phillips, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

    sodomites: This used to refer to inhabitants of the city of Sodom which is described in Genesis 19. It is now used as a “snarl” word to refer to men who have sex with men. InGenesis 19, the men of the city are described as wanting to rape some male visitors. Many Christians interpret this as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior, whether rape or consensual; whether a one-night stand or within a committed relationship. (NRSV, NKJ, NAB).

  50. David says:

    Richard,

    A multiple choice question:

    Are you trying to convince us that we hold an incorrect view of the biblical injunctions against homosexual activity?

    Yourself?

    Neither; you are just rattling chains?

    Whichever answer – why?

  51. Richard says:

    What does “arsenokoitai” really mean?
    Nobody knows for certain.

    “Arsenokoitai” is made up of two parts: “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds.”

    Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word “paiderasste.” That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

    Many sources have speculated about the meaning of “arsenokoitai:”

    “Homosexual offenders:” The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked “heterosexual offenders” or “heterosexual sexual offenders.” We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse).
    Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew “quadesh” in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to “arsenokoitai.” This passage referred to “male temple prostitutes” – people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers – a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.
    Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which containe the word “arsenokoitai:” This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch’s Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers “to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex).” 2 Probably “pimp” or “man living off of the avails of prostitution” would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that “Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai.”

  52. Kate says:

    Perhaps you could answer David’s question?

    Your analysis of the NT passages, even if they were correct, leave out what the OT says about same sex sexual knowing. Please don’t trot out the shellfish argument – that’s a ceremonial law that doesn’t bind Christians. We don’t have to follow the ceremonial laws because of what Jesus did for us on the cross. At any rate, you seem to be under the impression that we are all obsessed with sex. Same sex marriage is only the presenting issue. Kendall Harmon puts it much more clearly than I can, you’ll find his video The Iceberg on this website:

    http://www.anglicandecision.com/

  53. Kate says:

    Further, here is an essay by Robert Gangon, Associate Professor of NT studies at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He addresses most of the points you’ve made here. (Fair warning, it’s 30 pages long).

    http://www.anglicannetwork.ca/pdf/case_not_made_062007.pdf

    Your point in #51 simply isn’t accurate. Quoted from Gagnon:

    Paul in 1 Cor 6:9 lists “soft men” (malakoi, i.e. men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners) and “men who lie with a male” (arsenokoitai; cf. also 1 Tim 1.10) among a series of sexual offenders that include adulterers and, implied in the context, men who engage in incest and men who have sex with prostitutes (pornoi, cf. 5.9-11; 6.15-16). Such persons, whether they claim to be believers or not, “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” if they do not repent (6.9-10; cf. 2 Cor 12:21).

  54. Warren says:

    Richard (#49), a quick Google search would suggest that you are cutting and pasting from various sources without attribution. Naughty, naughty. I find it interesting to note the character of the likely sources you pulled your quotes from. Here’s the “statement of beliefs” from the source I suspect you used:

    We are a multi-faith group. As of 2010-FEB, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.

    And the source:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

Leave a Reply