Can we nominate this guy for orders? Its a better sermon than I've heard in my parish in years... http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...t-to-see-the-church-oppose-same-sex-marriage/
ah I remember my seminary days.....don't preach on doctrine people don't want to hear that, or don't sound angry or mean, don't hurt feelings or point out their sin...they will just leave. Preaching like that just divides people. To which my young naive, but wise cracking retort was "yes divide them in to sheep and goats. Feed the sheep save the goats." I sadly found in ministry, the majority want the I am ok, you are ok, God loves you try to do good sermon. Keep me comfortable and don't require anything of me. I constantly heard...that maybe ok for you or I don't think scripture means what you think it means Father. You want priest to preach like this guy....then put on your armor, pick up your sword and defend your priest to the death when the minions of Satan come after him. I was rarely defended by the parish from the ones who attended but did not want to live the Christian life. Orthodox and Godly priests in the main do two things when constantly attacked with no support. Conform or leave the ministry. You want a priest to speak forcefully and plainly. Tell him and then stand shoulder to shoulder with him when the attacks and wagging tongues start. We are in a spiritual war and need to act like it. Pray, pray and pray some more. Then live the actions of your prayers. And when your priest stumbles or is knocked down.....pick him up, brush him off and join him in the fight. The Irish vote and the response of the clergy (and Rome) does not surprise me. No real preaching of the Gospel or of sin and the consequences. A few months ago, I heard a young priest preach a sermon on sexual sin. From the pew I could see his hands shaking and see he was very nervous. During the sermon people made comments. After Mass they started in on him. My wife and I were the only ones in a 400+ congregation to defend him. People complained to the Bishop. After that....milktoast sermons. Don't do anything to hinder the plate and pledge.
Sadly, my priest says she isn't quite sure that the real sinners aren't the homophobes in the church who use the word of God to tell people who the can or can't love.... Please pray for her. And for parish too. I feel the words of the apostle to St. Timothy ring truer and truer:"the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
Probably not. I suspect on the basis of what he declares he would be unlikely to affirm the Nicene Creed (I think he would stop before the second word and certainly before the fourth). None the less I understand that there is an attraction to clarity. We, as Anglicans, are often given to nuanced statements. We do not, for the most part, accept scripture uncritically, and in general we will want to understand the context. For us a text out of context is a con. So even though the Bible endorses slavery, we understand that contextually, and pretty much universally we would stand against slavery. Once we made women wear hats and not speak in Church, now we understand the social context of Paul's exhortations, we have been able to allow women to appear in Church without a veil, to read lessons, lead intercession, and an much of the Church today to preside at the Eucharist. Sadly the debate that the Church needs to engage in is Marriage. What is it. If it is a sacrament - then what is the thing that this sign points to. Then we can look at the things that constitute the sacrament, and the Biblical narrative that surrounds it, with due and appropriate criticism to decide what we are really meant to take from this passage or that in the go forward. That includes an understanding of what is descriptive and what is prescriptive. http://www.sobornost.org/Journal-FSASS_1.pdf The artical by Fr Gabriel Herbet SSM is an excellent place to begin some reading on the subject.
I can generally agree with your post Philip, but must take issue with your statement that the bible "endorses slavery". Perhaps I've missed it, but I've never seen that text even without context. I don't think allowing and regulating an activity is tantamount to endorsing that activity. Think of this, US laws allow smoking and regulate the activity, but the US government can't be said to endorse it. Quite the opposite, it has engaged in a long campaign to persuade people to quit smoking....But perhaps this is a topic for another thread. Also, I am skeptical of higher criticism, since it is often so sceptical of biblical truth. I do not mean to imply that HC, when done rightly, is wrong per se. However, I've just never seen it done rightly. It is invariably the pretense used by self-coronated "experts" and pop theologians for leveling the most insidious kinds of attacks on the foundations of Christianity. For example, in the article he says that it is wrong to say Adam and Eve's existence isn't real, instead that their existence is both real and false. At which point he feels he's done a good thing. But Solomon's wisdom was found in threatening to cut the babe in two...not actually going through with it. By trying to find some common ground between belief and unbelief, Herbert does a worse number than even the unbeliever does by attacking the bible. Herbert attacks both the bible and logic in his high minded compromise. The bible declares Adam and Eve to be real...affirmatively and absolutely...turning that express "yes" into a "yes and no" is not supported by scripture or the apostolic witness, and is repugnant to reason. It's a compromise by men uncomfortable with the unpopular and passe stances required by their faith to save face at dinner parties, and it chips away at the rock of our salvation. Moreover, Herbert makes the same mistake made by every other HCer I've ever read by submitting bible truth to the judgment of science, which is not the gold standard that he purports it to be. It is constantly being revised, reformed and rethought. Science, it should be remembered is not the Law of material reality, but rather our admittedly incomplete and tentative understanding of it... Talk about a house built on shifting sand. A rather poor arbiter of the veracity of the Word of the Eternal God in my opinion. Our Lord puts it like this, heaven and earth will pass away, but His words (coming from Him who is the Eternal Word) never will. The bible is true. A person's response to that statement is dispositive on his status as a Christian in every way but the nominal.
It can be hardly said that the Bible in any way endorses slavery when it teaches doctrines that form the basis for Natural Rights of Man that lay at the root of the American republic. Slavery can be considered wrong because men have rights, and such rights have been "endowed by our Creator," which should tell us what we need to know on where the Bible stands on that issue.
and in more specific terms, St Paul, in his letter to St Timothy, lists enslavers as one of the unjust and lawless who are under the Law's condemnation. (1 Tim 1:10)
I remember a skit, i took part in at school on this subject, 'Love God and thy neighbour as thyself.!' The Slave was handed up on to the school platform, in the hall where the daily service usually took place. I was a tall thin gangly lad, of about 10 yrs old, about 1943. My job, was to hand the slave to the cruel slave master, (he was dressed in our version of an S.S. Uniform. My lines were ," I don't like this Abdul, but I've no choice, but whoever buys you or wherever you go, Remember, "Love God and thy neighbour as thyself." It was part of the school effort to win the war against Hitler. It taught me a lesson in cynicism!
I take Lowly Layman's point to a point. Three verses to look at are here http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=300093617. Ephesians 6:5, 1 Peter 2:18, Colossians 3:22. In fairness, I struggle with this statement in its a bare form. Firstly for Pilate's Question which seems so poignantly highlighted each Good Friday. I grew up in a tradition that wanted me to accept every word as literally true in every way. For a long time I struggled (and many of my friends simply went away) yet in the midst of it was Jesus calling me to respond. Probably until the printing press Christians didn't really have the Bible as such for response, just the bits they heard. They found Jesus in the life and witness of friends, family, preachers and teachers, and in the sacraments of the Church. The Holy Spirit bears witness in a way that is not limited. A friend of mine struggling with sacramental theology was confronted by a railway advertisement promoting healthy lifestyle which had an image of an over stuffed cream bun and quoted Feuerbach 'You are what you eat' and for my friend this burnt deep into his soul in a Damascus Road kind of way. He is still a touch on the chubby side, loves his cream buns, but his sacramental theology is locked tight. God reveals himself. I accept the Bible as the primary record of revelation, as the litmus test (taken as a whole and in context) of all the claims for spiritual and ethical issues. God, who calls me into being, demands I take some responsibility, that I hang a question mark over every claim, and that I aspire to that which is good and wholesome and beneficial for my brothers sisters in humanity. This question mark is the same question mark I would like others to hang over their contextual documents as well - be that Old Testament, Old and New Testament, Koran, whatever. The Council of the Church that determined what we accept as the New Testament also gave a us the Nicene Creed. For the Council it was the Creed and a person's response to the creed (sans filioque) that was dispositive (to use your fancy word) on her/his status as a Christian. Jesus has pitched his tent in the midst of us, and he calls us to respond to him, and to all who receive him, he gives power to become children of God. I absolutely adore the painting by Honthorst, Christ before the High Priest - the eyes of all are transfixed and you are not quite sure if the High Priest is looking at Jesus or the Candle or the book. With the law in front of him the High Priest is struggling, no doubt believing himself loyal to the book. The face of Jesus seems almost Dutch, with some of the strength of the Dutch Reformation. Do we respond to Book, Light or to Jesus? I hope, Lowly Layman my friend and brother in Christ, that you understand that I am not challenging your statement, nor your integrity, but simply as someone long scarred by fundamentalist legalistic evangelicals - I am trying to preserve a witness to a living Christ who embraces human beings, and calls us to respond in love with love to love. Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy on us.
I will pray for you, your parish and for the woman who is confused in so many ways. She thinks God is a homophobe and those who obey the Word of God who tells us to follow the word of God (scripture) are also. God never told us who we can and can not love. We are commanded to love all. He tells us with who and what we can have sex. I am married. God forbids me to have sex with anyone but my wife. I love multiple people. I even love other women ie mother, sisters, friends etc. I will pray for the Holy Spirit to guide and protect you.