The Law and the Church
Here is an article from a small California newspaper that actually explains the reasons for the threatened schism in the Episcopal Church better than many more "thoughtful" pieces in bigger publications.
On the one hand:
“We believe gay clergy is spoken against in the Holy Scripture,” said Father Stan Collins of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Tracy. Liberal Episcopal churches, he said, “say that scripture must be interpreted to meet the age.”
And that’s a philosophy Episcopal conservatives insist is not biblical, Collins said.
On the other hand:
[Sean] McConnell [communications officer with the 82-church Diocese of California in San Francisco] said the “spirit” of scripture is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. The rest, he said, should be open to interpretation.
So there you have it. At the very base, the debate is whether the Bible means what it says, or whether it's open to interpretation. In a sense, this discussion isn't so unlike the different approaches to constitutional interpretation: The "plain meaning" school of conservatives vs. the "living constitution" of the liberals.
The problem, of course, with Mr. McConnell's approach is this: He's decided what the "spirit" of scripture is -- namely, to "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" (both, of course, central Christian teachings). But what makes only that precept exempt from the "openness to interperetation" that he invokes for understanding the rest of the Biblical mandates?
The conservatives seem to believe in the concept of an eternal and unchanging truth that's set down in the Bible. The liberals seem to want to reinterpret the Bible's plain meaning selectively, in order to make it consistent with their own notions of right and wrong, and in doing so, effectively negate the concept of a truth that doesn't change with the times (except, of course, for the one, infinitely flexible precept mentioned above).
That's convenient, but is it legitimate?
On the one hand:
“We believe gay clergy is spoken against in the Holy Scripture,” said Father Stan Collins of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Tracy. Liberal Episcopal churches, he said, “say that scripture must be interpreted to meet the age.”
And that’s a philosophy Episcopal conservatives insist is not biblical, Collins said.
On the other hand:
[Sean] McConnell [communications officer with the 82-church Diocese of California in San Francisco] said the “spirit” of scripture is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. The rest, he said, should be open to interpretation.
So there you have it. At the very base, the debate is whether the Bible means what it says, or whether it's open to interpretation. In a sense, this discussion isn't so unlike the different approaches to constitutional interpretation: The "plain meaning" school of conservatives vs. the "living constitution" of the liberals.
The problem, of course, with Mr. McConnell's approach is this: He's decided what the "spirit" of scripture is -- namely, to "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" (both, of course, central Christian teachings). But what makes only that precept exempt from the "openness to interperetation" that he invokes for understanding the rest of the Biblical mandates?
The conservatives seem to believe in the concept of an eternal and unchanging truth that's set down in the Bible. The liberals seem to want to reinterpret the Bible's plain meaning selectively, in order to make it consistent with their own notions of right and wrong, and in doing so, effectively negate the concept of a truth that doesn't change with the times (except, of course, for the one, infinitely flexible precept mentioned above).
That's convenient, but is it legitimate?
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:41 AM
9 Comments:
Well said, Amber.
The problem comes in two ways, it seems to me. First, it seems that since God has given certain rules we are to follow along with the command to love Him above all others, the second commandment - to love others as ourselves - is either equal to or lesser than the first. If you love Him above all else, then the second has to be subject to the first.
Secondly, if loving someone as you love yourself means not condemning them for the wrong they do, then that means that you allow yourself to do wrong without condemnation. (I realize that "condemn" is too strong a word, but "blame" doesn't fit. I mean "condemn" in the sense of clearly stating that a particular action is sinful.) Logically, that inevitably leads to a state of mind where anything I do is OK - or sinlessness, which is exactly where liberals want to go. Personal responsibility in morality means accepting certain actions as wrong, and accepting that we ourselves _can_ do wrong. Lots of people don't want to accept that little fact, and deriving from that are setting themselves up as their own personal God who determines what is right and wrong.
Someone asked this on Google answers. Link below.
Other than Sodom and Ghomorrah, I'm not that aware of any, but then I'm a born and raised RC, and we all know that RCs don't read the bible as avidly as other Christian groups. On the other hand, I went to Latin Masses. Missals were English on one side, and Latin on the other, so "not understanding" the Latin was no excuse. I also appreciated the fact that Masses were the same in Germany as in the USA.
In high school, I took 3 years of Latin as well. It was expected that we would _all_ take a minimum of 2 years. Those were the old days...you know...for those of us close to 80...!
http://tinyurl.com/ndqn4
Suek's post is right on.
Verses condemning homosexuality in the Bible:
Genesis 19:5
Leviticus 18:22
Deuteronomy 23:17
Isaiah 3:9
Romans 1:27
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
Jude 1:7
Genesis through Isaiah -- Old Testament
Romans though Jude -- New Testament
Wrabkin is right in that the Bible is often interpreted differently by different readers and different religions do seem to pick and choose the passages that they like best. It is also, however, important to distinguish between doctrine and policy. Doctrine is unchangeable, policy is not.
ELC is also right that a divinely established authority is necessary, but I don't think the Catholic Church can legitimately claim to be that authority. The Bible does talk about how there would be a great apostasy -- a falling away -- when the true gospel would not be on the earth and that a restoration of truth would be necessary.
That restoration began in the spring of 1820 in New York State would God and Jesus Christ appeared to a teenage boy named Joseph Smith. We thankfully have a living prophet on earth who speaks for God and helps us to understand the meaning of the scriptures. We also have the help of the Holy Ghost in understanding and interpreting holy writ.
The prophets have confirmed what is written in both the Old and the New Testament -- homosexuality is a sin. We are commanded to love all men, but we are not commanded to love all that they do.
DH -- The name of the church the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polygamy is not allowed in our church at this time nor has it been since the late 1800's. Those found to be practicing polygamy are excommunicated. The nickname "Mormon" does specifically refer to our church or its members. Therefore, referring to those religions which engage in the practice of polygamy as "Mormon sects" or "Mormon fundamentalists" is erroneous. Our church has NO sects and NO fundamentalists. We are one faith.
Polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament -- look at Abraham and Jacob. This was allowed by God at times and at other times it was not. When God allowed it, it was practiced according to the rules He set forth. It was the same under Joseph Smith and other early leaders of the modern Church. Men could not just go around marrying as many women as they wanted and only 10% of the church was ever involved in the practice. It is not practiced now because God has forbidden it at this time.
Polygamy, therefore, is not a fundamental doctrine of our church, but is rather a practical policy put into place when God so commands.
This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, but people do love to bring up polygamy whenever the LDS church is mentioned.
DH -- Also, the LDS Church never practiced polyandry. You are wrong about that.
DH -- I skimmed that article. If that is accurate, then I guess I was wrong. But it looks like those were sealings (temple marriages) and they never lived as husband and wife, which is not what I would have thought you meant when you said that members of the church practiced polyandry.
But it really doesn't change anything about this topic -- which was the authority of the Bible, specifically where it concerns homosexuality. I listed Biblical references for you, so now you might want to admit that your assumption that the Bible does not specifically condemn homosexuality is wrong.
>> I'm curious where such rigid thinking evolves from.>>
You mean...as in "right" and "wrong"?
As in the 10 Commandments?
As in yes/no? black/white? line in the sand?
Is that what you mean by "rigid thinking"?
Dittohead:
The biblical mandate is that no believer should be a slave, which is a symbol of as well as a punishment for sin. The predominant image that God presents of himself to the Israelites is a redeemer from the bondage of Egypt. There were only 3 ways that someone could become a slave under the Torah: as a punishment for theft, in order to pay off a debt or as a prisoner of war. The first two are somewhat equivalent since a thief was required to pay back what he stole and could only be sold into slavery if he did not have the money. The third form of slavery only applied to the time when the Church was equivalent to the state, which has been abolished in the New Testament era. Kidnapping someone in order to sell them into slavery (the predominant method in the African slavery with which we are most concerned in this country) was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7).
The problems of interpretation in the Bible are not so difficult to those familar with the text. The reason so many people have such trouble is usually because they are ignorant of what is actually written or because they don't want their ideology screwed up by the facts.
In regard to Carol's original post, I have to demur from her characterization that "At the very base, the debate is whether the Bible means what it says, or whether it's open to interpretation." Both sides acknowledge that the Bible is open to interpretation. The debate is over competing standards of interpretation. The orthodox claim that sexual immorality (which, as biblically defined, includes homosexuality but also adultery, incest, bestiality and several other categories) is bad for both the sinner and the society he lives in. It is thus consistent with love of our neighbor to tell them they ought to stop, in precisely the same way that you would tell an alcoholic he ought to stop drinking. The revisionists believe that internal desires and feelings are more reliable than ancient documents as a source of knowledge about God, so they do not attach the same enduring importance to the scriptures.
Late to the game, but here goes:
Ditto,
Your desire for understanding is the best post you've submitted. If sincere, and I'm assuming it is, it marks a good beginning and I hope you continue. Unfortunately, to really get down with Biblical support for conservative opinion is difficult for such a forum. It would indeed take a period of Biblical study, and by that I mean also studying about the Bible and the times that produced it. Peripheral study is important for interpretational issues.
But for the points you've submitted, the homosexuality issue is resolved with the many tracts submitted by Jessica. As to war, it is the same as money. Money is not condemned, but the intention behind it's aquisition may be. I believe our part in the current war is not "sinful" because of the intent behind it. A clear danger is seen and war is required to deflect that danger. It's like killing. Killing is not neccessarily bad, but murder is. Murder is killing with bad intentions, killing isn't neccessarily so.
One more thing about the homo issue. There is much that Jesus didn't say about a variety of things. Remember that His original purpose was for the salvation of God's Chosen, the Jews. At that time, there was no debate over the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. It was not widely practiced by the nation of Israel if at all. Thus, there was no reason for Jesus to expound upon the issue, other than to say, as He did, to obey God's commands. And of course, since He IS God, He made plain His desires back at Leviticus 18:22.
As to the original post of Carol's, it's the old story of life on our terms or God's.
Post a Comment
<< Home