Genocide
5 days ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
An Anglican Down Under special interest blog - a contribution from an evangelical perspective to debates over what the Bible means, especially in respect of the dignity of all human beings.
Pages
Why this blog?
The Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia (ACANZP) is on a journey of understanding in respect of Scripture and human sexuality. In August 2007 it held the first of three Hermeneutical Hui. It was an introduction to hermeneutics. The second was held in May 2009. It's topic was Scripture and Church. The third is likely to be held in 2010. It's topic will be Scripture and Human Sexuality.
During the second hui a point was made in a discussion between some evangelical Anglicans: we have not done work ourselves on how we understand the Bible in relation to homosexuality ... or marriage and divorce ... or, for that matter, the ordination of women.
We may organise some hui ourselves. In the meantime this blog may be of service in developing an evangelical hermeneutic 'Down Under' (Australians welcome too!).
Why a specifically 'evangelical' blog? Well, it's possible another site may be developed which will be a kind of 'whole of ACANZP' site. On such a site presumably everything will be up for discussion, and all perspectives will contribute. On this site I hope we will not have to debate matters on which evangelicals generally have a common understanding. Comments from other perspectives are very welcome - but posts from other perspectives will be directed towards this other proposed site. Out of the deliberations here I hope some good ideas will feed on to the larger site.
There will be no posts/comments accepted which are not in accordance with respecting 'the other person', whoever that may be, as one made in the image of God; similarly for posts/comments which make presumptions about the sins and failings of 'the other side'.
I will keep under review Anonymous comments. My preference is for commenters here to name themselves when simply discussing issues. Those wishing to talk about their experiences may have understandable reasons for remaining Anonymous.
If you wish to submit something to be posted, please let me know in a comment or email to: prcarrell@gmail.com
Finally, a last word from our sponsor, Soren Kierkegaard,
"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."
Top Articles
Women teaching men the Bible: what's the problem? by Graham Coles
Interesting articles and blogposts
Articles and blogposts linked here provide an introduction to the wariety of hermeneutical possibilities being pursued in the Anglican Communion in respect of issues concerning human dignity:
Two part sermon series on Women in Ministry from Sydney:
Hermeneutics Papers
My paper at the second Hui is available here
Helps for Hermeneutics
We are guided by traditional interpretation: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (what is believed everywhere, always, by all) - Vincent of Lerins, d. 450.
We are wary of 'private judgement': it is more likely that the judgement of many scholars is correct than our own judgement as individuals.
We seek what the text meant when written and when incorporated into the canon of Scripture, and seek its meaning for today -both how we understand the text and how we might apply it.
We explore the world behind the text (the historical context in which the text was composed), the world within the text (the narrative world created by the text itself), and the world before the text (the world in which we as readers belong) in order to understand the text from multiple perspectives.
We read any text against the background of the whole of Scripture, seeking an understanding which is not contradictory of the remainder of Scripture; and seeking the light of Scripture as a whole to illuminate the understanding of its parts.
We acknowledge the role of our own cultural context affecting the way we read Scripture: like fish in water we may not be aware that other contexts for life exist in which there may be more light!
Mostly Kiwi Biblical Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
The Good Book8 years ago
Sites for digging deeper
Followers
About Me
- Peter Carrell
- I am not important, but Jesus is! His profile is found in the Gospels.
COMMENTS CARRIED OVER FROM ADU
ReplyDeleteFROM TIM CHESTERTON
Shawn said,
'There is no proof that homosexual compulsions are an orientation. In fact using the term "orientation" is again, ideology, not science.'
Shawn, I have no interest in ideology. I'm a pastor and a father, trying to make sense of the experiences of real human beings who tell me what they've been through. I've no personal axe to grind; my own instinctive theological disposition is rather traditional evangelical Anglican, but I find that people are rather more complicated than the nice tidy 'liberal/conservative' dichotomy that seems to shape your entire worldview.
FROM RON SMITH
This, I promise, is my final attempt to refute the obvious mistaken-ness of Shawn's postings on homosexuality on this thread.
Shawn says - in response to Tim's statement, backed by personal experience and not social theory:
"There is no proof that homosexual compulsions are an orientation. In fact using the term "orientation" is again, ideology, not science."
My final response,to this assertion, is this:
Is there any proof that the hetero-sexual activity involved in the process of 'wife-swapping' is more a matter of compulsion than innate orientation?
(Shawn's theory on this please? then my dialogue with him is done)
FROM RON SMITH – lightly moderated re ad hominems
On the evidence of Shawn's bull-dozing ... stance repeatedly pushed by him on this site. I hereby promise that I will from this moment onwards, cease to take him seriously in anything he says, and will not comment on his [] comments about the intrinsic nature of homosexuality.
He has made his mind up and that's his position for ever and ever. Not even a visit from the Archangel Gabriel would change Shawn's mind.
[]
I just thank God for you, Tim. You speak from personal experience of what it means to be related to an intrinsically 'Gay' person. Thank you for your generosity in sharing.
Tim,
ReplyDeletePlease understand that my comment about ideology was a general one about the issue, and not aimed at you personally, though I can see, given the way it was framed as a response to a statement from you, how it could have been taken that way.
I respect, that in your case, you are simply trying to sort things out on a personal level, and that for you this is not about ideology. Nevertheless, terminology such as "orientation" IS ideological, not science. I have known enough gay people, many as close and personal friends, to know that the claim "they are born that way" is far too simplistic to be taken as settled truth.
Ron,
I think your the last person posting here who should be talking about bulldozing.
"He has made his mind"
And so have you. So?
"Not even a visit from the Archangel Gabriel would change Shawn's mind."
Would it change yours?
Just a final point on this issue from me.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of whether or not people are born "gay" is not relevent to the issue of what the Church should teach. Even if it could be conclusively proven that some people are born with homosexual attractions, for me this makes no difference, because the issue is what does the Word of God teach.
In a way, Ron's comment about the Archangel Gabriel coming down and revealing God's opinion is ironic, because the orthodox view is that this HAS in fact happenned, in a sense. God HAS come to us, condescended to us, and given His opinion. That is what the text of Scripture is.
Not everything that occurs in nature is good. This is why a Biblical worldview is so important. In that view, creation, while originally good, is fallen and corrupt. Thus merely because something occurs in nature does not make it good and right.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts and cancer occur "naturally".
And there is some evidence that both pedophilia and the psychopathologies that go into making serial killers may be partially genetic.
Thus, merely because something occurs in nature does not tell us anything about whether or not it is good and right. We need a higher authority for that, a higher authority by which we can make moral/value judgements.
For Christians that higher authority is Scripture.