Bishop Robert F. Waggener will trade his bishop’s mitre for a priest’s biretta in the Western Rite.
Bishop Waggener, who until recently served as bishop of the Diocese of the Holy Cross, has become the first Continuing Anglican bishop to convert to the Antiochian Orthodox Church’s Western Rite Vicariate.
Fr. Michael Keiser will receive Bp. Waggener and his parishioners at Christ Church of Lynchburg, VA, as catechumens on March 5. Deo volente, Bp. Robert Waggener will then be ordained to the priesthood within the Orthodox Church.
Bishop Waggener and his congregation have truly expressed their desire to attain Christ above all, joining themselves to His Holy Church. All have chosen to lay aside their titles, leave their church homes, and temporarily do without communion (very temporarily, we hope) in order to enter the Ark of Salvation. God will surely reward their zealous self-sacrifice.
Our thoughts and prayers are with His Grace and his congregation during this time of preparation. Some doubted this day would ever come about, but this should prove to our critics that the WRV is highly attractive and effective as a missionary tool. Deo gratias!
“O Lord, save Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance.”
http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/03/continuing-anglican-bishop-converts-to.htmlBen Johnson at 3:50 AM
You might want to consider changing your title. Continuing Anglicans do not take kindly to being called Episcopalians. They became Continuing Anglicans precisely to be rid of the Episcopal Church. 🙂
Al, thanks for bringing this my attention.
I wish there was a WR parish near me. I wish there was more of a proactive effort to create WR missions in areas with proud Anglicans history, such as New England.
Can someone tell me if the western rites orthodox are recognized by the other orthodox churches under the Patriarchite in Constantinople?
Since the Western Rite is a legitimate rite under the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese (AOA) and the AOA is a canonical jurisdiction, the answer is yes.
I too have sometimes wished there was a western rite Orthodox parish near. I think my main motive is the music. I have been Orthodox going on 10 years now, and I have yet to adjust to the music. While it is not as dissonant as something from China, it just is not as “natural” to the ear as western music. Also, I have yet to visit or be a member of a parish that does not over reach their abilities/talent with the eastern music. This even includes the huge Antiochian parish I was a member of in Louisville that had a large ‘cathedral’ choir which possessed members of serious musical talent. Eastern music simply has too many parts. There appears to be resistance to simplifying it for the choir and parish. For the first 2 or 3 years we were Orthodox, my wife and I would sneak off to an Episcopalian parish during Advent just to be able to sing and hear the western music that was so familiar to us. It is a sin I know, but I often am distracted during a 5 part, 22 note “Amen” that drags out for 10 seconds. Such an Amen seems self-absorbed at best.
Does anyone know more about the music they use in WR parishes?
Christopher, Here is the link to the Antiochian Archdiocese website. There is limited inofo about the Western Rite there here http://www.antiochian.org/. I know that Bishop Basil is committed to the growth and development of the Western Rite which is why is in charge of it I suppose.
Also, this is a link to the Western Rite Mission that currently uses the chapel in my home parish. I am sure they would be happy to communicate with you and answer any questions you might have: http://www.stmichaeloc.org/
One more link about the Western Rite: http://www.westernorthodox.com/basil
If you go to the home page of this website there is a Western Rite directory.
For the first 2 or 3 years we were Orthodox, my wife and I would sneak off to an Episcopalian parish during Advent just to be able to sing and hear the western music that was so familiar to us.
Why “sneak”?
Well, first of all at our Chrismation we spat on the Devil and all his works. Certainly the modern Episcopalian church qualifies as a work of this fallen angel. In the Antiochian’s excellent little red (sometimes black or white now I have noticed) prayer book the “self examination before confession” asks if you have attended schismatic’s/heretical church services. If so it is probably something that should be confessed. In other words, it’s not something I wanted to speak publicly with fellow parishioners, and while our desire was “understandable” it is something we did at our own spiritual risk.
The last time we did it, we went to the large downtown Episcopalian church. We noticed several couples of homosexualist men, who were openly affectionate with each other. I had not seen this in the smaller, more traditional Episcopal churches my wife and I were part of before coming home to Orthodoxy. What really made an impression on me was that just after the service all these couples were immediately surrounded by other parishioners who were making a showy effort to greet them. It was as if a celebrity had walked into the room…
Michael,
Thanks for the links – unfortunately, there is not a western rite parish near my home. I do have family in Denver, so the next time I am there I plan on checking one out…
RE: No. 10.
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the oldest brother cannot understand why his father so warmly and effusively greeted his younger brother who had run away to live a life a sin and then returned when his money ran out.
Luke 15: 31-32
Gay people need God in their lives as much as anyone else, maybe more so. As long the Church is not adulterating it’s message, and the gay parishioners are sincere in their faith and desire to seek spiritual improvement, and not just validation for their lifestyle, then their presence in Church is a good thing.
Note 12 Unspoken presupposition
Dean’s note presupposes that there is such a phenomena as a “gay person” as opposed to a person who chooses to engage in homosexual activities.
Nature does not select for sterility. A gene which predisposed a person to exclusive attraction to his or her own sex would be extinguished from the population within 3 to 4 generations, even given the possibility of involuntary hetereosexual conduct by females. It certainly would have been extinguished during the course of recorded history.
How can a person claim to be on a path of spiritual growth if he or she rejects the plain teachings of the Church. The E”C”USA revisionists were unable to put together a theological or Scriptural defense of their ordination of Gene Robinson. The document that they submitted to the last major Anglican convocation in the U.K. didn’t even try. It merely argued that despite the Scriptural prohibition against homosexual conduct, it was terribly, terribly unpleasant, unfair and inconvenient to ask people participating in homosexual conduct to stop that conduct.
Accetance of “gay” relationships is a significant part of Europe’s decline. It is part of a society that doesn’t care enough about itself to ensure its continuation by having children. Elevating non-reproductive unions to the level of reproductive unions is a celebration of sterility and the death of a culture. All for me, today. Nothing for the future, no reinvestment of what the past invested in me to create a future. Nothing. Add to this the death of inconvenient sick people, inconvenient unborn people and inconvenient old people and you have Europe. Europe who is too disinterested to notice that its birth rate is hovering near the level of non-replacement.
Under 1.3 children per woman and the population goes into irreversible decline.
Biologists have very closely studied population trends in various species and several very strong conclusions can be drawn from these figures. It will be nearly impossible for Europe to retrieve its population mass. It is now truly time to refer to native Europeans as “indigenous” Europeans, as others move in and take their place.
Gay acceptance is ONE of several causes of this.
It is a grave sin to push people away from God. Jesus Christ died on the cross for the stated purpose of saving all human beings. How then can we seek to deliberately frustrate Christ’s purpose and undo His work by preventing people sincerely seeking God from coming to Church and hearing His message of salvation?
If hearing Christ’s message of hope, love and salvation causes a Gay person to change from feeling worthless and despised to feeling loved and valued by God, that IS a cause for celebration.
If hearing Christ’s message of hope, love and salvation causes a Gay person to abandon the self-loathing that leads to so many self-destructive behaviors, and rededicate their lives to more nobler purposes, that IS a cause for celebration.
If hearing Christ’s message of hope, love and salvation causes a Gay person to reject a life of mindless promiscuity, and commit themselves to a caring, monogamous relationship, that IS a cause for celebration.
A little more humility and caution is required of us. We don’t know whether homosexuality is a free lifestyle choice or an inborn genetic trait. If it is the latter, than our discrimination against homosexuals wil be seen by future generations as acts of cruelty and hatefulness every bit as repugnant as racism, mysogeny and ethnic intolerance.
Dean. accepting unrepentance?
You haven’t mentioned whether these people are repentant or at least committed to struggling against sin OR whether they are unrepentant. The comment that started this strongly suggested that the couple involved DID NOT express repentance and acceptance of the teaching of the Christian tradition.
Would you welcome an unrepentant child molestor, an unrepentant murderer or others without pointing out that repentance and acceptance of the teaching of the Church is required? [I wouldn’t personally do anything, but, I would expect the appropriate clerical leader of the congregation to do so]
ECUSA has lapse into unrestrained heresy causing a massive schism across the world. If you would like to understand the current state of ECUSA I suggest you read something about or by Peter Akinola a Christian leader of unquestioned integrity who has refused to condone sin and refused to call what is evil good.
If Christians do not warn people that homosexual conduct is a sin in the sight of God are we not doing a disservice to humankind, especially if people attend our churches. If Christians do not pass on this teaching, who will?
I think you can approach the objective morality of various actions regardless of the genetic inclination of specific individuals for or against the actions in question. What changes, and I think I have Catholic doctrine solidly behind me, is the degree of moral culpability of that individual.
For example, while we preach that anger is something to avoid and repent of, we simultaneously acknowledge that due to hormonal or genetic influences, various individuals may be more or less responsible for that anger based on their relative ability to control those impulses. The same goes for mental instability, insanity, etc. We may say that murder is a crime and a great evil, but we don’t send someone who is mentally ill to the chair, we send them to an asylum. The treatment is what changes.
In any rate, Missourian, you may find the following related 60 Minutes story interesting. (Can you tell I watch a lot of news programs?) When one sees certain youths behaving “differently” at 18 months old, I’m more inclined to believe there’s a developmental (while in utero) aspect to this whole issue (though not necessarily purely genetic).
Push people away from God?
Dean, perhaps we should define our terms and issues.
A priest could uphold the teachings of the Church and the sanctity and of the Church worship services while still remaining in contact with people who might be sincere spiritual seekers.
Assume an unrepentant homosexual couple began to attend a Church service. The proper person to deal with this would be the priest or clergy in charge of the congregation. If the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is a sin, then I would assume that the priest would advise the homosexual conduct that was the teaching of the Church. I would assume that person’s unable or unwilling to accept the teaching of the Church would not receive the sacraments of the Church. I would also assume that the priest would make himself available for counseling or discussion or study outside of worship services and apart from the sacraments.
It should be noted that there are groups actively seeking to challenge the teaching of the RC’s by showing up at RC church services dressed in rainbow sashes and attempting to take communion with the congregation. Sometimes people who engage in homosexual conduct are present at the Church service for the purpose of disrupting it.
As to E”C”USA a good share of the American leadership now teaches that homosexual conduct is approved by God.
Missourian: If it was a person defiantly living a promsicuous bathhouse lifestyle, looking for validation from one of those Chuches trying so hard to be inclusive that they begin to resemble an annex to a gay bar, than I agree with you. If a person like that came to my Church, they certainly would be coming to the wrong place.
On the other hand, if it was a gay person, sincerely seeking God and making an effort to live his or her life according to Christian values, as much as possible, I believe that person should be welcomed. If that person is living a clean, quiet, inconspicuous life and the only thing that we can find to disapprove of is that his or her partner is of the same gender, that to me does not qualify as a reason to turn someone away.
My Priest would probably disagree, but it is not clear to me that whether the Bible is condemning all same-sex relationships, or those where there is a sinful misuse and distortion of human sexuality by people seeking physical gratification in a selfish, unloving and exploitative manner.
Dean is homosexuality to you a choice or genetic based?
JBL: In the wider society people don’t “choose” to become homosexual because it’s an easy thing to do. Many struggle with their identity for years, and finally, when they do declare that they are gay, they do so knowing that they face the horror, shock and disapproval of loved ones and discrimination and harrassment from society at large. This would seem to suggest that it is an inborn genetic trait.
On the other hand, there are certain environments, like prison, the 19th century British navy or the celibate Preisthood, where the absence of any possibility for heterosexual relationships seems to increase the occurence of homosexuality. So you can’t rule out environmental factors as an idependent variable either.
For this reason society and the Church should continue to set heterosexuality as the desired norm, rather than an “anything goes” message that would encourage “experimentation” among young people.
In my opinion, if after a long period of time and/or personal struggle a person still claims to be gay, our focus should be on teaching that person to be sexually moral and responsible, rather than telling them that they are inately sinful, and “going to go to hell.”
That’s not the question I asked Dean. Do you believe then that homosexuality is dictated more by nuture or nature?
Dean, your example falls flat on the face of it. The Prodigal Son had seen that his life was an affront to God and to his father. He had repented. Sexually active, publically affectionate homosexuals don’t qualify as repentant. Unless, of course, you don’t believe they have anything to repent of, a position which is in direct opposition to Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church.
The Church should always receive with joy repentant sinners, but at the same time with the same love continue to call all to repentance. To excuse obvious sin is not an act of love, but of cowardice.
In addition to the sexual immorality inherent in homosexual behavior, to me Romans makes it clear that it is also a form of idolatry. Even if the tendency to that sin has a genetic component, it is no less a sin. We are fallen, each of us have physically encoded sinful tendancies–that is one of the reasons for the Incarnation so that we can, through God’s Grace overcome even those. The physicality may make it more diffcult to live a Christian life or it may mean we just have to spend more time in repentant prayer. The victory is no less available.
Christianity is not easy, few follow it. To attempt to make it easier just so more people have a false sense of security is selling out the faith and an insult to Jesus sacrifice on the Cross.
By the way, any Orthodox who falls into the trap of telling people they are going to hell misunderstands the nature of the Church. Sins should be identified so that we may be healed of them. Forgiveness is freely available to all, we just have to really want it.
By the way, all of the pathology of a homosexual life that you mentioned, why do you think it is there? I rather think it is the effect of sin, not the effect of cultural rejection.
Once again Dean, it seems you are falling for the trap of materialism rather than seeking to embody the reality of the Church.
I am not sure why you good folks bother with Dean. He has been posting the above nonsense (i.e. note #12) for years now at this site. In more charitable moments, I simply write it off as a man who must have received a strong blow to the head during his high school debate class, and like one of Dr. Oliver Sacks patients he is “stuck in the moment” as it were for the rest of is life. Other times, I am sure that to take a parable of our Lord (and the obvious happenings at that Episcopal church that night) and twist it the way he does is obvious proof of the real and abiding work of demons in our world. What ever the reason, there is only one word: incorrigible
Christopher
Sometimes in challenging the incorrigible’s posts may help clarify the evil of that philosophy to those who struggle with the same dark presence in the world.
Michael: Thanks for your response. It provided many good answers for the issues I raised.
Certainly I agree, that the Church cannot welcome people who are there only to pursue their own personal or social agenda. My concern was over how the Church should respond to gay people in need of spiritual healing and having a sincere desire for a closer relationship with God. In ministering to such people, the church must tread a thin line between denying needed spiritual solace on one hand, or ignoring behavior it believes is sinful on the other.
Christopher: In the spirit of Lent I am sorry if I have given offense. My point was that the presence of a gay person in Church is not neccesarily a bad thing if that person is there sincerely seeking spiritual reconcilation. As I note above some people come to church to pursue a different agenda and I should have realized that was the situation you were referring to.
Dean I don’t think anyone is arguing against homosexuals being in church. The argument is excusing sin because of social pressure.
Your statements reflect the nature argument because you continue to define a person as being homosexual even if they don’t engage in that type of sexual activity. A person is homosexual because they engage in that type of sex, not because they feel they are.
JBL –
Good point. ‘Homosexual’ describes an act, not a person. I am hardwired to pursue pretty 21-year old females. But I don’t act on that, because of the wife and kids I have at home. I control my natural biological urges because they conflict with my higher moral duties to God and to my community and to my family.
Same-sex urges may very well have a biological component. If so, what of it? A lot of mental and spiritual illnesses have a biological component. We don’t redefine them as ‘normal.’ We treat the condition, rather. Same thing here. To say that those with ‘same-sex’ urges are prisoners of their hormones is to open up that case to every kind of aberrant behavior, sexual and otherwise.
Unless you are in the grips of a mental disorder that renders rational thought impossible, then you are responsible for your own actions. And if those actions are contrary to common sense, human body design, and God’s laws – then that trifecta should be a wake up call.
Post 23 – This is a good case in point, Christopher, of what we discussed previously about splits in conservatism on foreign policy. We tend to generalize political opinions based on certain ‘camps.’ The assumption would normally be that if one were ‘anti-war’ concerning the Iraq War, then one would also be expected to be on board with the gay agenda, as the two are somehow considered linked in our political environment.
Well, I couldn’t be more radically opposed to the despicable and aberrant agenda of the ‘gay rights’ lobby and the pernicious influence of political correctness on so many religious organizations. That is a typical view, of course, among my circle of religiously orthodox (or Orthodox as the case may be) traditional conservatives.
If we could manage to keep the focus on domestic policy within the conservative movement, I think we could find a lot of points of common ground. The current pre-occupation with foreign policy is breeding disputes which are benefitting no one on our side of the political aisle.
On the confusion between action and orientation (from Touchstone):
The Gay Invention: Homosexuality Is a Linguistic as Well as a Moral Error
JBL writes: “The argument is excusing sin because of social pressure.”
So how is it when people have the effrontery to bring up the social peccadilloes of the past among our forefathers (such as that little thing about bringing blacks over on boats to work for 0 cents an hour), they’re accused of “presentism” and judging past events based on “today’s standards”?
After all, slavery was an accepted practice back then, right? “Everyone was doing it”, so why judge harshly?
I’m not sure how we can approach modern issues any differently then, so take into account “social pressures”, modern mores, etc. when judging someone.
At least you are honestly admitting that you reject Church teaching
I don’t understand how ascribing to the teachings of the Church can be considered to be a position which lacks humility or caution. Only a person who thinks that “today’s knowledge” supercedes God’s Word can take this position.
Dean, it is a free country but you have clearly substituted your private judgment for the long-held teaching of the Church. At least you are honest about it and simply state that you don’t have faith in the teaching of the
Church on this topic.
As to in-born genetic traits, selfishness, a tendency to anger, a willingness to lie, a willingness to hold grudges and be unforgiving, a willingness to use other people as objects to gratify lusts, hhmmmmmm, all in-born genetic traits. Some babies are born with cleft-palate or club feet, we don’t “celebrate” cleft-palates or club feet. We help the child as much as possible.
Lastly, Dr. Robert Gagnon’s work on the Biblical treatment of homosexual conduct is comprehensive. Dr. Gagnon is a bona fide scholar. His books painstakingly review all of the pseudo-arguments raised to challenge the clear Biblical condemnation of homosexual conduct. He reviews the original ancient languages from every section of the Bible that touches on homosexual conduct.
Query, if homosexual conduct were acceptable to God why in the entire course of the Bible is their no favorable mention of homosexual conduct? Quite an omission I would think.
Christopher, why I respond to Dean’s posts on homosexuality
Lawyers know that arguments are sometimes won by sheer, numbing repetition of the argument. One of the fundamental rules of lawyering is not to let a false argument go unrefuted. Dean asserts, I refute.
There are undoubtedly those who could do a better job of refuting his arguments but I just do what I can.
JamesK
Sin is sin. Slavery is slavery. Homosexuality is homosexuality. Slavery is not homosexuality.
Scripture is relatively silent on slavery, it neither condones nor condemns it. The most Scripture does is describe proper order in obeying what one does as a slave and how one acts as a master.
Homosexulilty is completely different because Scripture specifically condemns it as a sin. It is a timeless statement.
Presentism is taking present morals, ideas, etc. and inserting them into historical analysis about past events. There is no connection between the concepts you raise to come to your conclusion.
In a way you’re proving my point in excusing sin. But it’s muddled thinking because you’re using the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc to come to your conclusion.
Note 31. Speaking of Robert Gagnon:
Why “Gay Marriage” is Wrong
An Open Letter Regarding the Current Hate Crimes Amendment
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues
Note 30. Because slavery was eventually recognized to be the injustice that it was, an awareness grounded in the Judeo-Christian moral vision that took several centuries to bear fruit, and finally culminated in the moral vision of Martin Luther King and the American Civil Rights movement.
Gay rights, on the other hand, represents a devolution of moral awareness, even though it borrows the language of the Civil Rights Movement in the attempt to cast it as progressive (in the moral, not political, sense of the term).
See my article:
Gay Marriage Far Removed From Civil Rights Movement
“Scripture is relatively silent on slavery, it neither condones nor condemns it. ”
Slavery: “Slavery is a condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion. Slavery almost always occurs for the purpose of securing the labor of the person concerned. A specific form, known as chattel slavery, implies the legal ownership of a person or persons. ”
So let me get this straight. If I drive into, let’s say Compton, pick up some 13-year-old black kid and usher them off to my lovely chateau in Bel Air where they’ll pick weeds all day, mow my lawn, clean the toilets, scrub floors, etc for no pay before I shoo them off to the tool shed where they sleep on a bare dirt floor after a dinner of tripe and well-water, hey, that’s all fine and dandy (according to Scripture).
Thanks for clearing up my muddled thinking.
Of course I’m being sarcastic to prove a point. I don’t really think you believe the above situation is ethical. Scripture may be silent on it, but we don’t derive our ethics purely from Scripture, do we? I find no evidence that the Orthodox do. In fact, much of the sacramental nature of both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions are non Scriptural. So too with other ethical issues. Scripture is also silent on contraception, but both denominations have strict guidelines on their use, even within marriage.
If you’re arguing for sola Scriptura, I don’t think you’ll find many very receptive here. Are you saying that Catholic and Orthodox ethical guidelines are invalid and/or non-binding when they’re non Scriptural? Or are they binding only to Catholics/Orthodox? Actually, Im not sure what you’re saying.
No connection between Robinson’s alcoholism and homosexual conduct?
ECUSA’s flagship gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in a treatment for alcoholism. I am sure that there are those who will immediately pop up and state that alcoholism is a disease and it is unfair to link Robinson’s theological stance and gay partnership with alcoholism. SURE. RIGHT. UH-HUH.
Robinson was supposed to be the serene example of the wholesomeness and holiness of homosexual life in the Church. He was to show us the strength of his gay partnership. He was to show us that a homosexual lifestyle could flourish in the Church and that he could function as a Bishop supervising clergy and helping bring people to Christ. He was supposed to show that all this could be done with God’s blessing.
Robinson is in now alcohol rehab, his diocese is losing members left and right , hemoraghing what formerly was a massive endowment built up over the years by previous faithful Christians now blissfully enjoying their reward and spared the spectacle of what Robinson is doing with the magnificant Church buildings they left behind which are now being foreclosed and sold for use as who knows what.
Note 37. Timothy Dailey:
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
Note 37. One of the great lies perpetrated by gay rights sympathizers is that homosexual unions (of which so few are permanent that their numbers are statistically insignificant) share social and moral parity with heterosexual marriage. You see this especially in entertainment venues and the MSM.
Substance and partner abuse in gay relationships are very high. This too is kept from public view. Gene Robinson is the rule here, not the exception.
Dean
Have you read Dr. Gagnon’s work? It seems to me that if you have doubts about the Church’s teaching you owe it to yourself to read what he has to say. He has written articles for the general public and scholarly books for other theologians.
Have you read what the pro-gay presenters gave to the Anglican gathering in London a few months ago? It was supposed to be the Scriptural and theological defense of homosexual conduct. Out of 78 paragraphs only 6 to 10 dealt directly with the treatment of homosexual conduct in the Bible and the arguments were incredibly weak. Most of the document was a complaint against the injustice of violence against people who engage in homosexual conduct. No one in the Church, of course, advocates violence against people who engage in homosexucal conduct, however, the presentation basically claimed that if the Church insisted on teaching that homosexual conduct was sinful then the Church was sanctioning violence against people who engage in homosexual conduct.
This is the document that the supposedly “best and brightest” pro homosexual theological elite could come up with. It was pretty sad, and it convinced no one.
JamesK as a Christian then where do you derive your ethics from? Popular culture? Buddhism? Yourself?
And before you jump on the church tradition only argument consider there is a joint path of Scripture and Tradition:
more
A comment made in reference to Scripture doesn’t necessarily translate to a sola scriptura argument.
But then again using your logic St. John Chrysostom must be a Protestant because he references Scripture in his writings and sermons.
JBL: My point was that both the Orthodox and Catholic systems of morality are based on more than Scripture alone, even if they use Scriptural concepts as a starting point. Missourian pointed out that Scripture is relatively quiet on slavery. It’s also somewhat vague about polygamy: when you consider life under the Law of Moses (which, if anything, was more severe than life under “Grace”), the conspicuous absence of condemnation of those who practiced it says something.
It takes some logic and reading between the lines, though. Scripture says we should seek justice. We’ve come to realize that slavery is not just, which is something I’m not certain we could say if we relied purely on an explicit proscription against it in Leviticus. I agree in concept with the Catholic Church regarding contraception in that it is not the ideal use of sexuality even in marriage, although I’m hesitant to agree that it’s a serious sin in any way. Again, nothing in Scripture about it, but the theology makes sense. St. Paul said women should have no authority over a man (even in the secular world?), but we reject this notion today as an antiquated custom of the past since he also stated that there is equality before God.
I believe Scripture is inspired, but I’m not as sure about its “inerrancy”. Consider the following: “there are some 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts that are the basis of the modern versions of the New Testament, and scholars have uncovered more than 200,000 differences in those texts.”
At the same time, I’m always amazed by the profundity and revolutionary nature of the writings that came out of this period, especially the theology of St. Paul. This is deep stuff, and so I believe there is inspiration there. So too, our notions of the sacrificial element of love seemed to have reached an apex in the New Testament.
So, short answer to your question: ethics may rely on Scripture for basic foundational concepts, but I don’t believe they end there or that our potential for understanding what it means to be ethical via revelation ended with St. Paul.
JamesK, I haven’t discussed slavery
Oops, sorry Missourian, that was JBL! I indeed misquoted.
Glen writes: “‘Homosexual’ describes an act, not a person. I am hardwired to pursue pretty 21-year old females. But I don’t act on that, because of the wife and kids I have at home. I control my natural biological urges because they conflict with my higher moral duties to God and to my community and to my family.”
What is the homosexual equivalent of the “wife and family” that will inspire the homosexual to control his or her natural biological urges?
With all due respect, it seems to me that you’re in the position of laying a burden on homosexuals that few heterosexuals could carry. While enjoying the companionship and affection of spouse and family, Christians would deny the very same to homosexuals.
As I understand the conservative Christian position, the ideal homosexual would never date, never have a romantic relationship, never fall in love, never have any kind of physical affection or sexual contact, and never have any children, adopted or otherwise. Furthermore, the homosexual would never even have any hope of these. There is nothing that a homosexual could ever do to “merit” any of these things. Certainly there are heterosexuals who are “unlucky in love,” but at least they had chance. In the conservative Christian view homosexuals are not even allowed to play the game.
I would ask, in the real world, how many normal heterosexuals could live like that? Would it be 10 percent? Five percent? Less? What do you think?
Well first JamesK I pointed out that Scripture is relatively silent on slavery.
Second, your time would be better spent reading something better written about lower criticism than a review about Ehrman’s sensationalized book. As one critic wrote about the book:
You’re statements are like trying to tack jell-o to the wall. You’re all over the place. You jump around from slavery to polygamy, to homosexuality, to contraception, and then to the status of women and somehow argue that there’s an exegetical link between them all.
For example looking at the beginning of your last post you wrote:
Well first I’ve never argued that Orthodox and Roman systems of morality being based only on Scripture. What I’ve argued is a Scriptural aspect involved in establishing a Christian morality. In the churches you mention there are two aspects tradition and Scripture. But somehow you’re trying to frame this argument as a sola scriptura argument. It’s not there. You’re boxing at shadows on that one.
Now I don’t know what you’re trying to prove with the rest of the paragraph. But you can never argue from silence to support an argument. Just because there is no condemnation against polygamy in the histories and prophets doesn’t mean there is support. When you take into account that Christ defines marriage as one man, one woman and add that the Church has never endorsed polygamy in its teachings I don’t understand why you continue to use this example.
You also need to learn what inspiration and inerrancy are and how they are used in catholic theologies. And to re-iterate you need to learn the scholarship involved with textual criticism. It is apparent you don’t understand by your statements.
I have to laugh about your comment about “reading between the lines”. You’re a perfect example of what C.S. Lewis describes about modern criticism.
JBL writes: “Homosexulilty is completely different because Scripture specifically condemns it as a sin. It is a timeless statement.”
I find all arguments like this to be highly selective and subjective. Things that people want to condemn are “timeless statements,” and things that they want to ignore get interpreted away.
Homosexuality is only mentioned a few places in the Bible, once in the New Testament as I recall. It’s not clear that lesbians are ever mentioned. Together all biblical references to homosexuality would constitute perhaps one or two paragraphs.
On the other hand, references to caring for the poor and the stranger, usury, fair balances, and other passages related to economic matters constitute a large percent of the biblical text. Remove those from the Bible and you’d have a noticeably skinnier Bible. And these passages are found in the pentateuch, Proverbs, Psalms, the prophets, the gospels, and the letters.
But for conservative Christians, most of the passages in the Bible about economic justice are simply interpreted away. It is as if they don’t exist. To quote from the Bible in support of assistance for the poor is to be labeled a “leftist.” No timeless statements here. No sin. You could remove all of these passages from the Bible, and it would make absolutely no difference to many conservative Christians.
Divorce is not mentioned much in the Bible, but there are two very specific references to divorce in the gospels in which the Second Person of the Trinity specifically says that marrying after divorce constitutes adultery. But the churches have millions of divorced and remarried members in good standing.
So with homosexuality, here’s the Bible with its clear and unambiguous timeless statements. With divorce, well, that’s different. And with economic matters related to the poor and the stranger, forget the Bible and read the Wall Street Journal.
One of the best cheap entertainments today is watching a divorced and remarried politician denouncing homosexuality as being “anti-family.” Liberal or conservative, it can’t help but put a smile on your face.
Wow Jim your statement is like a FedEx commercial. I just want to respond with “it’s fringe benefits, not French,” and leave it at that. But…
Homosexuality is mentioned several times in the New Testament. (You might want to look at the etymology of porne ). And St. Paul’s reference in Romans to lesbianism is considered one of the first classical pieces of literature to even mention it.
Your argument about conservatives and economic justice is a straw man. It’s to full of assumptions to really be dealt with properly. For example, not all conservatives are Christians, but many believe in economic justice, many are concerned with third world debt, etc. I personally know many conservatives who work in areas of assistance immigrants, against human trafficking, etc. You base your argument on a stereotype when you make assumptions that the rejection of social, economic justice is limited to one particular group. The rejection is not an issue of political persuasion, but rather rejection by affluence or ignorance (very few Americans really understand what the IMF is and how it effects developing countries).
I have problem with your interpretation though of economic justice coming from Scripture. It’s a paradigm based upon Marxian theology. That somehow the purpose of faith is to correct worldly injustice (primarily economic). It’s not. Scripture is not an economics guide for some kind of social faith. It’s primary purpose is to define the church’s ancient cry of Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison. And really, when you interpret the church’s theological understanding in that manner it’s a pretty Reformed interpretation.
The issue though is not how much Scripture has discussed any particular social agenda. The issue is a concerted effort to force the church to accept a particular sin as being normal and natural. When you bring up some argument about the failure of economic justice it’s a red herring. It’s just another form of justifying a sin, because we fail in one we should excuse another.
Missourian wrote:
You realize Missourian that their argument is based upon post modern interpretation and not a theogical debate. So it’s an emotionally charged document about fairness and inequality being the basis of faith.
I hate to be a fly in the ointment here, but isn’t the creation of Western Rite orthodoxy just uniatism by another name? I thought the Orthodox opposed proselytism through uniatism.