Hi Simon,

When it comes to Pedophiles seducing innocent children - of course you would say that is wrong even when the children consent. Why do we find it so difficult to say the Church can not approve of sexual intimacy outside marriage no matter how strong the addiction or compulsion?

If someone has faith in Christ and struggles with some fond sin and falls seventy times seven but is of a repentant mindset - they should be accepted if they are clearly making an effort to resist sin.

The sins that the Church takes notice of are not those contemplated in the mind but those that are given in to and played out in life. According to Paul's model, we continue to struggle against ingrained sin, but to struggle you need to accept sin for what it is and not attempt to justify it or explain it away. John in his first Epistle makes it clear that when we say we have no sin or deny that something is sinful that is, we actually make God to be a liar.

A number of Psychologists make the point that they can only help people who already desire to be rid of some harmful behavioural pattern - whether sexual or otherwise. This should not surprise us with the growth in knowledge of how the human machine functions - we create patterns of learned behaviour in our neural networks and then instinctively respond to situations and stimuli - this is as true of the person addicted to alcohol, drugs or some forbidden sexual practice.

So while I agree that it may be humanly difficult or even impossible to give up some fond sin, the Church's standard is not what man finds convenient or possible in his Fallen state but what God rightly demands and sets as the standard.

In the end if we deny the seriousness of sin or that a supernatural remedy is available, we end up with a sub-Christian religion accommodated to what is naturally possible. As Charles Wesley wrote - All things are possible to him that can in Jesu's name believe ... The thing impossible shall be, all things are possible to me!

David,

One could with Jeremy Taylor suggest a return to the Ecumenical Creeds as the test of a preacher's orthodoxy, but that would still unchurch the Baptists when you take "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" as originally intended.

The early Church came up with the Ecumenical Creeds as the answer to misbelief about the Triune God as the object of worship, and similarly, at the Reformation the Reformed Churches attempted to purify the ministry by excluding those holding other doctrinal errors.

As you say the Reformed Creeds have always been seen as secondary standards - the Word of God being the ultimate standard. This was Chillingworth's point when he put forward the Scriptures as the Protestant's equivalent of definitions of Trent - that in which we all agree on as authoritative despite any minor difference in our Confessions is the Bible and the Bible alone (as a safe way of salvation) is the religion of Protestants.

However, these Confessions were the authoritative declarations of the respective churches expected to be believed and taught by the clergy until and unless they were found needing to be corrected. The 1560 Scotch Confession makes this explicit when it says "Protesting (testifying) that if any man will note in this our confession any Article or sentence repugnant to God's Holy Word, that it would please him of his gentleness and for Christian charity sake to admonish us of the same in writing; and we upon our honour's and fidelity, by God's grace do promise unto him satisfaction from the mouth of God, that is, from His Holy Scriptures, or else reformation of that which he shall prove to be amiss."

I believe it was only the Independents or Congregationalists who protested against subscription to Creeds and Confessions as a term of ministerial communion - most others have accepted them as useful in maintaining the Theological integrity of a church, something we seem to have lost sight of over the last century and a half.

Hi David, Richard,

About fifteen years ago I worked with a two very different Christian Inverts (Homosexuals) and discussions with them helped to form my views in a compassionate but traditional direction.

Just to review the basic facts as a Scientist. Ronald Bayer in "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry" tells the story of the declassification of Inversion as a Disease in 1973 from the Homosexual side, but is dispassionate enough to show this was due, not to an exercise in objective science, but the capitulation to the aggressive and disruptive campaigning by Homosexual activists that blackmailed Psychiatry into dropping the traditional view.

The Kinsey report has been discredited and the real figures are about one per cent not ten. He was shunned by those with normal mores and so his sample was of those willing to be interviewed who in those conservative days were those likely to be vociferous about unusual sexual activity.

The first thing to remind ourselves is that the raw data of "what is" observed by Science is no reliable guide to "what ought to be". We believe man to have Fallen from his original righteousness and this means that some observed practices are going to be sinful.

In this context it is none the less interesting to observe with Jared Diamond ("Why is sex fun?") that man is very unusual in practising recreational sex - the norm is that animals do not waste energy or seed on reproductive exercises when the female is not on heat/fertile and therefore has no prospect of success.

Augustine was right when seeing one of the goods of marriage being the begetting and nurture of Holy Children (Malachi 2:15, I Cor. 7:14). But is recreational sex to be allowed apart from marriage - if so what do we make of the condemnation of fornication between man and woman? Why did Paul (1 Cor. 7:9) say it was better to marry than to burn (in lust or hell fire or both)? Why did Paul not recommend fornication as a cure for incontinence if it was not morally wrong? No to avoid fornication every man is to have his own wife (7:2).

Did Paul excommunicate the fornicator in 1 Cor 5 because in taking his stepmother as wife he went beyond what was culturally acceptable to unbelievers (5;1)? Without judging those outside the Church, in verses 9 to 13 he sets down the doctrine of the Apostles on moral discipline which contributes to defining Church communion (I Cor. 6:11 - "such were some of you", Acts 2:42).

All this tells me that recreational sex outside marriage is incompatible with being a member of the Church as a colony of those called out from a sinful world. Inversion or the wrong use of human organs contrary to their design is worse - destructive to the body and with all self harm a species of self murder and contrary to Judaeo-Christian morality.

The present justification of inversion requires a meaningless universe where matter and energy have combined by chance - allow Theistic Evolution or Creation and there is purpose and design in everything. The Book of Nature illuminated by the Scriptures parallels the clear teaching of Scripture to define correct behaviour and everything else is sin which includes adultery, fornication, bisexuality, inversion, general sodomy, and bestiality.

That said, it is not the propensity to sin (and heterosexuals have equally powerful sinful sexual lusts), but the capitulating to sin that is condemned.

So while I can argue that a Churches like Corinth and Thyratira that fails to discipline the immoral people are still to be dignified as Churches, I could never justify them in such a policy, and must expect Christ's providential temporal judgement to follow a lack of repentance.

Hi Karen,

Before answering your latest displayed post, may I draw attention to my new thread I have submitted (THE LAMBETH 1920 APPEAL [TO ALL CHRISTIAN PEOPLE] AS THE BASIS FOR UNITY) inviting people to brainstorm this as a useful starting point to get our bearings. This witnesses to a generosity that accepted non-Episcopal Ordinations and irregular Consecrations may valid and owned of God implying more generally that such things might be according to law (licit) but invalid, or contrary to rule or law and nevertheless valid as well as both valid and licit or invalid and illicit.

As this is of more general application than simply the alleged Southwark Ordinations I have, as I say, submitted this as a new thread.

But to return to this thread and your contribution. First as to the meaning of Article XVII on Predestination. Richard Laurence, Regius Professor of Hebrew and later Archbishop of Cashel gave the 1804 Bampton Lectures showing this article as put forth in 1552 was Lutheran in origin, and suggesting the caveat against incautious parading was in response to Melancthon's concern found in his letter of 1548 to Cranmer. These dates are important because by 1535 Melancthon and Luther had retracted the former High views of absolute Predestination.

Anglicans have held a number of interpretations including the Wesley brothers' unpelagianised Arminianism expressed by Charles as "The unchangeable decree is passed, the sure Predestinating Word, that I who on my Lord am cast, I shall be like by sinless Lord, was fixed from all eternity, all things are possible to me."

However it was also Charles Wesley who wrote "No man can truly say, that Jesus is the Lord, unless [God] takes the veil away and breathes the living Word." Which is little different to a Calvinist Hymn writer who wrote "Hear the terms that never vary, to repent and to believe, both of these are necessary, both from Jesus we receive."

So it all comes down to man's utterly lost state due to the Fall, and his inability to turn and save himself (Articles IX, X, XIII), that is his being dead in trespasses and sins and his need of a real metaphysical regeneration bringing the Faith in God that Justifies. All this is asserting the need for personal Divine intervention leading to the New Birth we can not produce in ourselves anymore than anyone baptises themselves - salvation is outside our control.

For a modern review of these matters, may I suggest the Polish Catholic Philosopher Leszek Kolakowski in his book "God owes us nothing - a brief remark on Pascal's Religion and the Spirit of Jansenism" which reopens the debate as to whether the Western Church made a serious error in rejecting Augustine and embracing Semi-Pelagianism by attributing too much to free will.

Moving to your second point, to what extent we should honour the older Confessions. From a personal point of view, people are free to accept or reject them as their own belief, that is part of the Protestant idea of the Bible alone being the Religion of Protestants. They are only the witness of what those who draw them up believed. They also are, so far as anyone since has owned them, a witness to what such people believe.

However there is a second use of Creeds with regards to gifts to Charity. When people give money or property to the promulgation of Christianity, they have every right to assert the essence of the kind of Christianity they wish to support to limit the use of their gift only to those who agree with them. I think we should honour that.

In this context, should some person or group of persons gift a Church or other property on the condition that the doctrine of John Wesley, or Richard Baxter or the Westminster Divines should be taught and only a minister willing to so teach is to have the use of that Church, then I for one think that is reasonable. It would be a dereliction of duty if the Trustees take property given to promote one form of Christianity and divert it to support some different form.

In the same way, so far as the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles is required to be taught as a condition of the use of any Anglican property, it should be honoured and the honourable thing for someone to do should he change his mind, is to leave to found or join some other communion in harmony with his altered understanding of the Bible.

So, in this sense it has to do with morality, the use of property in agreement with the donors conditions on which the property was given. Should no one be found to use it as originally intended, then is the time to get Parliament to divert it to its closest proximate use. In this way we honour the memory and keep faith of those who have gone before, without doing violence to the consciences of any in the present. That is why we tollerate dissent.

With every good wish,

Alan

THE LAMBETH 1920 APPEAL TO ALL CHRISTIAN PEOPLE AS THE BASIS FOR UNITY.

DOCUMENT: "An Appeal to All Christian People" http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1920/1920-9.cfm

Can we seek the boundaries of Anglican Orthodoxy by returning to the basis of Belief and Practice set out by the 1920 Conference as a suitable Anglican basis for Christian Reunion?

If these were our Essentials for participation in a United Church founded on Catholic principles, it can help us in discerning whether irregular Anglican ordinations are valid but not licit (legal) as well as also testing whether a liberal Diocese or Church has strayed outside the pale of Anglican Orthodoxy.

The "An Appeal to All Christian People" was criticised at the time as giving too much to non-Episcopal communions by saying among other things: "It is not that we call in question for a moment the spiritual reality of the ministries of those Communions which do not possess the Episcopate. On the contrary we thankfully acknowledge that these ministries have been manifestly blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit as effective means of grace." [VII].

The fundamentals were expressed as:

>>>

VI. We believe that the visible unity of the Church will be found to involve the whole-hearted acceptance of:-

The Holy Scriptures, as the record of God's revelation of Himself to man, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith; and the Creed commonly called Nicene, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, and either it or the Apostles' Creed as the Baptismal confession of belief:

The divinely instituted sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion, as expressing for all the corporate life of the whole fellowship in and with Christ:

A ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body.

<<<

Seven (VII) goes on to start with the suggestion: "May we not reasonably claim that the Episcopate is the one means of providing such a ministry? It is not that we call in question ... [as quoted above].

Eight (VIII) starts "We believe that for all, the truly equitable approach to union is by way of mutual deference to one another's consciences ...."

To me, the Episcopate is a trust, and that trust is abused both by Ordaining or Consecrating Bishops and Priests who fail the test of orthodoxy, or at the opposite extreme refuse to acknowledge by Ordaining those who manifestly have been called and gifted by Christ to the Office of Presbyter.

That is easy to say, but the devil is in the detail - were the Southwark Ordinations a result of the Bishop of Southward abusing his trust by refusing or by the ordainer/s acting schismatically by ordaining someone who ought never have been ordained? Are the Consecration of women and gay clergy or the ordination of gay or women clergy a breach of trust? Or has the Church for 2000 years been in breach of trust in overlooking such people's call and gift?

I am using the word trust in its wider sense of someone with delegated authority exercising his authority in good faith with all due care and diligence within the letter and spirit of his Commission or delegated authority.

My first contribution is to suggest that "The Holy Scriptures, as the record of God's revelation of Himself to man" as any Historic or Legal Document means what its original writers understood it to mean. As "revelation of Himself to man" we do not understand by Inspiration that the writers wrote as automata, but that they understood what they wrote and meant the words in the way they would have used those words at the time. In this record we have "the rule and ultimate standard of faith" with the caveat taken from Eight that "the truly equitable approach to union is by way of mutual deference to one another's consciences ....".

With that will stand aside for a few days see how others brainstorm this idea,

With every good wish,

Alan

Hi Richard,

Yes the word Apostle (Apostello, to send) may in a general sense be applied to many different groups within Scripture, and in my opinion does. Apostello means sent - but it is important to ask whether the "Apostle" in question was sent by the Church or by Christ himself - there is a distinction in quality here. Again, are all who are called Apostles taken to have the same commission and authority?

This leads to confusion when we assume there is a consistent usage of such terms in Scripture and more so when we extend this to the early Fathers of the Church. The use of the word "bishop" in the N.T. only knew the presbyter-bishop, only later on did the term bishop become exclusive to the monarchical bishop and that only in certain areas at first.

As a result the Presbyterians quickly dismiss Episcopacy by showing that the words Presbyter and Bishop are used synonymously in the N.T. as in Acts 20, but never ask if the office or Superintending Bishop is nevertheless found in Scripture in the Angels (Angelos, messengers) of the Seven Letters of the Apocalypse, in men like Timothy and Titus who were to oversee and discipline Elders (why are these letters retained if we have no similar office?), or whether there was an ordinary function of the class of "Apostles" that had authority to rule that would continue within the Church.

To me it is clear we must look more to what was happening in its context than simply the etymology of a word. If women can be classed in a general sense as Apostles, it does not follow that they could be Apostles in the sense in which the historic Church has taken the twelve plus Matthew and Paul both as the special authoritative witnesses and as having original Episcopal Authority along side the general office of being a "sent witness" and founders of congregations they may have shared with other lesser "Apostles".

Christianity is an historic and revealed religion - and asserts its authoritative records were recorded by the pen of Inspiration - by men moved by the Holy Spirit to write in a way that guarantees what we have. Only those who were around at the time of Jesus could witness to his earthly life, only those who saw him before and after the resurrection could according to reason be credible witnesses of the Resurrection from the point of view of contemporary witnesses.

It was the error of the Presbyterians who seeing the distinct role of the first generation declined to see there must be a continuing role for the ordinary and necessary office of Apostle or Bishop. But it is equally wrong to confound the more general Apostleship and founding of congregations with the distinct role for the Apostles as co-founders with Christ of His Church founded on the cornerstone of His being the Son of God and Christ - it was they alone who had the original embryonic Episcopal authority.

Question: Why did not God by the pen of inspiration record the witness or some woman or other? Was this just cultural or dictated by the need to affirm male headship and teaching authority by having these things sifted and recorded by a man?

Luke (2:19) tells us his source for the early life of Jesus and Mary is Mary, and no doubt moved by the Holy Spirit she could have dictated her memoirs, but God chose to record these things by the pen of Inspiration through the instrumentality of a man. In the end it was not the early Church that chose to record all the records through men - but it was God who so chose to move men and only men to write the Scriptures. In this was God simply accommodating to Patriarchy or was it His will to promote and protect Patriarchy as His will and idea?

With every good wish,

Alan

Dear Karen,

Re Assent to Thirty-nine Articles, especially, Article 17.

As the laity, we are only required to believe the Creeds, it is the Clergy who assent to the Articles, but that does not mean agree that they are true!

Today, the word assent as found in Canon A2 implies much less than consent - simply an agreement that the Thirty-nine Articles as the formal Doctrine of the Church of England are a reasonable Scriptural position. Assent does not imply consent or that the person assenting holds those views out of personal conviction. However, perhaps it should be taken as an agreement to teach that doctrine and no other when acting as a representative of the Church. Even so, it would be not too unreasonable to avoid teaching on Predestination if one thought it unhelpful.

For myself, I find the Thirty-nine Articles, taken as originally intended to be a fair expression of my own faith, though in accepting the Judicial verdict on Article Six, I additionally hold the higher Reformed view of Scripture. With respect to the Homilies, having not studied them in detail I am taking them generally as to the general thrust of their teaching.

Interestingly, From Elizabeth-I through to Victoria, the Act of Parliament only required subscription "to all the Articles of Religion, which only concern the confession of the Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments". This was intended to be an undefined subset of the Articles for the relief of the Puritan clergy. This was later frustrated by the additional requirements of Episcopal Ordination and conformity to the Prayer-book in 1662.

To close on another historical note, the original Anglican Via Media, was that of Bishop Joseph Hall on his return from the Synod of Dort. He advocated the middle way between Calvinism and unpelagianised Arminian theology.

With every good wish

Alan ;-)

Moral Unanimity - is it relevant? what is it?

Simon: To suggest raising the idea of moral unanimity appears to be moving the goal posts is to admit that this venerable idea is unknown and has been overlooked, and if it has been overlooked don't you think it is about time it was recovered and taken seriously?

For the record, I am not changing the goal posts - as a layman I have never proposed or agreed to any test that would allow me to go against my conscience on this or any other issue. Like Luther my conscience is bound to the Word of God. My condition will always be that you first convince me that the witness of 6000 years of Judeo-Christian consistency is wrong.

We have a legal Civil Church Constitution under our Queen in Parliament that governs us in Her realm, that is our Queen's sphere of authority. This allows General Synod, without moral unanimity, to propose changes to the Queen in Parliament.

But, surely there is a difference between matters of Faith and the practical arrangements of the Church or opinions on how the Gospel impacts social issues and politics. On some issues it is right to expect and allow differing opinions, but on matters of Faith the church needs to be united if it is to be credible in claiming that guided by the Holy Spirit it has God's Will and Wisdom. That is why the decision making in the two spheres must be different.

From one side, Women Priests and Bishops seems just a practical matter that the majority can decide, but to others it goes to the heart of authority in the Church and God's Revelation and Will for men and women and as such jeopardises the assurance of the sacraments and with Bishops the unity and continuity of the Church.

However, there are two things to remember - the Queen has no authority to Preach the Word or Administer the Sacraments (Art. 37) - so the Queen and Parliament cannot determine what the Church teaches nor how it administers the sacraments - the Church must be free to make up its own mind on this and must consider own rules for such decisions and not simply accept the rules the Queen gives for Civil matters.

The question then arises - how does the Church make its decisions in its own sphere? Custom and Practice has always implied the Rule of Moral Unanimity, and this was the objection Anglicans and others raised when it was abandoned by the Roman Church at Vatican I. The other common objections to the so-called Roman Ecumenical Councils is the way the representation was skewed, and this is also an objection I would raise with General Synod.

The general idea behind moral unanimity is really asking - Can the Church really have the Mind of the Holy Spirit when it is not united? Hence you can dismiss the views of those who are clearly heretical or senile, but is it safe to dismiss a large orthodox minority who not only say they have doubts but hold to a strong conviction that the majority have it wrong?

If you explore the custom and practice of Christian decision making - you will find that before the Reformation the idea of majority decision-making in religious corporations was very nuanced. A majority was not simplistically defined as a majority by force of numbers but took into account that the leading members of the Community had greater wisdom and a Majority or Major Part could not exist which excluded the chief and wisest member of the Corporation - whether Abbot or Bishop as His Wisdom.

The current voting in Houses reflects this heritage by giving different weight to the votes of Bishops as opposed to other Clergy in Convocation and now General Synod so the mind of the Bishops is not set aside by the votes of the lesser clergy. The Laity were originally represented by the Monarch in Parliament and confined themselves to the Civil aspects of the Church, and later to ensure the Liturgy was acceptable to the Laity and not imposed against their consent.

My argument is for the principle not any particular implementation, but given the idea that the Bishops as "Their Wisdoms" ought to have the greatest Wisdom then in my opinion moral unanimity requires unanimity in the House of Bishops, almost unanimity in the second house and perhaps only a two-thirds majority in the House of Laity.

Moral Unanimity?

Historically Presbyters have done everything a Bishop has done, all that is different is a degree of delegated Civil Authority. However there is an important caveat.

The old rule of Christian Councils was that decisions like this needed to be conducted by moral unanimity - without that there must be doubt. When one or two confused people dissent that is one thing, again, if a whole bunch of heretical clergy dissent, one can dismiss that too, but that was not the situation in 1992 nor is it the situation now.

This means the 1992 decision was both doubtful and flawed and the only excuse for going ahead was that we were entering a period of reception. But while some have received the idea of women to the Presbyterate many are still opposed and we do not have moral unanimity.

IMO until there is moral unanimity that the 1992 decision was right then it would be wrong to proceed to the Consecration of a woman Bishop. The simple reason is that while we can fudge and work around the doubtful orders of a Presbyter we can not afford any degree of doubt concerning the validity of a Bishop as the source of succession and centre of Diocesan unity - both of which are undermined by leaving a question-mark over the validity of a woman as Presbyter or Bishop.

With every good wish,

Alan Bartley, BSc, ARCS.