Phil,

I still contend that the proper interpretation of any scriptural text must by necessity, contain an element of cultural analysis to a greater or lesser degree. In one sense everything in the Bible is cultural in that it is a record of God's dealings with humans through cultural forms, motifs and means of communication. All communication has a cultural context and the Bible is no exception to this. This does not mean that it is not divinely inspired but it is necessary to determine which parts of scripture are expressing truth values which are culturally invariant and expressions of the Kingdom of God, and those which are bound in cultural milieus using a specific hermeneutic.

Now before someone shouts that such a view gives carte blanche to interpret the Bible as we like, it really does no such thing nor does cultural analysis of the Bible undermine any notion of divine inspiration. The starting point in discerning a truth-value as expressed in the scripture is to determine as far as is possible how the truth would have been understood by those to whom it was written. We routinely do this with any modern form of communication but I have found that evangelicals (and I consider myself to be very much on the conservative side), are often guilty of suspending any form of semantic sense, historical context and cultural understanding when interpreting a passage of scripture.

Often the discussion on Fulcrum threads (and elsewhere) is  about the finer points  of Greek tenses or propositions and bouncing scriptures off each other to justify one's assertions but this all rather misses the main point as what the text would have meant to the original readers. It is of fundamental importance that we get this right. I have often heard my evangelical colleagues talk about the 'plain meaning of scripture' where under further examination the meaning wasn't quite as plain as they thought (and in fact turned out to be quite different).  If you are justifying your understanding of one scripture using another and that understanding is flawed because you have erred in understanding the original meaning, then that error is likely to be propagated.

Now determining the cultural context can be tricky as sometimes the Bible gives us some information (e.g. Acts 17:16) and sometimes it does not. When it doesn't, then unless you have a time machine it is necessary to gain information from historical research, contemporary extra-biblical sources and compare them carefully with scripture to obtain a clearer picture of the cultural scene that the original hearers were embedded in.  There really isn't any other way you can do it.

An example may illustrate what I mean.  Consider 1 Cor 11:10. This passage is again to do with women in the church and has to do with "because of the Angels". It has always puzzled me what the angels have got to do with a women covering her head (and this verse is largely responsible for many women feeling that they need to wear a hat when going into a church). Space BTW, does not permit me to digress to a detailed examination of this verse and its surrounding passage- however here is a brief synopsis.

Many explanations have been offered for the inclusion of 'angels' in this verse including those relating to headship and authority.  It wasn't until I got talking to an expert on ancient Greek culture who explained to me that in Corinth which was a very Roman influenced city, a woman covering her head was considered to be a noble and respectable woman. Those women that did not have their heads covered were considered to be rather loose and immoral.  Now the church in Corinth had many people visiting it from the local community (Paul indicates as much). However the rich and wealthy in Corinthian society who wished  to know what was going on would not initially go themselves but would send their messenger (or angel) to report what was going on(he word angel here does not necessarily denote the heavenly variety- the word means 'messenger').

In the Corinthian church women were taking off their head coverings and men were covering their heads (a common pagan practice of the time which was frowned upon). So the messenger (angel) could easily have reported back to their master that these Christians were an immoral lot and should be avoided.  Paul was saying 'look I know you feel free to do this but there may be messengers (angels) in your congregation who are giving the church a bad report so observe the cultural niceties to avoid bringing then church into disrepute'.

Now this interpretation may be completely wrong, but my point is that as well as taking scripture into account including the meaning of individual words this explanation it also takes note of the cultural context and makes an attempt to understand what it would have meant to the original recipients. It attempts to get inside their minds (and to my mind) this make it a more complete explanation of this passage. It is not clear from a cursory reading of the passage in our modern day, of the significance  of ancient Corinthian society yet the cultural milieu clearly has a role to play in determine the correct  way we should understand the meaning of 'angel' in this context.

Now I am not saying that that your interpretation regarding WO is wrong Phil, you might well be right. However I do not think you have adequately demonstrated to many of us on this thread, that you have taken the cultural analysis into account in your arguments regarding Women Bishops.  This whole issue is compounded by many cultural difficulties not least of which the CofE is hardly a model of NT church governance being bound up with English history, Henry VIII, the Elizabethan settlement and a host of other things. One wonders if you can compare like with like. There are also the cultural distinctions between the developing Jewish and Gentile NT churches.

When I study the scriptures  I am always conscious that I may not be reading the text as it was written to and understood by the original readers.  If I do not fully understand how they would have understood it, then I am in danger of unconsciously bringing  my own cultural suppositions or preconceptions to the text .We need the help of the Holy Spirit to understand.

FWIW, my view is that the only thing you can be certain about in church governance is that it will have leadership of some kind and if this leadership is of God then in will bring forth godly growth and fruit.

The apostle Paul when speaking of men and woman who played leading roles in their local churches extolled the virtues of their ministries rather than their sex. If I go into a church and it is either a man or woman speaking or leading then the question that crosses my mind is not whether they are male or female but whether their ministry is of God or not and this judgment is the same I expect to be made of me by others (I am a lay pastor), when I minister in my own church.

I rest my case.

Rather than being about the whys and wherefores of Woman Bishops this thread seems to me to be becoming more about the correct way to do hermeneutics.

If we are to insist that the biblical texts mean what they meant, then the task is to find what the  text originally meant to the hearers and then hear that same meaning in the contexts of our own day. Both tasks will necessarily require input from outside scripture to discover the correct way to think contextually.

 Phil, it often seems to me that you take a very confessional approach to scripture. You interpret scripture by using other scriptures. However if the scripture is misunderstood contextually then you are in danger of error. You don’t need to look very far to see examples of this in the plethora of Christian denominations and some of their more arcane practices.  

So  I think in order to convince David R of your arguments you have to first demonstrate that you have understood the scripture in context and I am not sure if you have done that.

I have  tried to find where Payne talks  about this idea  of  'animating the wife' to no avail. If anyone has a link to it I would be interested to read it.

I asked my wife tonight if I was 'animating'. She looked at me blankly and said no.

(thinks I am positvely inert in fact - particulary with diy...)

@Ian Paul

In the context of headship you wrote:  "this is about being an animating source rather than a commander over."  

Could you kindly explain what you mean by the husband  being an animating source ' please?

Stephen Kurht

You state that

"Fulcrum's position on sexual ethics is clearly stated on our website where it says "In the much-contested area of sexual ethics this means that the proper context for sexual expression is the union of a man and a woman in marriage"

Would Fulcrum go so far to say therefore, that any sexual expression outside that context is unequivocally sin?

- as opposed to simply being an 'improper context'?

But let's assume that the Ugley Vicar gets hit by an asteroid the day after a CoP comes into effect.  What becomes of his parish? 

It would get obliterated along with John Richardson and a large part of the south east of England.

Notwithstanding,  Carl is absolutely correct. The COP is not worth the paper it is written on. Unless WATCH and their ilk are prepared to countenance the continuance  of traditionalist views  of WO/Bp in the CoE,  then this conflict is essentially  unresolvable. Traditionalists  are prepared to live with  women Bishops.  WATCH wants to ensure that their  theological convictions are steadily eradicated.

Asteroids are great levellers.

Jonathandavid wrote

There is evidence, in The Word, that the disciples were reticent to speak with Jesus sometimes whilst He was in the presence of women.

Could you tell us where in the NT that evidence is please?

Bowman,

May I say that whenever I read your posts (and whether I agree with them or not),  I keep thinking of the verse

'blessed are the peacemakers.."

They are a model of how intelligent discussion on blogs should be conducted.

Stephen Kurht,

I do understand the point you are making,  However it seems to me that none of the perspectives offered with perhaps the exception of Simon Cawdell’s  and Andrew Goddard’s really addresses  the real fear  of traditionalists that the proposed legislation without the amendments is designed to ensure the eventual eradiation of opponents of the WO from  the Cof E. You seem to gloss over the code of practice as being perfectly adequate for their needs but the reaction of groups like WATCH see very clearly that the amendments provide strong impetus for the Cof E to continue  to ordain traditionalist  opponents of WO and not to allow them to die a natural death.

So when Elaine Storkey in her 3^rd paragraph writes

The present clause will mean we must maintain a pool of both Catholic and Conservative Evangelical opponents to women within the church, from which we can select those who will offer alternative episcopal oversight.

Precisely.  So is she implying here, that the original intention was that the pool should in time diminish and become extinct as opponent of WO will not be accepted of be offered preferment because of their theological convictions?  Is she happy to see traditional views of WO flourish by the continued maintenance of those she profoundly disagrees with on this issue and the pool replenished?

Simon Cawdell referred to the thread discussion as been one of the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ yet in reality it is the hermeneutics of realpolitik that is being discussed here. I think that the traditionalists   see all too clearly that the un-amended legislation is really a form of gerrymandering that will drive them out one way or the other. As it stands the amended form at least gives them (however thin) some assurance that their continuance is guaranteed.  

Now it may well be that if the code of practice minus amendments is all that is offered and what ultimately gets voted through, and to start with, everybody will be nice and generous to each other which I think is what you hope will happen.  But it is naive in the extreme to think that such arrangements will last. Once the proponents of WO gain the ascendancy then in time (especially if they are liberals) they will use their influence to aggressively restrict and limit any new preferment’s which support the traditionalist line on WO.

So the question I would like to ask you Stephen,  is whether the you see the ultimate objective that the view that women should not exercised  Episcopal  ministry in the Cof E be expunged from the C of E in due course? They are not going to survive purely on the basis of people being nice and generous to them.  

And if that is the case, is it not better to be upfront about it instead of all this dissembling?

It does seem to me that the articles that have been written implicitly assume the eventual eradication of the traditionalist view on WO in the Cof E. The amendments by the Bishops afford some form of protection for traditionalists  by stipulating a male Bishop in sympathy with their views. WATCH and others see clearly that this would arrest the decline of traditionalists in the Cof E. Their original intention was only to provide as Carl puts it,  ‘hospice care’ to the remaining ones.

At least James Mercer is a little more honest in asserting the myth of two integrities. It is clear to me that he thinks that the Traditionalist position really has no intrinsic integrity at all.  The problem is that the two views are essentially irreconcilable. One of them has to win.

So Simon  Cawdell for the record,  can you tell us if you think that Traditionalists should remain in the CofE and be allowed to grow and flourish in their views of WO and not be subjected to what amounts to a ‘theological cleansing’ of their views? Are you quite happy to see them decline over a period of time by marginalising and restricting their preferment and progression?  

And lets be honest, this was really the original intention of the leglislation wasn’t it?  

Robbie Jex wrote

If the Church continues to walk in ways which control lives, discriminate and exclude then it risks being like the clerics in Pakistan who are going to execute 6 people because women mixed with men and danced at a party,

Are you really trying to suggest  that if traditionalists get their way  then we will see women priests being put to death  by Forward in Faith types for perfoming priestly functions in the Cof E?

To you really think this is a valid comparison to make?

Is it possible that you may have  lost the plot  just a a tad  here?

None of the writers of these articles  seem to acknowledge that the intention of the leglislation is to bring about the eventual extinction  of traditionalist  views on WO in the Church of England. That is its purpose.

The so called 'generous provision' is only a kindness  for those who oppose WO until they eventually  pass on or retire. New traditionalists  will not be allowed to flourish and will be prevented or removed from ordination. The Cof E will thus be cleansed of them.

The Bishop's amendments seem to tacitly  recognise this and are providing some  form of protection.

It would be far more honest if proponents  of women   Bishops  explicily stated that what they are trying to do is to run traditionalist  opponents of WO out of the Cof E. That is the main objective of organisations like WATCH. In their eyes there is  only one integrity, not two.