Very perceptive comment on this from Nick Baines

see

http://nickbaines.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/dean-gets-superpowers/#comments

The virtue of this approach, like that of, say, Tony Benn or Enoch Powell, is that it is entertaining and, to some, attractive, but the failure is that the personality and prejudices of the person overwhelm the objectivity that is necessary for enlightenment.

Reminds me of your postings Liddon.  Pot calling the kettle black?

This is good and helpful stuff -another excellent article from St Mary's.

I have great difficulty resisting the smell of fish and chips and yearn for the piece of cod that passes all understanding...

Clare,

You wrote:

"An aspect that is both a blessing and a curse in a liberal church is that because it does not insist on a particular type of active discipleship for those who attend week by week, it draws in all sorts of people, some of whom are very needy, some of whom are frankly mad."

I cannot speak for the kind of attendees that may be found in a liberal church as I do not go to one, but I can assure you that those  you refer to in the latter category are definitely to be seen in charismatic evangelical churches..

Mark Bennett,

No I don't think you are forgetful. I cannot find any passges in the Gospels when Jesus referred to Adam and Eve directly, but we do read for example, passages where He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.

So it seems to me that Jesus believed  the OT was authoratitive and trustworthy and the fact that He referred to Cain and Abel as real people who were contemporaries of Adam and Eve is by implication,  evidence to me that He thought  Adam and Eve were real people too.  There are also of course, many references in the NT epistles where the NT writers refer to Jesus as the Second Adam and so on; and other reference to sin having entered  the world though a particular individual called Adam.

But this stiil  begs the question as to how do you construct  an evolutionary  theology that embraces original sin?  In this scheme of things, was Adam a real person or not?

I would be interested to know how an evolutionary theology would embrace the biblical concept of original sin:  For Christians who believe in evolution,  are they the ideas that:-

1. Humans evolved from much simpler organisms over  long period of time?

2. Evolution  eventually produced -pre-humans?

3 At some point these pre-humans became 'human ' in the moral sense and  developed an awareness of God (the imago dei?)   or God 'breathing Life' into them perhaps?

4. That Adam and Eve were generic - representing the first true humans and are not meant to be taken as two real individuals?

5. That this group of humans rebelled against God and 'sinned'?

6. From then on, we get human history as is revealed in Genesis?

Now the problem with this, is that Jesus seemed to think  that Adam  and Eve were real people, that the Garden of Eden a real place and that the Fall a real historical event. So also does the Apostle Paul and the other OT/NT writers. So if we are to accept the evolutionary account of mankind,  then serious revision needs to be done to our understanding of the Genesis and NT texts does it not?

Were I the Chaplain there, I would complain, on the grounds that she had undermined my professionalism by linking me with a statement that did not accurately convey the Christian faith that I represented.

Ah yes - that assumes of course,  that the Christian faith as represented by the Chaplain is correct.

This article derserves the widest possible distribution and readership. One of the best accounts of the mystery of suffering I have ever read.

Simon Morden,

The arguments  for and against WO have been set out elsewhere  and I don't propose to go through them here. It seems to me that your Devil's advocacy is based on:

(i) What it looks like to others  (and modern society) not what God intends it might  actually be. To others it might look quite different. You clearly disagree. Its what it looks like to most people that matters.

(ii)  The outcome of a vote in the Synod.

(iii) You stated in an earlier post  that the Bible has little to to say about this and we must rely only on tradition and reason. This is where I think opponents of WO would most strongly take issue with you. It is precisely  what the Bible says about women  that is at the heart  of the matter.

In the past, the Anglican Church has been able to tolerate  as far as possible  those of diifferent integrities. The opponents of WO are willling  to coexist with the proponents of WO provided that both  theological integrities are respected. You are saying that they have no theological  intergrity at all,  and should either conform or get out. 

I do not accept your  analogy  that in the case of WO,  women  are inferior  and enslaved in a manner similar  to that infllicted on blacks  by white slavetraders. Maybe this is the WO equivalent  of Godwin's law. I know of no opponent of WO who would assert  that women  are inferior or second-class,  although  you  would  argue that it  looks like that. To the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern  Orthodox and large sections of  protestant christianity that do not ordain women,   all would say from Scripture  that  it doesn't look like that.

So in the end it's  who wins the vote that counts is it ? That's what it looks like.   Let's get rid of them.  I would add that I am largely undecided about WO but I do not think your Advocate can dismiss the opponents of WO so contemptously. The arguments for and against WO go much deeper than that.

I think you have made my points perfectly Simon.

It looks like misogyny for those who are looking for it.

"Secondly, the theological issues are moot: opponents to WO are just wrong, in the same way those who used theology to support slavery were just wrong"

Well, that just about closes the debate down doesn't it. Period.

It seems to me that the issue here for those who oppose women's ordination is not one of theological "viability" but one of survival.

From what I have read of those who oppose the ordination of women, is that while they accept that proponents do  have an argument, they disagree profoundly on theological grounds. It is an issue of conscience  for them- but in most cases a second order one, and one that does not pertain to salvation. Most of them think that Womens'  Bishops are now inevitable  but provided structures are in place where they do not have to receive the ministry  of a female Bishop then they can live with it.    The Devil's Advocate argument   as proposed by Simon Morden (although I wonder if they  they are really his own views),  smears  them all  as bigoted misogynists, closes down the debate  and does nothing to engage with the theological issues. You are not going to persuade them to change  their minds by taking this "yah boo"  approach neither are they likely to change  yours.

The issue as I see it for the opponents of women's ordination,  is that they wish to see  their theological integrity  respected and robustly protected. The Devils Advocate argument  is taking as read, that they do not have have any theological integrity to begin with. The current proposals  to facilitate  male only Bishops  are not thought to be sufficiently  robust enough by opponents who believe  that in the long run,  are designed to make them  extinct within the Church of England.   I sometimes think that people  like  Christina Rees are not really interested to co-existing  with opponents of womens ordination but would want like see them  eradicated completely - a sort of theological ethnic cleansing  if you like - but done as nicely as possible of course, as is the Anglican way with these things.

I fully agree with Erasmus's analysis of Liberalism but would also add that another one of their characteristics is that there is nothing so illiberal as a threatened liberal....