@Phil Almond:"The New Testament was written under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit"

Is this the same New Testament that was compiled in the 4th century? Just checking!

Pluralist, Origen Adam, Dave

Re: John 16:12-14: The New Testament was written under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 1:8, 1 Corinthians 2:4, 2:10-13, 1 Corinthians 14:37, Ephesians 3:1-5, 2 Timothy 3:16, Revelation 2:7)

Re: John 20:30-31, John 21:25: John does not tell us what the “many other signs” or “many other things” were, but he does tell us “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”.

Pluralist’s “…..as the book expects them to go beyond the book” is not true. The whole emphasis of “the book” is the exhortation to believe and do what the book says.

Phil Almond

John 16

7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgement...

12  ‘I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come...

In other words, there is more to come than in the book. So I don't understand those who quote only the book, as the book expects them to go beyond the book.

Phil,

I think Pluralist is referring to John 20:30-31 (KJV) 

³⁰ And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
³¹ But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Bible does deal with how Jesus wants his disciples to live. If Jesus is God and God is perfect then his will has some rationale. Is the question of homosexuality a matter of the nature of things or just a command we can dismiss as easily as mixed fibers and dietary laws.

Dave
 

@Phil Almond:"Which bit is that?"

I guess it could be John 21:25:"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

I wondered if you can point me and others to where this kind of theological reflection is happening in more depth (books, people, articles) - the actual implications of including Ephesians etc alongside Romans when thinking about ecclesiology. I would find that a helpful resource. Maybe that is your next writing project?

Good question, DavidR!

Pluralist

Which bit is that?

Phil Almond

I thought there was a bit in the Gospel of John that said there will be another and will tell things not actually in the Scriptures. So how come everything that is Christian has to be in the scriptures (elsewhere)?

What I find is how arid this debate becomes, whether on homosexuality or not, like bashing co-religionists on the head with one text after another. The Bible tells us nothing about science and nothing about sexuality so what a waste of effort.

Stephen Kuhrt

Thanks. That’s good to hear.

I think I know what your concern is. To me, though, the first crucial thing is to increasingly know, in the deepest sense of the word, individually and collectively, that these “fine sounding statements” (like, for instance, the first three chapters of Ephesians) are not really “theory” but a precious reality with a strong experiential dimension.

But I agree that the second crucial thing, as I said, is “what that reality means for our fellowship or lack of it here on earth and for our united or disunited witness to the world”. My view on that, repeating myself somewhat, is:

As I have posted more than once (e.g. thread ‘Priorities for evangelicals’ 2 October 2011) there are 3 closely related but distinct things: Who are the Christians? What do the Christians believe? What are the truths of Christianity? So I would never say to someone, “You are definitely not a Christian”. But I might say to someone, like I would say to myself, confronted with what they or I believe, what they or I deny, what they or I do, what they or I leave undone, “Some of what you believe is ruled out by Christian truth”, or, “Some of what you deny is part of essential Christian truth”, or, “What you do is disobedient to God”, or, “If you are a Christian you should be doing the things you are leaving undone” – and, “You should seriously consider whether you are a Christian”.

We are faced with a situation in the Church on earth where those who believe that Christianity is in some sense true and consider themselves to be Christians disagree at the deepest level about what the truths of Christianity are; foremost among them who God and Christ are, what they are like, what they have said and done, are saying and doing, will say and do; and what is the most important need of every person alive today and how that need can be met. If we were disagreeing, lets say, about how the laws of Physics and the phenomena of the Universe can be harmonised into one grand exhaustive and self-consistent theory, then we could all live with the situation in which we continue to debate with no sign of closure. But for some of those who consider themselves to be Christians, this will not do, because they believe that the truth God has revealed to us will not change or “develop”, that God will eternally punish those who are not saved, and that there is only one way of escape which they are commanded, as an overwhelming priority, to urgently make known to everyone.

As I have tried to explain in an essay “The Search for the Truest Christian Doctrines and the True Knowledge of God” which Church Society were kind enough to publish in Churchman (Spring 2010 edition), I believe that the right “rules” for that search are the “Private Judgment Rules”. Please don’t jump to conclusions about what I mean without first reading the essay. I want to see the strongest arguments from all sides in these vital disagreements emerge into the public domain, preferably on a forum like this one, with participation of both scholars and anyone who wants to join in, with everyone being always courteous but also painfully honest.

I have not at all followed the content or debate about the Anglican Communion Covenant. But someone whose opinion I value commented that the first part set out a programme which, if rigorously and honestly followed, would bring to light where we really agree and where we really disagree. In any case, whatever happens to the Covenant or its successors, I believe that such rigour and honesty will increasingly become evident and widespread. The results will increasingly be the formation of networks which cut across the denominations and which link together people who are in essential agreement with each other, or sometimes perhaps in agreement on some essential truths but in disagreement about other things, which some may regard as essential and others not. These networks will be the basis for enthusiastic or impaired fellowship and for enthusiastic or impaired common witness to the various “Gods” and “Christs” and “gospels” in which those networks believe. This situation will be very unsatisfactory but it will be an honest situation. It will have difficult, complex and painful implications in all sorts of ways, especially for those whose livelihood depends on denominational or church funds. It will be very important to remember the threefold distinction mentioned above, and what it behoves to say to those with whom we vitally disagree, and what it behoves us not to say.

Phil Almond

The Covenant was written solely to preserve institutional unity between the two different religions currently occupying the Anglican Communion.  That requires ambiguity.   Both sides see that ambiguity, and worry about it being exploited to their respective disadvantage.  This is what happens when you try to construct an unequally-yoked church.

Carl-- It has seemed more plausible to me to see the Covenant as rescuing a broad middle ground from two groups of activists that do not really value the inter-communion of Anglican churches anyway. The usual diversity of Anglican thought is not an insuperable obstacle, provided that those at the table are there to get along. Its "opt in" provision is a useful, weak test of that intent.

That said, your major point is correct. The unified churches that adopt the Covenant will own it. Someday they will have to decide either to choose one side in disputes between splitting churches, or to choose both. Were the Anglican Church in North America, itself a communion of tiny churches from the Reformed and Catholic wings of Anglicanism to apply to join, I personally think they deserve a chair at the table, right next to TEC, should it also apply and also be accepted. Better that the Second Anglican Communion be an agent of reconciliation than a trophy for victors in local power struggles.

"No one on either side has yet been able to say how ‘a centralising strait jacket that will impair freedom and innovation’ can simultaneously be ‘a toothless proposal designed to produce constant dialogue and no action’. "

Let me explain simply. Those who are keen to pursue doctrinal development are not happy to work at the pace of the slowest, while those who oppose doctrinal development consider the ongoing conversation implies what, to them, is a settled matter is still up for grabs.

Martin Reynolds almost gets it. Whilst it is an obvious fact that doctrine somewhat shifts focus over time to adapt to local and ephemeral circumstances-- "development" implies a suspect teleology-- there is no Protestant ground for doctrinal engineering from those appointed or elected to hold sacred things in trust and transmit them intact to future generations. In general, sports fans do not expect the umpire or referee or judge of a sporting match to be keen on pursuing regulatory development. They expect what they came for.

Mormons have a prophet-president, Catholics have a pope, and Iranians have a supreme ayatollah. All exercise authoritarian power in the modern world because it is their function to "pursue doctrinal development." Once development goes from a being the organic, gradual phenomenon that historians have studied to being "keenly pursued" within a political machinery that depends on it, the result is greater inequality between human beings, because without that there is no way to make people live with new doctrine in an old church.

If one takes consistent positions that mere authoritarianism is wrong, that relative equality is rather good, and that stability of practise is a pastoral virtue, then one also preempts all power that is megalomaniacally organised to "pursue doctrinal development." Ordinary Christians of most persuasions are entirely comfortable with that, and Protestants, by definition, demand it.

So what is the political machinery that depends on the the restless pursuit of "doctrinal development?" It would appear to be overreaching synods (e.g. General Convention). There will always be innovating bishops, but the church has lived with them, and some innovations that are good can spread as others, in their own time, appraise their worth and adapt them to local circumstances. But the synodical path to "change everywhere at once" turns local adaptations and experiments into new norms for all. Why, for example, should the diocese in Eastern Oregon be pressing the whole of The Episcopal Church (USA) to change its theology of baptism because about 2000 people in 22 parishes feel uncomfortable explaining it to visitors? The mere existence of a machinery for such proposals has invited it, though (almost) nobody believes that the General Convention is a source of revelation about the sacraments.

The good thing about the Covenant is that it provides a mechanism for allowing those who still trust each other to say so, and go on trusting, even after others have taken liberties with that trust. A better Covenant would have relaxed the one church per nation rule, advised that episcopal order entails a robust but judicious subsidiarity, and generally preferred the organic processes of local adaptation at the margin to centralised, synod-driven change.

Stephen Kuhrt

No one on either side has yet been able to say how ‘a centralising strait jacket that will impair freedom and innovation’ can simultaneously be ‘a toothless proposal designed to produce constant dialogue and no action’.

The answer is found in the anbiguity of the Covenant's construction. How it would actually function in practice is heavily dependent upon who controls it.  Both sides are projecting their worst expectations onto the Covenant by assuming the other side exercises control.  Conservatives fear a continuation of the same delaying action that has been ongoing since 2003.  Liberals (who love democracy but only when they have a majority) fear the "unwashed masses" in Africa and elsewhere will stomp all over the self-proclaimed enlightenment of Liberalism. 

It's really not that difficult a question.  The Covenant was written solely to preserve institutional unity between the two different religions currently occupying the Anglican Communion.  That requires ambiguity.   Both sides see that ambiguity, and worry about it being exploited to their respective disadvantage.  This is what happens whn you try to construct an unequally-yoked church.

carl jacobs