Stuart,

Of course I agree that the majority is not correct simply because it is the majority.....

Perhaps Rowan Williams models to us how those with a minority view in the church ought to behave if they care about church unity  - he has views which he knows are not held by the majority in the AC  and he is clear that it is his duty as a minister in the church to teach what is  the "mind of the Communion".  He has angered some liberals because he has not pushed the agenda they would like him to use his position to push..........because he is concerned for unity (rightly).

Maybe he has been showing how those who have not changed "the mind of the Communion" on a certain issues ought to behave in the church  (i.e. not merely disregarding "the mind of the Communion" in actions or teaching because that causes disunity and even schism) 

Nersen,

Thank you for your response. Absolutely I do realise that the fact that a consensus opinion is sometimes wrong does not mean that consensus opinions are always wrong. I addressed the issue simply as I read, or may have misread, your previous posts as seeking to imply that there is an argument from numbers holding a view in favour of it being correct. Clearly, we're all fallen humanity, even if we all agreed it's still possible we might be wrong.

You make good points on Apartheid and Nazi anti-semitism. I do not see that the same argument could be made on slavery, or on medieval anti-semitism. I should stress, I'm not trying to suggest any moral equivalance between circumstances here - that would be a horrendous suggestion - and it might be that the example of the medieval church believing the earth was flat would be a better one to use, rather than using such unspeakable and extreme acts. But the point, as far as I can see, remains that force of numbers cannot prove a case for or against any belief.

Stuart

Stuart

Merely pointing out that the consensus or majority can be wrong does not prove anything - I hope you realise that. Sometimes, the consensus can be right, you know. So what? We have to deal with the issues if we are not merely to be playing with words.

Your examples are weak, too. You must be aware that most Christians in the world did not accept any attempted justification of apartheid from the bible...so, it is quite easy to argue that the majority was against apartheid even if a small minority tried to twist the bible to justify their sin....the majority of Christians were against apartheid and were right. It seems to me that some wanting to justify certain sins in the AC are more like those who tried to justify apartheid and did not care that the majority was not persuaded by their attempts to justify their sin.

Funny how the bible is so clear when it is says "don't be greedy" or "don't lie" but on certain issues some people find it incredibly ambiguous even when it only makes negative statements on certain actions.....if we discuss actions about which scripture says nothing positive, it is not surprising that very few are persuaded that those actions are somehow good and holy..... 

Nersen,

Thanks for your post. You are quite right to say that there is only one correct interpretation of scripture. The trouble is, in our fallen state, we struggle to identify what that is. In the 18th century the "orthodox" or "mainstream" view in the Church of England, the view held by the greatest number, was that scripture supported slavery. In certain of the German churches in the 1930s (though by no means all) it was orthodoxy that the Bible supported anti-semitism - indeed, that view has sadly been held by Christians of many types in many place at many times through history. In the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa in the mid 20th century it was orthodoxy and the majority view that the Bible supported Apartheid.

Two things of which we can be confident: the majority interpretation of the Bible will be different in 100 years than it is now - and, as humanity will still be fallen, it will still be an imperfect reading of God's Word.

History teaches us very clearly that even if most people believe the Bible supports their view on something, a while later most people may take the contrary view.

Stuart

BTW, On the numbers point, Bob Jackson's research for his book "The Road to Growth" showed (to his evident surprise) that churches grow fastest when receiving a minister from a liberal theological college.

decbass - thanks for clarifications...but it was obvious that those were your views....and I doubt there is anything anyone can say to change them.....but I shall respond (and fail to persuade you, no doubt)

However many times you might want to assert that there are many equally valid interpretations of scriptures, I'm afraid that in the real world such arguments do not work....this is why "double-minded" teaching empties churches so quickly - people are not fooled easily, even by high sounding arguments. It is a matter of common sense that completely contradictory interpretations cannot both be right. Some matters are disputable and in those cases, different interpretations are not completely contradictory, but most issues are very clear. For example, the bible is always clear that we should not be greedy......it says nothing positive about being greedy for money and possessions but consistently calls greed sin and idolatry. While there are some preachers who teach that greed and materialism are ok, I cannot, in the light of scripture, take their anti-biblical teaching as an equally valid interpretation of the bible. I doubt you would want to argue that I should accept their views as an equally valid "interpretation"..... I suspect you probably find the bible very clear on most issues, eg greed, but it only becomes strangely opaque to understand on certain issues even if it is consistenly negative and never positive on those issues.

Playing with words and intrepretations has been a favourite strategy of false teachers to stay in the church and gain influence while undermining it from within. Saying one thing and doing another is not considered telling lies by some, amazingly. Ephraim Radner's recent call for clear and truthful speech is very important ....and, sadly, is needed in the AC.

I would point, once again, to the ABC who is under no illusions about what he "calls the mind of the Communion", showing that few are persuaded with certain revisionist "interpretations", even those made by him in the past. Not all "interpreations" are correct - obviously. Not all interpretations represent the "mind of the Communion", by definition. The idea that all interpretations, even when they contradict scripture, must be given equal respsect is a recipe for confusion and decline,as we have seen in the west. We are to think about interpretations in the light of scripture and reject what is false..... that was what the apostles taught us.....they never taught us to accomodate, promote, house and pay false teachers.

I am not surprised that you want to assert that numbers do not matter.....given so few, even in the Anglican church let alone the wider church, agree with your revisionist position on certain issues. However, I remember someone teaching that we should expect large numbers and talking about a mustard seed growing into a huge tree.....apparently, numbers do matter and, thankfully, even in the hamstrung CofE, there are strong and growing churches. It's sad that so-called "liberals" never seem to make a link between what they teach and the decline in numbers that they see decade after decade.

Nrersen - you miss three of my points. Let's make it clear.

1. There isn't one single Biblical position however often you say there is. There are a number of hermeneutical positions about the Biblical witness to issues of human sexuality. What is interesting in this case is that some people - perhaps yourself included - have decided (on what authority?) that their position is THE Bibical position.

2. There is no central hermeneutical authority in the Church of England - or indeed the Anglican Communion that decides what the "right" interpretation of these contested matters is. However much some people have insisted that disagreements over homosexuality are a "first-order matter" and claim that others are preaching "another gospel", this is just a power play, and an attempt to silence debate.

3. Numbers are irrelevant.

Andy- I'm sure you did not miss the events of  a few years ago.... and recent events too.... 

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/09/11/wales-will-respect-lambeth-moratorium/

Nersen: 'the J John business'; have I missed something? I'm puzzled.

Very pertinent article by Ephraim Radner  on this - see:

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=262

Looks like he has come to the view ( and I  agree with him) that the way forward is an orderly separartion...

decbass - you mention just Dr Gagnon, as if he is the only voice or one of few standing for the biblical position  - but, as you know, it is actually the revisionist position which is very much in the minority. You may not be persuaded by Gagnon et al  - but very few indeed are persuaded by the revisionist arguments  (even in the CofE, as the J John businsess showed)

James -  the problem with the revisionist arguments is that they do not give a credible interpretation of scripture but ultimately want all the "inconvenient" verses to be ignored on certain issues (not on all, only certain issues seem to throw up horrible problems of interpretation in the eyes of revisionists!) 

Clare's question, "How would we react if, for the sake of unity, we were asked not to bless the unions of black people because some people had qualms about it?" depends for its force on assuming a moral equivalence between the marriage of black people and homosexual people. But this is to assume the very point which is at issue. Its main value is to show those from a differing point of view why some people feel so strongly about it. As an example it has potential to offend in its own particular way. In the other direction, for some, the blessing of a homosexual union is morally equivalent to, say, blessing the union between a human and a chimpanzee. Again this does not advance the argument, but it indicates why others on the conservative side are so strongly opposed to the idea.

Nersen rightly points out that we are human and flawed, and concludes that it is for this reason that we must not condone what is incompatible with scripture. But the trouble here is that it is as flawed and fallible human beings - albeit with the guidance of the Holy Spirit - that we have to interpret the scriptures, and it is not all plain sailing. Half the battle here is about what scripture does say, and about what that means in today's context. For example, it is easier to justify the teaching role of women in church from scripture than to justify them going about with their heads uncovered or to justify men having long hair! The latter two questions have largely passed into oblivion the former question continues to be debated in some quarters. One issue which continues to be debated among evangelical Christians is the question of divorce and remarriage. Here Christians all of whom look to the scriptures as their guide simply disagree about how that guide is to be interpreted. We can see some similar issues being canvassed in the NT, should Gentiles be included in the church? (yes), should they be circumcised? (no), can we eat food offered to idols? (maybe, maybe not depending on the circumstances), should a Christian marry or a widowed Christian remarry? (answers on a postcard).

There are other major theological issues where evangelical Christians differ from one another, but about which we have tacitly agreed not to argue most of the time - these include the means, mode and preconditions of baptism; how the church should be governed, how church and state should relate - to name three that easily come to mind.

Just off the top of my head, I think one major difficulty about Clare's proposal is that in the Church of England the incumbent of the parish has an enforceable legal duty to marry persons duly entitled to be married in the parish. The incumbent could avoid this by finding other clergy to conduct weddings, so long as they were not also part of the moratorium. But it does seem a bit weaselly to say "I won't conduct any weddings" and to fulfil that promise by allowing others to do it on your behalf.

Nersen -

even if it is an only intra-Anglican discussion, with the particular importance that our Articles and other documents give to the Scriptures, that is only half the point. That still leaves the question of interpretation open - there is no Anglican Magisterium. So our tradition is, historically speaking, a process of competing and slowly evolving hermeneutical strategies and tactics. And this is only the latest in an unbroken succession of contested hermeneutical issues over the very important Scriptural witness since the 16th C.

As you well know the ABC is also on record as saying that he doesn't think the uniform negativity of Scripture towards same-sex behaviour is all that can be said - and even if he hadn't someone else would have - and the debate goes on.  Because the ABC doesn't speak ex cathedra his view is important - but it aint the last word. Despite Gagnon, lots of us don't believe that the snippets of witness that makes up all that the Scriptures have to say about this matter are really addressing the modern realities of faithful, permenant and stable gay relationships.