±«Óãtv

The Archbishop didn't really say anything - did he?

Peter - actually, in Anglican terms, the Archbishop said a lot.

I bemoan the fact that the many others in the church who think like me do not actually say in the clear unambiguous terms I have tried to use exactly what they believe and what they reject. I understand, however, the reasons which they would offer in private for their reticence. Given those constraints I wholly welcome what the Archbishop has said which, stripped of the code-speak, is 'Roll out your rainbow banners gays...'

Every clued-in Anglican knows this and that is precisely why the dinosaur tendency has reacted as it has.

The small quoted section from the EFIC's letter .. "saddened that one who is to protect the faith ... should so confuse, hurt and divide the people of God." .. sums up a lot that myself and other atheist-inclined people find so irritatingly petty and wasteful about religion.
Protect which faith?(Their own, presumably.)
Protect from what?(Other faiths? Reality, whatever that might be?)
Who are these people of God?(Which God?)

So much time and energy expended jostling for position and supremacy within their own little sub-clique, which is part of an offshoot of a sub-section of a sub-division of a minor branch of a breakaway cult of .... etc. etc.
Layer after sad layer of some rotten onion, with a mythical sky-fairy at the core.

Sad.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

Scybalous/Portwyne

I can identify with your frustration about the statement you quoted from and the questions you asked. In a way it's similar to my comment about the Archbishop's statement, you sort of have to be an insider to understand what is being said and that leaves one open, quite rightly I suppose, to the accusation of lack of clarity in communication.

As an insider I can probably answer the questions you ask, presuming that they are not merely rhetorical; however the fact that a society like the UK, and NI in particular, can have been saturated in the Christian religion, for so long, while it remains intelligible to many is evidence, I think, of the failure of christians (liberal and conservative) to communicate exactly what they believe. There are of course many reasons for this, but the really concerning thing is that so many of those who have responsibility for making public statements about faith opt for ambiguity as if it were a solution. Unfortunately, as I suggested at the top of this thread, to the uninitiated, the words look like words and sound like words but they communicate nothing. Worse still the gulf between the church and the community only becomes wider than ever.

I have no problem with people telling me that they disagree with me, that they find Christianity intolerable or whatever, but I'd prefer it if others disagreed with Christianity because they knew what Christians actually believed. That they do not is not their fault. What bothers me, and it bothers me immensely, is that Christianity can irritate others because so often the only things on view are our petty idiocyncracies and our insider language together with a lack of concern to make ourselves known.

That this leaves people like you thinking that we worship a mythical sky-fairy is only to be expected.

Portwyne.

Thankyou for your insight into the thinking of the Archbishop. Had the Archbishop been as clear about some of the issues dividing the church as you have been, then there might be a chance of a way forward. To me all the talk of unity is somewhat futile, for while the outward appearance of togetherness might be maintained, there really is no agreement. Maybe the way forward is for those concerned to go their separate ways.

Afterall the liberal/conservative divide is about more than those issues related to sexuality.

The apostasy in the Church of Ireland is rampant. Why would any Bible believing Christian stay in such a denomination whose leader is an out and out Bible denier and apostate? This man, if he died today would be in a christless eternity...why? Because he is walking in complete darkness...he has never been born again by the Spirit of God...he is what the Bible calls a False prophet....Take heed that no man deceive you!

Isaiah 8:20

Peter it really saddens me to say it but what is most wrong with the Anglican Church (which I love) and, in particular, the clergy of its its liberal wing is that week-in week-out they lie to their congregations and, in dialogue, they lie to other Christians both inside our own denomination and outside. It is the unwillingness to stand on their true position as either their teaching position or their negotiating position which emasculates the local church and inhibits real dialogue.

The teaching of the study of the Bible in the CofI Theological College for many years, teaching accepted by most liberals, leads inexorably to the sort of position on the authority of scripture I have outlined in previous posts. Very few liberals, although they might think it, will come out and say 'we simply don't think the Scriptures have anything authoritative to say on, for example, sexual morality'. Instead they try to argue in the context of scripture for a view they have actually formed independently. This leads to sophistry and spurious debate as the opponent cannot engage with the reality of the liberal's faith and opinions. I understand why they do it but it really, really frustrates me!

Last evening I joined a liberal-evangelical-catholic CofE vicar (now there's someone who has really bought into the Anglican project), a member of the Brethren, and someone from an independent free church for supper and to discuss Lambeth. Over half a bottle of sherry, half a bottle of port, and two bottles of wine we were able to engage in completely open honest and free dialogue.

There was considerable disagreement on many issues - in particular we could not reconcile my metaphor of faith as a journey with the brethren guy's of faith as an anchor - despite the other Anglican wishing 'to hold on to both'. We ended the evening, however, (in vino caritas) united in understanding and accepting the common core we shared and rejoicing in the power of God transforming each of our lives.

This is Will and Testament. And this is Puritan, the fundamentalist who leads an exciting double life. For when Puritan reads a New King James, an amazing transformation occurs. Puritan is Anti-Apostate, ever alert to the threat of heresy.

Portwyne
You paid for all the drinks?
GV

Portwyne
Did you ever get a chance to look at my answer on the authority of Scripture. And how much did the Brethren guy have to drink? I could report him to the relevant authorities - I believe they offer substantial rewards

GV

Graham - everybody contributed - my 'head' tells me though that I might just possibly have been a net beneficiary.

I don't actually know that many Brethren people but, according to my friend, they abstain from alcohol only to avoid giving offence so it is perfectly permissible to indulge providing all present are Christian and of like mind. In answer to your question let me say that in his case 'indulge' is the mot juste.

I did not notice your answer on the authority of Scripture - in this fast-paced environment it is easy to miss a post - if you could give me the thread and posting number I will take a look at it.

POST #8 is a blatant lie and fabrication.

Sorry Puritan, I was only having a laugh. I would never accuse you of reading the New King James. (Joking again)
You have to admit there is a similarity in style between you and AA.
In any case the "gveale wrote" in blue letters at the top of the post would have given the fabrication away.

Sorry I caused you offence brother.

Graham Veale

Portwyne
I was raised Brethren, and still have a lot of sympathy for that movement. So I wasn't having a dig at your friend. He'd probably get the joke.

The post on scripture was pot44 on "Gay Man Takes Bible to Court"

GVeale

peter, your reply in post No.5 shows great integrity, honesty and politeness; qualities not always in evidence on Message Boards.
I have complete respect for your religious position and beliefs, and, as someone famous once described it, I would passionately defend your right to have those beliefs, even though they are very much at odds with my own philosophy. (if that's not too pompous a word to use.)

You cite a ".. lack of clarity in communication .. " as being a problem, and whilst I agree to a certain extent with that viewpoint, it's not the whole story by any means. A bigger problem is posed by the fact that it's not often clear what it is that is being communicated. You say that you would prefer it if people disagreed with Christianity based on a knowledge of what Christians actually believe, but, given the diverse interpretations of the Bible that exist, it seems to me that there is no blanket definition of what a Christian actually is.

Anyway, your honesty is much appreciated, and in return, here's some from me .. my questions were partly (but not entirely) rhetorical.

Really, everything the archbishop says has the words "at this time" to be understood afterwards - the politicians favourite.

Graham

I have finally had a chance to look at your post on the authority of Scripture. One thing jumped out at me: you note that both you and Brian 'ground' yourselves in historical traditions - obviously very different traditions but each drawing on the writings and experience of great scholars and philosophers of the past. I do not - I exist in a tradition but I ground myself on nothing but my own reason and the transforming experience of the knowledge and love of God.

It may help you to know where I am coming from if I relate, as best I can remember, the first thing my tutor said to me when I attended my first tutorial at university.

He said: I want to tell you about Bacon and the elephant's knee (I think anyway it was Bacon - please correct me if I am developing early onset Alzheimers). The question of whether an elephant could bend its leg or not was one which vexed many mediaeval scholars and here's what Bacon had to say, and he quoted how the philosopher drew on the writings of Albertus Magnus and Isidore of Seville, et al. to articulate the arguments for flexibility before adding, almost as an after-thought, and besides I went down to His Majesty's menagerie and took a look at the elephant there and, yeah, it had a knee all right (paraphrase).

I think he was saying many things but one was use your eyes and think for yourself - if so it is one lesson I learned well.

I understand what you say in your post and someone who wants to believe that there is a thematic unity in Scripture and that it tells of a divine Jesus who physically rose from the dead will be able to adduce arguments to support that conviction. My faith does not require me to believe any of those things and the evidence of my eyes, my ability to reason, and what I know of God all lead me to a very different conclusion from the one you have drawn.

Of the people in a somewhat conservative Christian tradition who blog here regularly I very much respect the approach, the seriousness and sincerity of yourself and PeterM but I am afraid as you once said yourself - there is unlikely to be a meeting of minds on these particular issues.

Portwyne
Thankyou for the reply.
But have you noticed that you are grounding your sense of identity and your search for truth in a tradition going back to Francis Bacon?
And is our motivation for collecting evidence the issue? Shouldn't the evidence be judged on it's own merit?

However, we are agreed on two things. Two people with different motivations and life experiences can draw different conclusions, without either being irrational.
And I also agree that empirical evidence, rationality, and experience are important in assessing Religious Belief. Personally, I don't think that they need to be the source of our faith - but in my view they can undermine a faith commitment.

Graham Veale