Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was installed as head of the U.S. church less than two years ago, inheriting a mess not of her own making.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Ed Ou)Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori poses for a portrait in the Episcopal Church national headquarters in New York Wednesday July 2, 2008. Schori was installed as head of the U.S. church less than two years ago.
The global Anglican Communion was in an uproar over the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Long-simmering differences over Scripture and the global Anglican fellowship erupted into a threat of full-blown schism.
Jefferts Schori, a theological liberal who supported Robinson's election, has tried to ease the tensions in meetings with other Anglican leaders.
Starting next Wednesday, she will be explaining the church's actions in her broadest venue yet: the Lambeth Conference, a once-a-decade meeting of Anglican bishops from around the world. Jefferts Schori said she's looking forward to the "face-to-face conversation" at the event.
"We're far more diverse than we're presented in some quarters," she said in a recent interview with The Associated Press at Episcopal headquarters in New York. "We have people all over the theological spectrum and liturgical spectrum."
It won't be an easy sell.
About 200 conservative Anglican bishops won't even be there. They are boycotting the 18-day event outside London because the U.S. bishops who consecrated Robinson were invited. (For the sake of unity, the Anglican spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, barred Robinson and a handful of other bishops from the assembly.)
But that won't mean a conflict-free Lambeth for Episcopal bishops.
Tradition-minded church leaders who want the Anglican family to stay together despite its rifts will attend. They will undoubtedly ask Jefferts Schori about complaints that the 2.2 million-member U.S. church is mistreating its conservative minority.
Of the tensions within the American church, Jefferts Schori said "we've attempted to deal with it in the Christian community" but haven't always been successful.
Although the exact figure is in dispute, Episcopal officials say that fewer than 100 of the more than 7,000 U.S. Episcopal parishes have voted to split off since Robinson was elected.
The entire Diocese of San Joaquin, based in Fresno, Calif., voted to withdraw from the denomination, and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, is poised to do the same this fall.
The national church is suing to retain hold of the San Joaquin diocese and its many millions of dollars in property. Another lawsuit is moving through the courts over 11 breakaway churches in Virginia. Critics have called the legal fights "un-Christian" and have asked Episcopal leaders to halt the lawsuits.
But Jefferts Schori said, "We really don't have the authority or the moral right to give away those gifts that have been given by generations past and for the benefit of generations now and the benefit of generations to come."
Last month in Jerusalem, conservatives from around the world held the Global Anglican Future Conference and said they hoped to create a North American province for breakaway conservatives in the Episcopal Church and the liberal-leaning Anglican Church of Canada.
Already, Anglican archbishops, called primates, from Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and South America, have taken oversight of seceding U.S. parishes. At Lambeth, Jefferts Schori said she will ask Williams "to encourage other parts of the communion to cease their incursions." Continue >>
RSS
_2.jpg)
igh,
I don't know whether you have been following sj's posts against Christianity's approach to scripture and its supposed flip-flop in issues such as slavery or usury. In my post on Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:35 pm, I addressed how the nature of money had changed. His specific reference to and indictment of the Roman Church simply deserved a definition from the Roman Church. That's all.
If you are going to speak of the Roman Church's position, then you should at least you understand the Roman Church's definition of usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: "For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk."
i dont get it? what did that mean.
sj,
"I am not interested in rehearsing 1600 years of Christian history interpreting the Scriptures as strongly prohibiting the charging of interest in the lending of money, i.e. usury. This was the opinion of the Roman Church until 1745."
If you are going to speak of the Roman Church's position, then you should at least you understand the Roman Church's definition of usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: "For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk."
sj,
"the nature of human sexuality has changed."
Actually, no. Homosexuality existed in Bible times. It was condemned by God. Historically, people have long used scripture to try to support their selfish positions. At the same time, others have sought out scripture to understand what it says about certain matters and tried to adjust to live by what God has said. The two are very different things - the first is selfish and lends itself to twisting of scripture to justify sin. The latter is seeking God's will and being obedient. People have done both through history, with more of the former than the latter. It is no different today.
People have not changed: we're sinners, just like Adam and Eve. We're selfish, just like Adam and Eve. We seek to justify ourselves, just like Adam and Eve. It does not matter what the sin; sin (in what ever form) is ultimately selfishness.
sj, everyone of the Old Testament passages you cited referred to usury between the Jews and not with Gentiles. The Jeremiah passage talked about lending and said nothing about usury. The two New Testament passages you cited endorsed the practice of usury. And as for relying on the views of the men you listed, no thanks I'll stick to the Word of God and especially considering some of the names you referred to.
sj,
"So is the fact that the nature of human sexuality has changed."
How so? Again, don't be so ambiguous with your statements. You simply continue to make general statements, and then do not support them.
Irenaues, you are right, the nature of money has changed and this is a historical fact. So is the fact that the nature of human sexuality has changed.
sj,
"you are suggesting that the 'nature' of money changed, and not our interpretation of Scripture, when Scripture clearly states that we are not to collect interest in the lending of money?"
Sure the nature of money has changed; this is historical fact. Also, be specific, just as you were with respect to your date of condemnation of slavery... it's easier to prove you wrong that way.
"Why is it so hard for you to admit that Christians changed their minds, and in so doing, ignored previous Scriptural prohibitions?"
Why is it so hard for you to admit that Christianity has it right and has not ignored previous Scriptural prohibitions? And be specific about the Scriptural prohibitions. As it has already been pointed out to you, Deuteronomy 23:19â
sj,
"Slavery (as chattel slavery) was not supported or promoted by Christianity" is simply ill-informed. You need to read some Church history. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, didn't finally condemn slavery until after 1888, after Brazil, the last country allowing slavery, finally abolished it."
Yes, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa in 1888, but Pope Gregory XVI's 1839 bull, In Supremo, taught opposition to enslaving "Indians, blacks, or other such people" and forbade "any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse." And 1839 is earlier than 1888, wouldn't you say?
When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved. Oops... 1686 is even earlier than the date you claim by 200 years.
Pope Paul III condemned slavery in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537) and described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery "null and void." Oop... 360 years earlier than the date you claim.
Do we need to keep going back?...
Irenaeus, you are suggesting that the 'nature' of money changed, and not our interpretation of Scripture, when Scripture clearly states that we are not to collect interest in the lending of money? Talk about bending over backwards. Why is it so hard for you to admit that Christians changed their minds, and in so doing, ignored previous Scriptural prohibitions?
sj, your statement "Slavery (as chattel slavery) was not supported or promoted by Christianity" is simply ill-informed. You need to read some Church history. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, didn't finally condemn slavery until after 1888, after Brazil, the last country allowing slavery, finally abolished it. There's a long history of support for biblically supported slavery, though you can certainly cite a few exceptions here and there. Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address as President of the Confederate States stated what most Christians believed at that time, "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." You are kidding yourself if you think that you can read your Scriptures today and dismiss the general interpretation of our forebears. It's the height of self-righteousness.
sj,
"usury from M.L. usuria, from L. usura "usury, interest," from usus, from stem of uti (see use). Originally the practice of lending money at interest, later, at excessive rates of interest. The meaning changed once the practice which was long prohibited by the Scriptures was allowed."
Not exactly. The nature of money itself has changed over time. During much of antiquity, economies were characterized by a lack of competitive markets and thus few opportunities for investment. Money itself was considered primarily a medium of 'private' and not 'commercial' exchange, and served as an intermediary in trade to avoid the inconveniences of a pure barter system. Money itself was considered "barren" or fungible good since there were only two licit things one could do with it: spend ("consume") it or hoard it. When the development of competitive markets changed the nature of money itself, the understanding of usury changed; i.e., what was usurious at one time would not necessarily be usurious at another later time since the nature of money changed. But this is not a change Christianity's teaching on usury.
believer, I am not interested in rehearsing 1600 years of Christian history interpreting the Scriptures as strongly prohibiting the charging of interest in the lending of money, i.e. usury. This was the opinion of the Roman Church until 1745, of St. Anselm, St. Aquinas, Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, with Calvin beginning the breakdown of this Tradition, supported also by Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Muhammad, Moses and the Prophets, Philo and Gautama Buddha. Some of the common Scriptures referenced are Exodus 22:25-27, Leviticus 25:35-37, Deuteronomy 23:19,20, Nehemiah 5:10,11, Jeremiah 15:10, Ezekiel 18:7-9, Ezekiel 18:17, Ezekiel 22:12, Matthew 25:14-29, Luke 19:11-26 (note the Lord in this parable was not interpreted as Jesus). We cannot simply dismiss the interpretations of these believers, though we must admit we hold a completely different interpretation today, where someone like you seems even unfamiliar with its previous prohibition.
sj,
Actually, it is not so obscure and unclear as you pretend. Slavery (as chattel slavery) was not supported or promoted by Christianity. Certainly, the early Christians seemed to tolerate the slavery of their day, as seen from the New Testament itself and early Christian history, but this is simply due to the fact that slavery was regarded as an intractable part of the social order. In other words, there were many injustices being done by governmental powers and in society in general, that Christians did not vocally and publicly condemn; it may have condemned certain ideas and behaviors from within as prohibitions for her own members, but of course, Christianity would not have regarded itself as being in a position to lead a major social crusade. Heck, they were being persecuted as it was for the first three centuries. Now shortly after Christianity gained acceptance and was legalized, certain Christian leaders may have thought now was the time to be more vocal; Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom condemned slavery in the mid 4th century. Numerous popes condemned slavery. So regardless of whether there were individual Christians who hijack Bible verses to justify certain things, such as slavery, or more relevant to today, the moral licitness of homosexual behavior, does not make it correct.
sj, please cite the scripture you use to say usury was totally prohibited? As I said in at least two posts it was only prohibited for a Jew to charge usury to another Jew and they were not to charge high usury rates. In other words they could charge usury to anyone but another Jew, but at a reasonable rate.
wbmoore; Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source -
usury from M.L. usuria, from L. usura "usury, interest," from usus, from stem of uti (see use). Originally the practice of lending money at interest, later, at excessive rates of interest. The meaning changed once the practice which was long prohibited by the Scriptures was allowed. Yes, the founding fathers had some biblical support for their opposition to the divinely appointed King, but so did those who supported the King; the same for slavery though in both cases I would think the stronger case when with the traditional understanding. Nonetheless, this is my point exactly, the Scriptures could be read in opposing ways by pious Christians, just as they are today with various issues, like homosexuality and the subjugation of women. Now don't quoting the several popular verses that make it clear your position on these issues without realizing that your predecessors did the same, and as much as you scramble for supporting Scriptures for the American Revolution or the Abolition of Slavery, most Christians read the Scriptures differently than you for thousands of years. It is not so obvious and clear as you pretend.
BTW, Just because I can support a position Biblically does not mean I would do what the founding fathers did. I have no idea what I would do in the situation they found themselves in.
As I've said in the past, I can Biblically support being part of the military, and defending family and property. I am not able to support defending self. Nor do I know what I would do in such a situation - just because I think I would act a certain way does not mean I would actually do so when it came down to it.
And no, this is not a cop out, but a realization of reality.
3) â
1) you are incorrect in your definition of 'usury'. It is NOT is simply the charging of interest in the lending of money. It is charging abusive amounts of interest.
2) "slavery is undeniably endorsed by Scripture with too many passages to confirm this, simple read the works of those opposing its abolition"
You mistake regulation of an existing condition with support for it. Many have done this in the past. But this does not mean it was something people should do. Moses allowed divorce because of hardened hearts, but God's against it and always have been. In fact, Paul said to get out of it, he freed a slave, he condemned slave trading. (1 Timothy 1:6-11; 1 Corinthians 7:21; Philemon 1).
sj,
"I refer to the Levitical passage as a 'so-called' disciplinary law because you artificially divided up the laws into ceremonial, disciplinary and moral categories, a distinction which neither the Scriptures themselves or my Jewish rabbi friends make."
Committing adultery is an immoral act. Stoning an adulterer is a disciplinary act; or more specifically, a disciplinary action against an immoral act.
"For the Jews they are all moral."
For the Jew, it may be considered a moral issue by way of obedience, but not the act itself. But more importantly, as I mentioned prior, it is not a moral issue for those under the New Covenant, whether Jew or Gentile.
"But there is no New Testament story to 'abrogate' the stoning of homosexuals or those who disrespect their parents or kidnap or who don't keep the sabbath."
Don't need a specific story. The NT clearly teaches the abrogation of the Mosaic Law.
"Yet you declare that only Numbers 35:31 still holds the death sentence, again with no clear Scriptural warrant."
I never made such as statement.
"In answer to your second question, yes, those who supported the Divine Right of Kings as established by Scripture pointed to various stories of Jesus, Paul and the Apostles, too many to mention here, just as earlier those who opposed the abolition of slavery did the same. And those who supported the subjugation of women pointed to Scriptures attributed to the Apostles, but much less so with those about Jesus, who seemed to accept women in remarkable ways for his day."
I did not ask you what others claimed. I am asking you whether Jesus or the apostles supported the above mentioned issues.
"When you talk about the authority Jesus 'delegated to his apostles' would you mean just the Scriptures reputedly written by Apostles or would you accept the actions and decisions of apostolicly appointed bishops after them as well?"
To the apostolically appointed bishops as well. But allow me to qualify that. Certainly, there were individual bishops who taught error. In fact, most, if not all, heretical teaching started within the church â
sj, what church do you know that imposes the death penalty for murder on anyone? It is the civil authorities that impose the death penalty and not the church. And in fact there are good Christians who fall on both sides of this issue. But once again we're talking about a gray issue as opposed to a black and white issue with regards to one's opinion of the legal consequences for murder. But at the same time murder is a black and white issue in the fact that it is still a sin in the sight of God.
Irenaeus, I refer to the Levitical passage as a 'so-called' disciplinary law because you artificially divided up the laws into ceremonial, disciplinary and moral categories, a distinction which neither the Scriptures themselves or my Jewish rabbi friends make. For the Jews they are all moral. You yourself suggest that because of the New Testament, the law against stoning an adulterer was 'abrogated.' But there is no New Testament story to 'abrogate' the stoning of homosexuals or those who disrespect their parents or kidnap or who don't keep the sabbath. Yet you declare that only Numbers 35:31 still holds the death sentence, again with no clear Scriptural warrant. In answer to your second question, yes, those who supported the Divine Right of Kings as established by Scripture pointed to various stories of Jesus, Paul and the Apostles, too many to mention here, just as earlier those who opposed the abolition of slavery did the same. And those who supported the subjugation of women pointed to Scriptures attributed to the Apostles, but much less so with those about Jesus, who seemed to accept women in remarkable ways for his day. When you talk about the authority Jesus 'delegated to his apostles' would you mean just the Scriptures reputedly written by Apostles or would you accept the actions and decisions of apostolicly appointed bishops after them as well?
sj,
"... so has the so-called 'disciplinary' law requiring the stoning of homosexuals (as well as those who disrespect their parents) be 'abrogated' as well since there is no New Testament reference, and if so, by what authority?"
Why is the fact that this is a disciplinary law regarded by you as 'so-called'? Has the disciplinary law requiring the stoning of adulterers been abrogated as well since there is no New Testament reference, or do you believe that we should indeed stone adulterers.
"... and if so, by what authority?"
By Jesus and the authority that he delegated to His apostles.
sj,
Did Jesus oppose usury? Did the apostles or Paul? Did they support the Divine Right of Kings? Did they support slavery? Did they support the subjugation of women?
sj, another thought, we also need to see that there are some scriptures that present gray areas, areas where there could be two or more possible valid interpretations, the question then becomes are these issues that have a major impact on the major doctrines of the Bible or are they issues that have little if any impact on the major doctrines of the Bible. If the latter then there is little if any problem in holding a different view, but if it has an impact on a major doctine then once again it needs to be thoroughly studied and we need to honestly say we're not 100% sure what the correct interpretation is. A pastor of mine once said there are teachings in the Scripture that we must plant our feet in concrete on and there are others where we dare not plant our feet in concrete. It is only the discernment of the Holy Spirit that will help us to know the difference. But I think a major issue is our view of the Scriptures as a whole: 1. Do we believe the Bible is just a another book? 2. Do we believe Bible becomes the Word of God? 3. Do we believe the Bible contains the Word of God?. 4. Do we believe the Bible in its' original autographs is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary, Word of God? How a person answers that question will have a great impact on how they rightly interpret the Scriptures.
sj, anybody Christian or not can take the Word of God and make it say what they want it to, but that does not change God's truth. And you're absolutely right there are some perhaps not most as you suggest who have promoted or bought into ideas such as slavery misusing the Bible to support their view. But the issue is not the Word of God but the agenda of the individual or group and most importantly a person's desire to truly know God's truth and perspective on an issue. If a person or group has an agenda they will more than likely misuse the Word to promote their agenda, but if a believer is truly seeking God's truth and perspective on an issue God's Holy Spirit will reveal it to them as they diligently study His Word. The problem is who but God can truly determine the heart and mind of the person or group and that's why it is imperative that every believer truly be a student of the Word and not simply take someone else's interpretation as fact and allow God's Holy Spirit to as much as possible help them to discern not only God's truth, but the motive of the person or group promoting a certain view of certain scriptures.
believer, you write as though Biblical truths are all so obvious and clear, when in fact good Christians have read the same Bible and over the years come to opposing viewpoints. For instance, you boldly declare that the Bible does not condemn usury, and I am sure that you would dismiss the passages that might be quoted to suggest that it does, but for 1,600 years most Christians were opposed to usury on Biblical grounds. For 1,700 years most Christians supported the Divine Right of Kings on Biblical grounds. For 1,800 years most Christians supported the institution of slavery as Biblically founded. For 1,900 years, the subjugation of women. Thus my 'agenda' is that good Christians reading the same Bible have often disagreed about all sorts of important issues, and have sometimes even 'changed' their interpretation. Only self-righteousness would prevent good Christians from acknowledging this truth in the midst of our present debates. It is not so obvious and clear as you suggest.
sj, you continue to say that the Bible condemns usury/interest, but it does not. The only thing the Bible condemns is too high a usury and that Jews cannot charge usury to other Jews. And in fact Jesus appears to condone the practice as cited in Matthew 25:27 and Luke 19:23 when He uses it in the Parable of the Talents. But I wonder, what is your real agenda in your posts with regards to the Word of God?
sj, if you want people to respond to your posts please tell us what your scripture references are referring to, thanks. As far as the NT Christ established for the believer a new standard with regards to being offended by both another believer and our enemy, in doing so He in essence rescinded many of the discipline practices of the OT. For instance He spoke that we are to no longer use the standard of an eye for an eye, but rather we are to forgive those who sin against us. Please note that this does not automatically free someone from the civil legal penalties of their behavior. The Numbers reference was referring to the discipline practices often used during OT times, rather than punishing someone to the fullest extent of the law there were options with the exception of someone who is found guilty of murder. But as a matter of fact that practice is no longer necessary because Christ set a new standard of forgiveness for believers as I stated earlier. But please note that sin by anyone must still be repented of before God if it is to be forgiven by God, because Christ never denied the factr that many of these practices are still sin in the sight of God.
believer; and exactly why does Numbers 35:31 remain valid, but not Exodus 21:20-1, or Exodus 21:15, 17 or Exodus 22:19, Exodus 31:14 or Exodus 35:2 or Lev. 20:9 or 20:11 or 20:12 or 20:14 or 20:15 or 20:16 or 20:27 or 21:9 or 24:16 or Num. 1:51 or 3:10 or 3:38 or 18:7 or 18:32 or Dt. 17:5 or 21:21 and on and on, and tell me again which of us is picking and choosing which Scriptures he will obey and which he dismisses?
sj, the only Old Testament law that demands death with no other options is murder, Numbers 35:31 says, "Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death. All others there could be some other form of punishment such as a ransom or special offering as opposed to carrying out the death sentence. Plus Christ said a new standard of forgiveness when He came to earth with regards to believers forgiving not only each other, but their enemies as well.
Irenaeus, so has the so-called 'disciplinary' law requiring the stoning of homosexuals (as well as those who disrespect their parents) be 'abrogated' as well since there is no New Testament reference, and if so, by what authority? Also please note that 'it is Scripture itself IN THE NEW TESTAMENT' that declares it a 'sin' to rebel against God's authority in the king. By what Scripture did that one get 'abrogated'? Just wondering.
sj,
You need to take off your rose-tinted glasses to see the 'plain sense' of the Scriptures and not sugar-coat it for your personal convenience. No strawman being constructed. It is Scripture itself that has condemned homosexuality IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, yet in the same NEW TESTAMENT, purity laws regarding food, for example, have been abrogated, yet you continue to refer to the Pentetuech.
"Is stoning homosexuals a ceremonial, purity or moral law, and are we Christians bound by that one?"
It is a disciplinary law, similar to the one for stoning an adulterer. And although the disciplinary law of stoning an adulterer has been abrogated, this does not change the morality of adultery itself; THE ACT REMAINS IMMORAL regardless of the disciplinary action taken due to the act. Similarly for homosexual acts; although the disciplinary law of stoning a practicing homosexual has been abrogated, this does not change the morality of homosexual behavior itself; THE ACT REMAINS IMMORAL regardless of the disciplinary action taken. Or do you also accept adultery as morally licit.
"For the Jews they are all moral."
Not exactly, since a Jew would not consider a gentile as being immoral if, for example, he wore clothes made of more than one fabric, but he would consider the gentile immoral for, say, adultery.
Irenaeus, your division of the biblical laws into ceremonial, purity and moral ones is a convenient straw man argument and not biblically founded. How do you tell the difference? Is stoning homosexuals a ceremonial, purity or moral law, and are we Christians bound by that one? For the Jews they are all moral, and apparently for St. Luke as well. Likewise your description of slavery is convenient but Exodus 21:20-1 allows a slave owner to beat his slave to death with a rod as long as he survives a day or two, and Jesus' Parable of the Watchful Slaves acknowledges without reproach the beating of slaves both by the chief slave and the owner (Lk. 12:45-7). You need to take off your rose-tinted glasses to see the 'plain sense' of the Scriptures and not sugar-coat it for your personal convenience.
sj,
You are confusing ceremonial, purity and/or disciplinary laws with moral laws. The moral law has never been abrogated, which is why "a man shall not lie with a man as he would a woman" still holds. Thinks about it... if you want to dismiss this particular moral law simply because we are no longer bound by the dietary laws of abstaining from eating meat with blood or from eating lobster, then you have to also accept rape, or incest, or bestiality as morally licit. After all, since Jesus did not explicitly condemn any of these, all the moral laws must be abrogated along with the ceremonial, dietary, disciplinary laws... that is, if you want to remain consistent with your approach. The New Covenant incorporated the moral law of the Old Covenant, which is why that Church has always condemned homosexual practice.
Often, when people think of slave, they are thinking of slavery of the worst kind; where people are treated as things, and thus, have no personal rights, such as the abhorrent institution existing in early American history. Certainly, these instances occurred, and sometime the Bible indicates toleration by way of offering regulations. But typically, the regulations were there to prevent abuses and punishments being doled out in excess of the crime. This does not mean that the Bible endorses and promotes slavery. Also, every reference to slavery is not of this type, although certainly, as already mentioned, there were abuses. Dt. 23:16-17 "You shall not turn over a slave [who has escaped] to his master. He shall dwell with you in your midstâ
wbmoore, first 'usury' is the charging of interest in the lending of money, the basis of our modern capitalistic economy, not the 'abuse' of people. Usury is strictly forbidden by the Scriptures and Church Tradition, at least until the 17th century. Secondly, slavery is undeniably endorsed by Scripture with too many passages to confirm this, simple read the works of those opposing its abolition (e.g. http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/string/string.html). Your defense of the American Revolution is weak, especially when the Scriptures are so clear. And you are indeed picking and choosing your Scriptures, and claiming the Holy Spirit as your guide, but of course not the guide of those who pick and choose different Scriptures is the height of the self-righteousness against which our Lord had so much to say.
"Scripture is very clear that slavery is accepted,"
You are wrong. While some might have used the Bible to try to indicate that slavery is accepted, in fact the Word of God indicates that slavery as we understand it is a bad thing (See 1 timothy 1:9 where Paul equated slave traders to murders; 1 Corinthians 7:21 where he said to get out of slavery if you could; Philemon, where Paul wrote that Onesimus was no longer a slave and that Philemon should charge anything to Paul's account). It is a good thing that slavery has decreased worldwide (although unfortunately is not yet stopped worldwide).
Also, in much of the Old Testament, what is termed slavery is actually indetured servitude. The two are very different things.
"the usury is prohibited, "
I agree - abuse of people is wrong. Even says so in the Bible.
"that the American Revolution against the Divine Right of Kings was misguided, "
Actually, God has used men to be His instruments to stop criminal leaders before. See story of Hamon in book of Esther.
"the women should be subject to men,"
Christ said we are to lead by being servants (Mark 10:43-45). Some people do not understand what this means. But Christ is our head and men are to be the head of the home. This does not roles - just ultimate responsibility to present his wife to God unblemished, holy and blameless as Christ will do with us (Ephesians 5:22-33).
" and that homosexuality "
Well, God said this. I can't deny it. I dont get to make up rules - the creator does.
"and eating a ham & cheese sandwich is an abomination to God."
Actually, you will notice in the new testament that we are free to eat what we wish. See Mark 7:14-23; Colossians 2:13-16; Romans 14:1-8, 14:13-21; 1Corinthians 8:8-13; 1 Tim 4:1-4).
"So who's picking and choosing which Scriptures they are going to obey and which they are going explain away? "
There is no picking and choosing. You simply have to read all scripture and be sure to have an understanding that avoids ignoring or contradicting scripture. Of course, having the Holy Spirit to guide you helps.
believer, you are simply wrong. There are many passages that support, endorse and regulate slavery in the Bible. In Exodus 21:20-1, for example, a slave owner is allowed to beat his slave to death as long as the slave survives a day or two. In Leviticus 25:44-6, slaves are possessions 'forever,' no mention of the 7 year jubilee. And passages in I Peter 2:13-14 or Romans 13:1-2 condemn the American Revolution as a sin. And while Peter was allowed to eat non-kosher food, there was no provision for the wearing of a cotton-blend shirt or touching a football. The point being is that many, good, Bible-reading Christians wonder, sometimes aloud, whether those who so vigorously oppose the acceptance of homosexuality on 'clear' Biblical grounds are not like those before us who opposed the introduction of democracy as a violation of the Divine Right of Kings, or who opposed the abolition of slavery, or the introduction of usury, or the equality of women. There is a precedent for our concerns, even if you do not agree with us.
sj, let's say you're right about the American Revolution what's your point and how does it change the truths taught in God's Word? As for slavery your right no where does the Bible condemn it and at the same time you will find no scriptures that supports or endorses it. But you will find many scriptures that teach a slave owner how to rightly treat their slaves. And in fact there were guidelines for the slave who when their term was up and they wished to remain a slave to their owner what they had to do. So as much as I disagree with slavery if the owner abided by the guidelines taught in the Bible the life of a slave could be a good one to the point some even when offered their freedom chose to stay a slave.
believer, you conveniently ignored the biblically grounded Divine Right of Kings, against which our American Revolution was clearly a 'sin,' or the more obvious biblical case for slavery, mentioned in every book of the Bible whose excesses were even acknowledged by Jesus, yet without a word of condemnation, but with many scriptural passages of acceptance and guidance in the practice. How on earth could good Christians oppose these practices long supported by Scripture AND Christian Tradition?
sj, you're right on several accounts, the Bible does call homosexuality an abomination and it does teach that a woman should not have spiritual headship over a man in either the home or the church. Usury was allowed except between Jews. So since most of us are not Jews charging a legitmate interest is not a sin. In the Book of Acts, God shows Peter that the Jewish dietary laws are no longer in effect, so you're free to eat your ham and cheese sandwich anytime you want.
wbmoore, Scripture is very clear that slavery is accepted, the usury is prohibited, that the American Revolution against the Divine Right of Kings was misguided, the women should be subject to men, and that homosexuality and eating a ham & cheese sandwich is an abomination to God. So who's picking and choosing which Scriptures they are going to obey and which they are going explain away?
"titular head of an apostate Christian denomination?"
Who sits around and makes up these vicious and demeaning epithets? And this is not "hate?" What is it? (Sorry, I take that back. No need to answer... I can identify the spirit that produces such fruit.)
Scripture is quite clear that spiritual leadership over men is not for women. Therefore, since she is a woman, she may be titular head of an apostate Christian denomination, but she is not a true bishop, nor is she a true spiritual leader. She is contributing to the decline of the denomination and this country.
Amazing how the apostates accuse fidelity to Bible as being "hate". If beleiving in scripture makes one a hater then count me in. Jesus specifically said he "hated" false teaching. (Rev. 2:6) It appears the Episcopalians are the modern day Nicolations.
The disdain and contempt for women that comes through in these various comments is frightening, and certainly not Christ-like. EvanCal, next time you are on an airplane, I dare you to call flight attendants, of either gender, either stewards or stewardesses. As it is, God bless KJS and all the other women in the various denominations who continue to believe and work despite the misogyny still so rampant in God´s Church.
You got half of your remark right, John14: You are no bishop. The head of the Episcopal Church, on the other hand, IS the main bishop of a major denomination. Your remark is as absurd as people who used to say, "Clinton is not my president," or ones who now say, "Bush is not my president." These people need to revisit their high school civics text book. Bush, unfortunately, IS my president. And Jefferts Schori (sp?) is the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. Look it up.
JR (and others), I am constantly amazed as people keep commenting here on matters of no concern to them. Not only do few people on this Web site get to vote at any Episcopal meeting, but the Episcopalians are not at all interested in what you and I think. Why do we spend so much time worrying about what other people are doing? Does it make us feel superior that, at least, we are not THOSE people? What a batch of grumpy busybodies you seem like at times.
I agree women are not to be head leaders in church. I wonder how that works if she is married, when the husband is the spiritual leader of the home. The churches started falling apart soon after denominations appoint women. the episcapalians and now the presbytarians