Categories: uncategorized
Date: 02 July 2008 13:36:35
I am an occasional listener too Radio 4, mainly the Today and P.M. programmes, and a daily reader of The Times. There has been much coverage recently by both on the current travails being endured by the Anglican Communion. In view of current problems would that be an oxymoron?
Following the Jerusalem Conference last week, yesterday saw the creatio of a "Church within a Church" by the evangelical section. They see the more liberal areas as being heretical in their adoption of women bishops and gay clergy. They believe that both policies are against biblical teaching. Therefore they have decided to form an organisation, within the Anglican Communion, that will represent their views and allow likeminded followers to feel more comfortable.
Everyone is quick to point out that this is not a schism within the church, no one has gone that far.... yet!
Their opposition to women bishops is St Paul's assertion that "man" is the "head of woman". With regards to homosexuality, they see this as a direct contrivention of biblical teaching and therefore cannot see how any gay person can be allowed to hold office in the church.
What surprised me most though was an interview on Radio 4's P.M. programme last week. They interviewed a gay English clergyman who was in Jerusalem for its Gay Pride march and an English Bishop who was there for the conference.
During the interview the gay clergyman announced that homosexualiy was actually countenanced by biblical teaching and that there was no biblical evidence that God only approved of "straight" relationships and marriage. I don't seem to see this in my bible - but then I'm no theologian; I seem to see the exact opposite.
Then the gay clergyman said that it was okay as all biblical interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit and that therefore it was ok that the bible was reinterpreted in light of this. Upon hearing this I thought that this was a weakness highlighted in The Protestant Revolution (the book of the TV series).
The Catholics have a set method of debate and testing for problems of this nature. You can't change their orthodox teaching without passing through this review. This forms a tested method of teaching and reform.
In the wider protestant movement we have no centralised method of testing such teachings. Everyone is free to do what they want, how they want. The invocation that the "Holy Spirit" revealed this to me, is enough to form a new branch or denomination. Regardless as to whether or not the teaching concerned is biblically based or not.
This is the problem that the Anglicans face - are they open to debate on these alteration to teachings and concensious agreement or is it acceptable for changes to be made in line with "modern" thinking?
History Today:
1644 : Oliver Cromwell wins his first major victory against the Royalists at Marston Moor.
1819 : The Factory Act becomes law. This prohibits the employment of children under 9 in textile factories and under 16's for more than 12 hours a day. They could still climb chimneys though and work in mines.
1937 : Amelia Earhart disappears over the Pacific in her attempt to fly round the world. And they say that men never stop to ask directions.....
1964 : Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Bill, giving equality regardless of race or religion. I thought that was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, well excluding slave of course.