Dealing with conflicts in the Anglican Communion - part 2

Carrying on from last weeks' study, looking now mostly at approaches to scripture.

Some of us thought that GAFCON's idea that scripture should be 'translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church's historic and consensual reading' might make finding something new in scripture difficult, it might tend to fix the meaning or rather interpretation of scripture.
The statement from Lambeth was much longer (as it always seems to be!) and seemed a bit of a fudge to some of us. The statement talks of using a range of different approaches to scripture 'under the guidance of the Holy Spirit' so perhaps both groups are making an appeal for having authority for their views?

We looked at two passages. Romans 1.18-33 A traditional way of reading this passage would be to see it as condemning homosexual acts. It has also been seen as being primarily about idol worship, also that what Paul writes about here cannot be compared to faithful, stable homosexual relationships that are part of 21st century Britain. How we see scripture obviously effects how we respond to this passage. If we take the GAFCON view their seems little scope but to see this passage as condemning homosexual relationships, however some Christians will not think that this passage condemns homosexual behaviour as we understand it now in our culture, they will want to take into account the change in context from when the letter was written to when it is being read now. Also they will want to bring to the passage knowledge about human sexuality that was not know by Paul. Both of these approaches take scripture seriously and see scripture as authoritative. Another approach is to accept that Paul really is condemning homosexual behaviour and to see that this presents us with a choice - we can follow Paul, ie. follow scripture or we can choose not to.
It was noted that this passage lists a number of sins that people fall into:

evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, ³⁰slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, ³¹foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

and yet mostly the church only focuses on the sexual sins and other very common ones like gossiping and being rude to our parents are ignored! We wondered why the church over the ages has been so hung up about sex and sexual sin, some of us felt there was a fear of female sexuality at the heart of this. If we look back at our discussions about original sin we see that Augustine thought this was passed on during sex, which suggests that the church has had at least an ambivalent view of sex for a long time.

The other passage we looked at was Luke 14.15-24. It was suggested in the notes that some might want to identify the excluded with those who are excluded by the church now - eg. homosexual people. We talked about how this passage has been traditionally interpreted and also how it might have been understood by its first hearers. We felt that perhaps the first hearers of this passage might have been the poor and the outcasts of Israel, they might have seen it as a message of God's acceptance of them and rejection of their rich rulers. Traditionally we thought this was usually interpreted as being about Israel rejecting Jesus and the Gentiles becoming the new 'chosen people' (is this a 'plain' understanding of scripture?). Now another way is being proposed, that we widen the interpretation to make it about any group that is excluded. Asylum seekers in the UK came to to mind. Most of us felt that is was reasonable to 'use' this passage in different ways at different times and situations, and in general that the 'meaning' of scripture cannot be 'nailed down' for all time. If we think there is only one - received - understanding of scripture do we risk missing out on those moments of enlightenment that sometimes come when we look at a passage we might know very well but in which we somehow find something new revealed?

We wondered if GAFCON's position was tenable, do they always take the 'plain meaning'? - for example what does Jesus mean when he says that we must hate our Mothers and Fathers?. Perhaps they fudge things too? Perhaps Lambeth is more honest about problems of interpretation? Can we/should we use the bible tentatively? Some of us felt it was ok to live with doubt and uncertainty.

In general how should the church deal with disagreement? Should we always try and stick together or is it sometimes right to split?
Sometimes the local experience of church is more important than the institutional - we may not agree with the ideas of the institution but be happy in the local church. It will, inevitably, depend on the issue, however many of us were keen to hold onto the strength of the Anglican 'big tent' in which people can be together who don't agree on everything.
(still didn't quite finish, part 3 next week!).