tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post4371962279473194525..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Does the Truth Change with Time?A. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-16045216315843167042009-08-24T12:43:24.227-07:002009-08-24T12:43:24.227-07:00Good catch, Pewster - very appropriate. In the 197...Good catch, Pewster - very appropriate. In the 1979 BCP, it is the traditional collect for the Fifth Sunday in Lent, p. 167.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-27851921418394570552009-08-24T10:28:12.602-07:002009-08-24T10:28:12.602-07:00During my lunch break, I chanced upon this collect...During my lunch break, I chanced upon this collect in the <a href="http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Confirnation.htm" rel="nofollow">1928 BCP</a>. I think it ties in with the subject of your post. <br /><br />Offices of Instruction<br />FIRST OFFICE.<br /><br />O ALMIGHTY God, Who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men; Grant unto thy people, That they may love the thing which thou commandest, And desire that which thou dost promise; That so, among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, Our hearts may surely there be fixed, Where true joys are to be found; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. <br /><br />Does anyone know if this is to be found in the 1979 BCP?Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-36281615627295230482009-08-24T08:43:08.217-07:002009-08-24T08:43:08.217-07:00r.k., I did not mean in the least to slight the tr...r.k., I did not mean in the least to slight the truth of your own experience. It sounds indeed as though it fell well within the boundaries outlined by St. Paul. Grace and peace to you.<br /><br />Don, thank you for those points. They are true, and well said. "One reason why TEC struggles to add members is that pagans and secularists understand that fact and TEC reappraisers don't." Or as J. Gresham Machen put it, the Church is engaged in the "absolutely impossible task . . . of calling the [self-defined] righteous to repentance".<br /><br />UP, the relativity of Biblical truth is an essential part of a lot of sermons these days -- it's a way of reading the Bible to suit current fashions, in order to avoid making people uncomfortable. (From your own posts, I gather you might have encountered it on some Sundays yourself.) If priests would just be honest and admit that it is their <i>interpretation</i> which is changing, while the Bible's truth remains the same, I think their congregation could live with that. But then, I guess, after a while they might start asking themselves: "We can get changing interpretations from anyone -- at home, in the office, or on the street. Why do we need to come to Church for yet one more variation? Isn't the Church supposed to <i>stand</i> for something?" When they start realizing that, they stop coming -- it's the same process that Don and J. Gresham Machen were talking about.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-89391178757423325642009-08-24T07:52:54.688-07:002009-08-24T07:52:54.688-07:00Well done.
You wrote:
"If we were to elimin...Well done.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />"If we were to eliminate at the outset any argument for same-sex marriage made by someone who cannot admit the existence of absolute and unchanging truth, I think the number of legitimate defenders of the concept would shrink dramatically."<br /><br />Indeed, it is impossible to argue the point with those who cannot admit such an existence. I wonder how "process theology" would deal with the question of truth.<br /><br />Could it be that pewsitters are not being taught the concept of absolute and unchanging truth, and are thus all the more subject to the shifting winds of change?Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-70028954964932000812009-08-24T07:42:02.676-07:002009-08-24T07:42:02.676-07:00Reappraisers make two a priori assumptions regardi...Reappraisers make two <i>a priori</i> assumptions regarding this that need to be challenged.<br /><br />The first is that relationships are sanctified by being committed. But that's not the case.<br /><br />It's worthy of note that the ancient world certainly had committed same-sex relationships, as any reader of Plutarch knows. Same sex relationships were certainly prominent in Hellenic and Hellenistic culture (if not completely accepted,) something the Jews found distasteful. (That distaste, IMHO, helped to fuel the Maccabean revolt, but that's another issue.) So this conflict has been going on for a long time<br /><br />The second is that it's true that the ancient world didn't have the "identity" politics and group concepts we have now. But then again it didn't have the race-based slavery that has caused so much heartache in the Americas, and it didn't have the "master race" concept that fuelled the Nazis.<br /><br />The thing that reappraisers in TEC are trying to get around is that the acceptance of same sex relationships is a rejection of Christianity and a reversion to paganism. One reason why TEC struggles to add members is that pagans and secularists understand that fact and TEC reappraisers don't.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14520020316466378352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-64585139264204040592009-08-24T07:40:19.729-07:002009-08-24T07:40:19.729-07:00as the ex in the marriage was unfaithful to an inc...as the ex in the marriage was unfaithful to an incredible degree(8 proven individuals of a number that could reach 20), i stand by my statement. apologies for the blending of the words of our savior with those of the apostle paul. however, i know that the path laid before me was that of the lord.rytaranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15784398657923257242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-76156981560304620832009-08-24T07:35:42.721-07:002009-08-24T07:35:42.721-07:00r.k., you have set up a straw man to knock down. I...r.k., you have set up a straw man to knock down. In the first place, it was not Jesus, but Paul, who declared the exception to which you refer -- for a Christian married to an unbeliever, when the unbeliever leaves the marriage. See 1 Cor. 7:12-15. And the question raised by Paul's discussion of the situation is whether there was any Christian marriage to begin with. <br /><br />Jesus did not say the second marriage itself was sin, he expressly referred to a second Christian marriage, as I pointed out. All He said was that in the act of marrying for the second time, there was necessarily an act of adultery (unless the first marriage had been dissolved by the other's act of adultery), until the partners could repent and fulfill their vows to make the second marriage a lasting Christian one.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-88457268870128976312009-08-24T04:52:13.105-07:002009-08-24T04:52:13.105-07:00Jesus did not declare second marriages to be sin. ...Jesus did not declare second marriages to be sin. if fact he stated that if the unbeliever departs(due to their adultery)then the believer is no longer bound but is set free. such is my story contained within the pages of the first of three true novels by Eloquent Books entitled Euclid Avenue. the press release can be seen at eloquentbooks.com/euclidavenue.html.also available at barnes & noble and amazon.comrytaranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15784398657923257242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-48984030192116182312009-08-23T21:08:00.352-07:002009-08-23T21:08:00.352-07:00No one is saying that our present understanding of...No one is saying that our present understanding of human sexuality cannot be a point for discussion, Father Weir. In fact, I see no lack of discussions on the topic.<br /><br />My question is rather: how does the current rationale for same-sex relations become the basis for driving out those who happen to think it is not in accord with two thousand years of interpretation and tradition? If the only candidates that ECUSA will allow to become its future bishops are either those who (a) are already in same-sex relationships, or (b) do not think anything is wrong with such relationships, where is the room left for tradition? The ones upholding the latter are simply termed "cretins" (witness the Rev. Susan Russell <a href="http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/22081/" rel="nofollow">here</a>) or "<a href="http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/site/articles/2755/#When:19:42:04Z" rel="nofollow">homophobes</a>", and are pronounced too bigoted to be allowed to play a role in the Church. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the rest of the Anglican Communion is told: "Like it or not -- we are not going to stop doing it." So to proceed is not to have a "discussion", but a stampede.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-4313594306702377402009-08-23T14:24:36.048-07:002009-08-23T14:24:36.048-07:00I do not often comment here, but I think there is ...I do not often comment here, but I think there is a difference between listening to the thinkers of past generations for the wisdom that can be found in their words and accepting everything they have written as if it were a perfect expression of the truth. While the idea that we understand everything much better than St. Paul is absurd, there are matters about which he had no knowledge and it may well be true that his knowledge of human sexuality was both limited and culture-bound. That is a poimt for discussion and not, as some might argue, a question to be swept aside.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.com