tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post114187774940056782..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Not a Worldwide Church, but a FellowshipMark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142490660294587302006-03-16T01:31:00.000-05:002006-03-16T01:31:00.000-05:00I think it's hilarious - and that Saint Hilary is ...I think it's hilarious - and that Saint Hilary is most definately the Patron of our wretched age.<BR/><BR/>(have to look him up ;=)Göran Koch-Swahnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925549945659350649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142480963289387772006-03-15T22:49:00.000-05:002006-03-15T22:49:00.000-05:00Over on Thinking Anglicans, I was accused of sayin...Over on Thinking Anglicans, I was accused of saying that my opponents speak either from a place of malevolence or ignorance . . . and I had to admit that that was true.<BR/><BR/>I wish there was another word, Anon(Dave). A word that described a murkiness in another human heart that I can't really penetrate, combining some mix of ignorance, malevolence, and <B>utter sincerity</B> (conditioned by past experiences which shape a perception of a <I>Supremely Hostile Divinity</I>...)<BR/><BR/>But I <I>don't</I> have that word and so, unfortunately, I utter painfully vulgar terms like "hogwash". :-(<BR/><BR/><I>But I won't watch him teach my children (or someone else's children) that God blesses the very thing God hates.</I><BR/><BR/>At long last, sir, <B>HOW can you believe this???</B> How? How is it possible, to imagine the Bible says this, or the Church teaches it? For the Love of God, How???<BR/><BR/>"I think you and I can't communicate on this"<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid you're correct. Your beliefs are incomprehensible to me.<BR/><BR/> . . . but not to Jesus, who knows you far, far better (perfectly) than I could ever hope to.<BR/><BR/>If only we could both be drawn unto Him, and his perfect love, and all our problems of incomprehension would vanish.<BR/><BR/>That's my prayer for us both. God bless, Anonymous Dave.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142474876739138582006-03-15T21:07:00.000-05:002006-03-15T21:07:00.000-05:00Mark,Will you soon comment on the recent questionn...Mark,<BR/><BR/>Will you soon comment on the recent questionnaire sent to members of the House of Bishops by former AOC George Carey and a previously unknown organization that seems to have ties to All Saints, Chevy Chase? Thinking Anglicans has documented this work, and I wonder what you know and what you think about it?<BR/><BR/>Peter CPeter Careyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09006134824557299678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142439095956165662006-03-15T11:11:00.000-05:002006-03-15T11:11:00.000-05:00(Dave)Tobias -your statement "So, objectively, loo...(Dave)<BR/>Tobias -your statement "So, objectively, looking at the many positive contributions that gay and lesbian persons have made to the church and the world over all these years, might it not be possible that they are not entirely without their "goodness" -- in spite of their human imperfection and sin" is the classic straw man, set up to be knocked down. Of course gay and lesbian people are capable of and do contribute to the church and to society. Without in any way trying to equate the two, many a church has been built with the fruits of dishonest labor, witness mafioso contributions over the years. And Mussolini made the trains run on time. The dilemma remains. I can respect a person's dignity while disagreeing with him. But I won't watch him teach my children (or someone else's children) that God blesses the very thing God hates. And when the church encourages that behavior, it can't be about the business of forgiveness - it denies that there is any need for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142437124992809322006-03-15T10:38:00.000-05:002006-03-15T10:38:00.000-05:00Dave,Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't h...Dave,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't have an answer to your dilemma. I could point out that Jesus committed to his church the power to bind on earth -- or to loose, and that what the church pronounces not to be sin is not sin. <BR/><BR/>However, I don't think we need go that far. You appear to be 100% sure that you are correct in your assessment about same-sex realtionships; and it is fair to acknowledge that you have the weight of tradition on your side, along with at least a little bit of the Scripture. I would say that when it comes to reason the case is less clear. The other "test" I would apply is the "fruits of the spirit" test: Jesus taught that bad trees can't bear good fruit. So, objectively, looking at the many positive contributions that gay and lesbian persons have made to the church and the world over all these years, might it not be possible that they are not entirely without their "goodness" -- in spite of their human imperfection and sin? <BR/><BR/>As I say, this answer is very parital, and may not be sufficient for you to come to a place of toleration, let alone approval. Ultimately that is your decision, as I'm sure you know. If the church's failure to continue to condemn as sin what you belive to be sin is a central concern for you, then you will act in accord with that belief. My core belief is that the church's task is not predominantly condemnation, but forgiveness; and that it has the power to come to a better mind about its past judgments and decisions, including those governing sexual morality. I realize this is probably just another way of describing the differences between us, but the ability to do so is not, I think, a total waste of time -- as indeed this may be the only way to any form of coexistence, if not reconciliation.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/>TobiasTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142432342284834672006-03-15T09:19:00.000-05:002006-03-15T09:19:00.000-05:00(Dave)Your last reply goes to the very heart of th...(Dave)<BR/>Your last reply goes to the very heart of the matter. I have no trouble accepting that my sins are no better than any one else's. I have no trouble recognizing God's call on me to love another sinner - for that is how God loves me. What I cannot accept is the church teaching that what God says is sin, isn't. The consequence of that is to encourage disobedience of God. The church is no longer a hospital for sinners (I desperately need that) but you would make it a training ground for sinners. So how do we reconcile that? I don't want you or anyone else barred from the church. But when you teach and/or encourage rejecting God's Word, I don't see a way to move forward together.<BR/>JC - Thanks for the reply but I think you and I can't communicate on this without it degenerating into something ugly. I am sorry you see my belief as hogwash, but you are entitled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142386312994453332006-03-14T20:31:00.000-05:002006-03-14T20:31:00.000-05:00I see you as loving LBGT people to death when we s...<I>I see you as loving LBGT people to death when we should be loving them to life.</I><BR/><BR/>If you would but "test the spirits", Anon(D), you would see that this is fundamentally <B>hogwash</B>.<BR/><BR/>Don't you *know* any longterm same-sex couples (especially Christians)? If you did, you would see the <I>grace</I> manifested in their lives, <B>through</B> their committed relationship!<BR/><BR/>To see these relationships---supporting them, as we do w/ all other marriages---as "loving them to death"? Yet see as "loving them to life" when you call our LGBT selves "disordered" and that acting upon our love is ALWAYS sin?<BR/><BR/>"We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep" <BR/><BR/>:-(<BR/><BR/><I>Yet wisdom is justified by *all* her children</I>! :-DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142367864840670702006-03-14T15:24:00.000-05:002006-03-14T15:24:00.000-05:00Dave,It all comes back, then, to the fundamental d...Dave,<BR/>It all comes back, then, to the fundamental disagreement between us: you believe (along with the tradition) that all same-sex sexuality is sinful. I, on the other hand, along with many others, have come to the conclusion that this is an "error" in the church's teaching, and that some same-sex relationships are no more sinful than the equivalent mixed-sex relationships. This is a debate which is ongoing, and I very much doubt that either of us will change our minds on the subject. <BR/><I>That</I> being the case: is reconciliation possible? Can you accept within the church people who do not accept your beliefs about <I>their</I> sins. I can accept you in the church, even though I know you must also be a sinner -- and may indeed be sinning in your judgment concerning others' sins, even though you believe yourself to be justified in your judgment. (And I realize that in passing judgement on you in this regard I may well be adding to my own sins!)<BR/><BR/>But that is where the grace comes in: no one is refusing grace. Some of us may be mistaken in what we think are our sins or not, and failing to repent thereof -- especially if we don't believe them to be sins. But this is why we pray to God, "Lord, deliver me from my secret fault."<BR/><BR/>So the point of reconciliation comes in accepting sinners -- each other, sinners all, for what we are aware of and repent, and what we are unaware of but are forgiven by the one who said he forgave those who "know not what they do" -- and getting on with the work of the church. The church is a society of sinners saved by God, still imperfect, but nonetheless equipped by him to do the work he gives us.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142351523439467302006-03-14T10:52:00.000-05:002006-03-14T10:52:00.000-05:00(Dave)Tobias -1. Your comment about judgment is e...(Dave)<BR/>Tobias -<BR/>1. Your comment about judgment is exactly my point. You said to me, reconciliation is possible by suspending judgment. I can't and don't judge (in the sense of condemning anyone) Not my job. The judgment about which I spoke was discerning/counseling. <BR/>2. God's grace is a gift and like all gifts, it can be accepted or rejected. Why would we need a savior if there were no consequences to our personal actions? Does God call us to repentance? If so, then we must be willing to talk about that of which he calls us to repent. If I suspend "judgment" about that, am I not encouraging my brother to continue to wallow in his sin when I know that God is ready, willing and able to lift him up and out of it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142349931400572892006-03-14T10:25:00.000-05:002006-03-14T10:25:00.000-05:00Dave,Three things: 1) judgment (as Christ refers t...Dave,<BR/>Three things: 1) judgment (as Christ refers to it) is a judicial notion: a sentence of condemnation. It is not the same thing as discerment and counsel. He is able to act in both capacities, we are not.<BR/>2) In your comment to JC you allude to people being cut off from grace by their behavior. God's grace is not conditioned by our behavior. If it were there would be no point. Grace comes to us when we are sinners -- which is when we need it. <BR/>3) I would not invite Pol Pot into my pulpit, but I would invite +Akinola -- indeed, another Nigerian bishop has been a guest preacher in my church during my incumbency. And, since he stuck to the gospel rather than the peculiar points of controversy that have become so "hot" of late, there was no need for a rebuttal!Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142345048439857252006-03-14T09:04:00.000-05:002006-03-14T09:04:00.000-05:00(Dave)J.C. - You pose an interesting dilemma. If ...(Dave)<BR/>J.C. - You pose an interesting dilemma. If you are right, I have failed to understand the "new" thing God is doing and I have been stubbornly mired in the teachings of the church fathers who reject that "new" thing. If "I" (actually the opinion of better minds and hearts than mine) am right, then you are helping to condemn a group of people and encouragoing them to cut themselves off from God's redemptive grace. I see you as loving LBGT people to death when we should be loving them to life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142311309570291662006-03-13T23:41:00.000-05:002006-03-13T23:41:00.000-05:00If someone could definitively prove that Leviticus...<I>If someone could definitively prove that Leviticus means what the church has generally understood it to mean over the years and/or that Paul understood and meant that very same thing, would it change one opinion?</I><BR/><BR/>I honestly don't know if it would change my opinion, vis-a-vis how I live my life. I <I>do</I> know, that I would not presume to tell adherents of a book *I* didn't believe in, how they should believe it! [i.e., Anonymous(Dave)---as it is, you're still stuck w/ me! ;-p]<BR/><BR/><I>God warn us that we will be judged by the same measure we use to judge another</I><BR/><BR/> . . . and therein lies the rub: I believe you oughtta FEAR, Anon(D), being judged by God the way *you* judge LGBT people (merely for "acting upon same sex attraction" <I>in the same way</I> that heterosexuals act upon opposite sex attraction).<BR/><BR/>As for the <B>proper</B> exercise of judgment (ala Jesus and the money-changers)? I think +Akinola's <I>criminal</I> incitement of violence towards Muslims is a deserving candidate for that sort of judgment!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142288247564559592006-03-13T17:17:00.000-05:002006-03-13T17:17:00.000-05:00(Dave)"Reconciliation is possible through a suspen...(Dave)<BR/>"Reconciliation is possible through a suspension of judgment"<BR/>I think not. Jesus did not suspend judgment regarding the money changers in the temple - nor of the scribes and pharisees - nor in scores of other places. We are not to exercise God's judgment, but we certainly must exercise judgment. We do it all the time. Don't you exercise judgment in deciding if a couple is ready for marriage? Have you never spoken to a parishioner about destructive conduct in which he is engaged? How can anyone be transformed by the power of God's love unless he/she discovers areas in his/her life in need of transformation? Would you give the pulpit in your church to Pol Pot simply because he asked for it? God warn us that we will be judged by the same measure we use to judge another but if we were to never exercise judgment, we would be of no earthly use to one another.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142286764867756722006-03-13T16:52:00.000-05:002006-03-13T16:52:00.000-05:00It strikes me as amazing how fast we have moved fr...It strikes me as amazing how fast we have moved from the first Primate's meeting on the issues of our day shortly before +Gene was consecrated, which included the <B>question</B> of what the communion was and if it were or should be moving towards being a church, and the blithe assumption that it is a world wide church that is somehow headed by the ABC or someone, and legislated for entirerly by bishops.<BR/><BR/>If that entity exists, I think it good if the ECUSA not be a member of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142285501023572032006-03-13T16:31:00.001-05:002006-03-13T16:31:00.001-05:00Dave,If someone could prove that the prohibitions ...Dave,<BR/><BR/>If someone could prove that the prohibitions on same-sex sexuality to which scripture attests (you see, I acknoweldge there are some there!) actually represented the will of God, then of course I would accept them. However, I see no <I>evidence</I> that these few portions of Scripture are necessarily reflective of more than the cultural attitudes of a particular culture, or rather several particular cultures. I say <I>evidence</I> not simply <I>assertion</I>. There are very few scholars who would deny that the Scriptures contain at least some cultural baggage: the issue is deciding which matters are clearly reflective of the "essence" of God's will, and which are "accidents." We are in the midst of that untanglement at present, and it is beginning to appear to no small number of Christians that the essence of the divine will is towards loving fidelity, not heterosexuality as such.<BR/><BR/>Reconciliation is possible through a suspension of judgment. This was Jesus' mandate; it would be nice to think a church might finally take him seriously in this regard. We are called to accept one another as Christ accepted us. That is how reconciliation can happen. I have always said that Archbishop Akinola is welcome at my altar; he is the one who would restrict me from his. So who is the obstacle to reconciliation? I place no conditions on other Christians other than that they should seek to follow Christ as best as they are able -- and it is not my responsibility to judge their sucess or failure.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142285497430800842006-03-13T16:31:00.000-05:002006-03-13T16:31:00.000-05:00Dave,A quibble: we are not sinful by nature. Ev...Dave,<BR/><BR/>A quibble: we are not sinful by nature. Even for Augustine, sin infects our will but not our nature.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, isn't the issue here whether same sex attraction is always an expression of the will's perversion, i.e. its turning away from God? I believe that we are all prone to sin and that the Holy Spirit can transform our disordered loves. I just don't believe that same sex attraction as such is disordered. There are ways that people who have these attractions can act on them and be doing God's will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142281693884267552006-03-13T15:28:00.000-05:002006-03-13T15:28:00.000-05:00(Dave)Isn't this discussion about porneia etc., a ...(Dave)<BR/>Isn't this discussion about porneia etc., a bit beside the point? If someone could definitively prove that Leviticus means what the church has generally understood it to mean over the years and/or that Paul understood and meant that very same thing, would it change one opinion? Would it change Mark's or that of Tobias? I suspect not. Some of us simply cannot believe that a God who loves His creation would create someone with an attraction for another of the same sex unless He also meant for such person to act upon that nature, i.e., "God don't make no junk!" The rest of us believe that we all partake of a sinful nature - that God calls us to rise above that nature - and that acting upon same sex attraction is part and parcel of that fallen nature. Do we worship different Gods such that no manner of dialog can produce reconciliation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142280294179340422006-03-13T15:04:00.000-05:002006-03-13T15:04:00.000-05:00Dear RB,I am familiar with the critical material o...Dear RB,<BR/><BR/>I am familiar with the critical material on this subject. What I find lacking is any clear evidence for the assertion of a broadening in meaning by the first century that would include same-sex relationships. There clearly is some broadening in the "later rabbinic" material, as there was in the contemporary Christian patristic period, in the applcation of "znt" to irregular marriages -- but not evidence of application to same-sex realtionships, which usually are referred to in Rabbinic sources as "mshkvei zkur." <BR/><BR/>Extensive broadening in meaning does not appear to take place by the time of Paul -- unless perhaps the reference in 1 Cor 5 is to the irregular nature of the relationship -- again, a precise legal concern, with no overlap to same-sex relationships, but a species of incest. More on this below.<BR/><BR/>As to the Testaments of the Patriarchs, and the rabbinic material in general, the "fornication" of Sodom is just as likely simply prostitution (real or figurative). The rabbinic texts refer to Sodom as guilty of idolatry and fornication -- a combination that crops up numerous times in the LXX; this seems to be the primary range of meaning for the "porneia" words.<BR/><BR/>No usage of "porneia" in the NT need be translated any more broadly than "harlotry" or "whoredom" (real or figurative). I agree that the reference in 1 Corinthians 5 may connote a slightly broader reading, though it is still possible that Paul is referring to some other quality or character of the relationship, perhaps with a mercenary overtone; or perhaps there is something else about the relationship that is not elaborated -- Paul is presumably talking to people who know the details. Some critics suggest that the man's father's "wife" may have been his father's concubine or mistress -- which would be the simplest reading to explain "porneia" without stretching it further.<BR/><BR/>When we come to the plural form, porneiai, which was the basis of this discussion, it only comes up three times in the whole Greek bible: 2 Kings 9:22 -- the "harlotries" of Jezebel; and the Matthew and Mark lists of sins that "come from within." It seems to me to be a considerable stretch to press this point as you and some others (R. Gagnon) have done, to address the assertion that Jesus never said anything explicit about same-sex relationships. It is certainly not explicit; and doubtfully implicit.<BR/><BR/>As to the 1 Corinthians 6 list, and the "neither/nor" construction, I think you miss a very important distinction between theft and greed. It is the same distinction made in the eighth and the tenth commandments. Theft, after all, may stem from other motives than greed.<BR/><BR/>So, on balance, the case for applying "porneia" to same-sex behavior is far from established.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142276240066886362006-03-13T13:57:00.000-05:002006-03-13T13:57:00.000-05:00If I may add to the (falsified) linguistics…RB sai...If I may add to the (falsified) linguistics…<BR/><BR/>RB said: The Palestinian Jews of the first century would have understood porneia (fornication) to include the whole list of sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18. (Do the research, and you will find this is true.) This would include both incest and homosexual activity.<BR/><BR/>This is wishful thinking, a claim based on void.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing to support this claim but poor philosophical Filo of Alexandria, desperately trying to make himself accepted by the anti-semitic fellas at the Museion, and that double treacher “Flavius” Josephus, né Cohen. Not a word.<BR/><BR/>The language of the Bible is specific, concrete and material, not general, abstract and moral as in later academic theology. The “spreading out”, the generalization, the sexualization of concepts is a 2nd Millennium phenomenon for the purposes of social disciplining and church politics. Theology in the service of the State. <BR/><BR/>Porneía means sacral prosititution, 1st Commandment: not have, not worship, not serve, it is not “sexual immorality”. Sacral prostitution was not about sex, but worship. Other gods. Judaism is not anti-sex. Never was.<BR/><BR/>In scriptures up to the 1st century, the word is nearly alwas concrete; pórnos/pórnoi, the persons, in the 2nd century it becomes abstact; porneía.<BR/><BR/>Leviticus 18.6ff is about protecting the unequal distribution of Power in a pre-modern Household, not about forbidden degrees. These (= modern incest) were invented by Emperor Louis the pious and forced on the coucil of Paris of 829.<BR/><BR/>The symmetric categories of “Homosexuality” and “Heterosexuality” date from 1892. Not in the Bible. Only put there by fraud from 1947 onwards. <BR/><BR/>All this bruha is quite new, a new mix-up of theology and State, not the tradition of the Church, not 2000 years, not overwhelming consensus.<BR/><BR/>One must shun any dictionary calling itself theological, dogmatic & c. using several different dictionaries in different languages instead; Greek-Latin, Greek-French, Greek-Italian, Greek-German, and so on (beware of the English ;=)Göran Koch-Swahnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925549945659350649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142275533176033312006-03-13T13:45:00.000-05:002006-03-13T13:45:00.000-05:00Tobias Haller said: “no doubt the inter-island riv...Tobias Haller said: “no doubt the inter-island rivalries come into play”<BR/><BR/>Well, the island were my family has its cottage, is one of the “Swedish” islands. They speak ill of the “Norwegian” islands a little to the north. And they speak ill of the people in the island 200 meters to the east, Crows they call them (they pronounce it in Norwegian ;=) <BR/><BR/>The island is called Styrsö, stearing island, some say it’s because it’s formed lika croissant, other that the name comes because ships had the big cairn on top of the island as a mark, when heading for the slave market in Brännö, the island behind the spray. <BR/><BR/>When they speak their dialect, I don’t understand a thing. And when the people in Vrångö, the wrong island (the surrounding skerries are very treacherous) 500 meters to the south, speak in their dialect the others don’t understand a thing ;=)<BR/><BR/>So much for “us” and “they”, for Communion.Göran Koch-Swahnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00925549945659350649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142272740902150032006-03-13T12:59:00.000-05:002006-03-13T12:59:00.000-05:00I can't pretend to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar ei...I can't pretend to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar either, but I don't agree with you on the use of <I>porneia</I>, Brother Tobias. It is true that the Hebrew eqivalent meant "harlotry". However, the <I>Theological Dictionary of the New Testament</I> (ed. Kittel) notes that in later Judiasm, <I>porneia</I> -- and its Aramaic equivalent -- does broaden out to include fornication, adultery, incest, same-sex intercourse ("ye will commit fornication with the fornication [<I>porneia</I>] of Sodom," Testament of Benjamin, ch. 9 -- and no, the "fornication of Sodom" is not equivalent to consensual, committed same-sex relationships), etc. The meaning of the word changed over time. There are plenty of examples given, which I'd rather not quote. But one statement: "In later Rabbinic usage <I>znt</I> [Aramaic, and my transliteration may not be accurate; my Hebrew was never good] applies not merely to all extra-marital intercourse but also to intercourse in marriages which run contrary to Rabbinical decisions" (6:589). So the word became actually broader than our English "fornication", which we usually don't apply to marriages not approved by the church.<BR/><BR/>Since you note Paul's use of the word in 1st Corinthians, perhaps you should examine 1 Cor. 5:1: "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality (<I>porneia</I>) among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife." Surely you will concede that the word here does not indicate "harlotry," unless it can be shown that the father's wife was also a prostitute. The Greek word's meaning here, then, must be broader than what you have given it.<BR/><BR/>As for the example you give in 1 Cor. 6:9, if Paul means to clearly distinguish between <I>pornoi</I> and homosexuals, then he also means to clearly distinguish between the "thieves" and the "greedy" (v.10). I find this unlikely, since greed is a very common motive for theft, and many thieves are presumably greedy. The "neither / nor" construction is natural enough for a negative statement, and the point of the statement is something quite different than to simply distinguish between various kinds of sins.<BR/><BR/>I think obadiahslope has made an excellent point, though somewhat obscured by his reference to "commonwealth games". (Is he referring to that sport which non-Americans have misnamed "football"?) If we have this lovely fellowship, with several centers, and utterly non-coercive, then how can we demand that Nigeria, Kenya, Southeast Asia, Uganda, and the Southern Cone not sponsor churches over here, or make any kind of demand at all?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142265946996956432006-03-13T11:05:00.000-05:002006-03-13T11:05:00.000-05:00Dave,The simple answer is "Yes and No." The "sprea...Dave,<BR/><BR/>The simple answer is "Yes and No." The "spread" in the meaning of "porneia" -- which at its root involves prostitution -- to a more generic "sexual immorality" or even the unbiblical concept "sex outside of marriage" is an aftereffect of a general prudishness about sex and discomfort with precise language about sexual matters. That this "spread" is still commmon, even among some scholars, is a sad testimony to the endurance of such notions in the face of the evidence. On a specific matter, that porneia applies to incest (sexual relations within the prohibited degrees enumerated in Leviticus) is a minority opinion that is widely rejected by scholars. I would add, that the leading Jewish scholar on Leviticus, Jacob Milgrom, suggests that the prohibition on male same-sex relationships only applies within those same degrees of kinship; this is not widely accepted, but it is a possible reading of the text's reference to the "lyings-down of a woman."<BR/><BR/>The word <I>is</I> also generally recognized as distinguished from the proper word for adultery. From my side of the argument, there is simply no positive evidence that a Palesitinian Jew would have associated this word with the prohibition on male same-sex activity in Leviticus. The Aramaic word used for "porneia" is related to the Hebrew word for "harlotry" -- which does not occur in any sense other than the narrow ones I mentioned before. It is also, on the basis of the parallel LXX usage, doubtful that a Hellenistic Jew would have so broadly understood this word. The argument that the word, as it appears in the Gospel, somehow requires this "spread" is tendentious and unsupported. The further suggestion that the plural is significant in this regard (a point raised by Gagnon) is unfounded: <I>all</I> of the items listed in Mat 15:19 and Mar 7:21 are in the plural -- compare the KJV with more modern translations that use the singular -- the plural here indicating specific actions rather than generic crimes.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142257480009165452006-03-13T08:44:00.000-05:002006-03-13T08:44:00.000-05:00(Dave)Rev. Haller: I am neither a Greek nor a Heb...(Dave)<BR/>Rev. Haller: I am neither a Greek nor a Hebrew scholar but would you at laast acknowledge that your position is a minority view and not one that is supported by the great weight of NT scholarship?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142206813613046212006-03-12T18:40:00.000-05:002006-03-12T18:40:00.000-05:00Just jumping on the "Bravo, Mark!" bandwagon -- we...Just jumping on the "Bravo, Mark!" bandwagon -- well said, nicely done, hear-hear, cheerio!SUSAN RUSSELLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01795717638621668638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1142200340339868532006-03-12T16:52:00.000-05:002006-03-12T16:52:00.000-05:00mark,I know this is a blog, and each entry does no...mark,<BR/>I know this is a blog, and each entry does not have to follow logically from the last. But it might be fruitful to explore the possible tension between this post and your last.<BR/>In the last one you said "The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada need to immediately demand that the Church of Nigeria end its activities in developing the Convocation for Anglicans in North America, and that if it does not do so that it be held accountable to the rest of the Communion for such actions."<BR/><BR/>In this one, the communion is held together simply by grace.<BR/><BR/>Now you might say that there is no necessary contradiction, that accountability is simply by expressing the collective will of the communion. <BR/><BR/>Which is sort of what the theory is now I guess. And what the primates statment in 2003 tried to say.<BR/><BR/>Yet I wonder if on the days you talk about accountability you mean a little more, and on the days you talk about the ineffable lightness of communion you mean a little less.<BR/><BR/>May just be a different stress in each post i guess.<BR/><BR/>Certainly if there is more than one centre, then the idea of accountability you wrote of last time becomes a question of accountability to which centre and does several centres which i think is a helpful idea of Bill's mean parallel provinces? i think it probably does. In which case the Nigerian move is baking tomorrows bread to borrow your metaphor.<BR/><BR/>I think you were hard on the commonwealth which only exists as a talkfest for politiocians and the Commonwealth games which ostatrt on Wdenesday.<BR/>personally i think anything that geta first world and third world countires talking is likely to be good. <BR/>The singular difference between communion and commonwealth is that of two slightly ridiculous organisations on includes the USA and the othet includes Mozambique instead. <BR/><BR/>(year I know Mozambique was a Portuguese colony but they asked to join the games okay).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com