Rowan Scriptura
The leader of the Anglican Church recently told theology students that conservatives misread the Scriptures regarding homosexuality*.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told a group of theological students that the scriptural text conservatives use to argue against homosexuality is misread.
The Anglican spiritual leader was speaking in Toronto on Monday when he examined the practice of reading the Bible. He said the primary point of the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality – for the majority of modern readers – is not about homosexuality. Instead, it's meant to warn Christians not to be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin."
"Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding," he stated, according to the Anglican Church of Canada.
For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has had a consistent teaching regarding sexual morality based on its interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. With all due respect to this respected church leader with an amazing intellect, does anyone else scratch their head and wonder how the Scriptures had been misread for so many years by "conservatives"? I think we underestimate the power of the Holy Spirit and nullify Christ's promise to lead us in all truth when we assume that we could have been mistaken and misread Scripture for almost 2000 years! It is incredulous to me that after 1900 years, one enlightened individual could come along and read Paul's epistle the way he originally intended it to be read.
*Please note just to clarify, this post is not to bash homosexuals. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this regarding homosexuality:
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."
posted by Russ Rentler, M.D. | 12:04 PM
7 Comments:
Bah - heretics.
By the way, "Rowan Scriptura?"
Priceless.
I think the RCC's statement on homosexuality is a very good one. It's difficult to understand why someone would call the RCC (or any church) "hateful" that has in its official capacity made such a compassionate statement.
Yes, when I read that in the Catechism, I was very moved by the heart of the Church towards homosexuals. There is an excellent organization called Courage that provides support for people with same sex attraction who choose to live chaste lives in Christ.
The backwards folk in the Middle Ages also thought that Jesus was male, divorce and remarriage was wrong, and that some people actually go to Hell. How could they NOT be wrong about Homosexuality.
;-)
The sheer arrogance of modern deconstructionists is appalling. Thank God for the Holy Spirt and Holy Mother Church, without these we'd be up private interpretation's creek without a doctrine.
"Private interpretation's creek without a paddle" Yes we have all been up that creek before and definitely is hard to navigate without a paddle, and the steadfast rudder(The Pillar as we Catholics like to think of her).
Chesterton said we need a Church that changes the culture and not one that changes with the culture. Rowan's comments regarding misreading scripture is an example of trying to change the Church to make it fit the culture.
Christianity will never "fit" the culture and it's very premises and doctrines are counter cultural. The current move among many American churches that attempt to make the Church more user friendly leads to this kind of stuff, and with no authoritative interpretation of Scripture, they can justify anything.
Just wondering--did you directly read William's statements? There's a copy available here:
http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/?p=1100#more-1100
Williams says:
"...once again I must stress that the point I am making is not that the reading I proposes settles a controversy or changes a substantive interpretation but that many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage and so undermine a proper theological approach to Scripture."
On my reading, the point he makes is that Paul's goal is not SIMPLY to condemn homosexuality, but rather the climax of Paul's critique is to include ALL--gentile and Jew, the blatantly unrigtheous and the seemingly righteous--in the category of "covenant-breaker" so that "every mouth may be stopped."
I don't think he says the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 is wrong; I think he's highlighting that we must recognize that it's but the first step in his subversive argument throughout Romans 1-3.
(I don't know what else the Archbishop has said about homosexuality in other contexts; I'm basing my reading only on the referenced comments. As one who agrees with the Catholic position on sexuality, I think I can also agree with the thrust of what Williams says here.)
Thanks for the post David.
I committed the "bloggers sin" and found his comments from a site that lifted his comments! I have since gone back and read the entire lecture he gave.
I agree with you after reading the entire talk, that he wasn't necessarily coming out in support of homosexuality and stating that Paul doesn't condemn homosexuality.
But,
I do think that he is trying to modernize the church's stance on homosexuality by stating that the Scripture is more about judging others than the particular sin of homosexuality. He may also trying to placate the radical pro-homosexual branch of his church to prevent the huge split that is sadly already occurring.
He has a fairly extensive track record in the past in approving of homosexual relationships in the church and the knowledge of that may have prompted my "jumping the bloggers gun."
Thanks for your post.
Post a Comment
Home