The interpretive reasoning process takes place among the people who form the community that is God’s church. God does not call us as individuals to live in isolation, but as part of the worldwide community of people who struggle together to live the implications of an evolving revelation. The Scripture is read by the “us” of the gathered community, not by the “I” of a lone individual seeking understanding. The moment Jesus spoke, his words were interpreted and given application to the situation at hand. By the time the words of Jesus were written down and shared as the authoritative revelation of God, the Church’s reasoned interpretation already was accepted as an integral part of the revelation. That organic process continues in every generation. The Word of God is not static. It lives. And the incarnation of God in Christ proclaims this fact to the world.

No small irony here, since one of the issues at hand within the Anglican Communion could be understood as concentric circles of community, and different community readings coming into sharp conflict. When different communities come into conflict, how can the conflict be reconciled?

That’s how I read it at the time, anyway. It’s pretty common in mainline protestantism to not narrowly define salvation as just “getting to heaven” but to see it more holistically as anything that can improve you, your relationship to God, and your relationship to the entire creation.

“The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.”

I realize one can’t just repeat a prayer and become a Christian, but are you saying we need to be saved corporately, i.e., as part of a church or group, or just that we need to be part of a group as a fellowship?

Could someone please clarify this for me?

As one who has gone from opposition, to ambivalence, to support for full inclusion of gay people in the church, I can say that there is a theological rationale. It has been puzzling to me for a long time that General Convention, the PB (this one, and the previous one) do not lead front and center with their theological reasoning.

As for me, my own evolution in thinking about this topic comes from 1) knowing godly gay people in real life situations, 2) reading scholarship that takes a close look at the verses in scripture that are alleged to condemn homosexuality and deconstructs some of the assumptions we bring to those verses, and 3) making the choice about which is more important if it comes down to it, the Communion or full inclusion?

You say, and I agree, that “If we don’t accept Scripture as truth and applicable to our own lives, then we will not accept what it tells us of our sin and a need for a Saviour, and then we have “a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all.”

But could you respond, from your own church’s perspective, tothe questions I asked in my last response:

“What about condoning divorce, or usury? Both are also in clear breach of the Scriptures, but somehow almost every church, including mine, has managed to ignore or rationalize these prohibitions when they became inconvenient or out-moded.”

“Or what about “Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you?” Is there a church in the world, except maybe the Quakers, which insists that its members pay any attention to that command when a war arises?”

Now, for me, the issue of “full inclusion” of gay people in the church hurts my brain, in part because I’m torn between two Scriptural commands, both of them “the authoritative Word of God.” Paul’s blunt and clear rejection of homosexual activity is one of them. The other is Jesus’, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” When the smart-alec clerics of His day asked “Who is my neighbor?” He told them, and He chose for His example the most despised group of people in His time and place: the Samaritans. OK, I ask myself, who is MY neighbor? Isn’t it the gay person, whom the church leaders despise and reject?

Beats me, my friend.

While I can agree that a rigid, prescription prayer does not produce a “magical” relationship with Jesus or God, I am also aware that the longer a person works to scrutinize and change themselves, the relationship certainly DOES develop. For example: Get the LOG out of our own eye and quit worrying about our neighbor’s eye. That’s pretty individual to me.

Having read most of the responses which offered possibilities of what Ms. Schlori meant, I have to say that the message must have been skewed by her choice of sentence structure–I can think of no other reason for it to sound so anti “relationship with God”. Surely this is not what she meant?

If, as many of you say, politics are important to her, it would seem prudent to provide a decoded version written to the 8th grade level so that the bulk of us could understand what the heck she meant.

My concern with many liberal clerics is twofold. Firstly, there must be concerns that they are at best unfaithful, and at worst unregenerate, judging by some of the pronunciations made. Neither is acceptable for those in Christian leadership, who should be examples to the brethren. Secondly, stemming from this, I have deep concerns over their refusal to accept the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God- it’s always taken, and then altered to fit whatever world view or philosophy is particularly fashionable, buttressed by dubious exegesis and obtruse phrasing. Whilst this is deeply unhelpful for establishing ethics, it becomes absolutely critical when we seek to establish what gospel we preach. If we don’t accept Scripture as truth and applicable to our own lives, then we will not accept what it tells us of our sin and a need for a Saviour, and then we have “a different gospel- which is really no gospel at all.” (Gal.1: 6) I apologise if I was a little flippant in the last post, but this is really no place to be going wobbly- the consequences are dire, as history will attest.

Every blessing

I think that is honest and to the point. We DO have to live with confusion on some issues, because we are not perfect and we do not understand perfectly. Neither do we love perfectly.

I thank God for some of the great theologians from your tradition…C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright come immediately to mind. I LOVE those guys! (I know they are Anglican and you are Episcopalian.)