Church Councils: Nicea, Lambeth -- and Minneapolis?

Proponents of the American Anglican Council (AAC) claim that the recent actions by the U.S. Episcopal Church in approving a gay bishop represent a drifting away from the historic faith. But many other educated and knowledgeable Episcopalians would instead characterize those actions as godly discernment in an ever-changing world.

The actions of General Convention 2003 resulted from an open, democratic, prayerful process. That process unfolded over many years, with the participation of virtually the entire Episcopal Church.

AAC proponents claim that those actions are still illegitimate, because they go against traditional scriptural interpretations as reaffirmed by the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops. I'll respond by paraphrasing what one of my fellow parishioners said: I'm an Episcopalian first and an Anglican second.

Never in its history has the Episcopal Church been willing to subject itself to the authority of foreign bishops -- quite the contrary. Why do AAC proponents think we must suddenly do so now?

Moreover, it's hard to see why the Episcopal Church's actions at GC 2003 were any less legitimate than those of the Council of Nicea or the Lambeth Conference. Indeed, the decisions in Minneapolis are arguably even more legitimate, because they were voted on by all orders of the church, not just by bishops.

Comments

[Yetunde Princewill]

The Bible standard remains the same I am not judging anyone but to be recognised as a spiritual leader certain lifestyles that are not encouraged by the Bible are not acceptable to such a leader. Any decision has to be based on the Bible standard. God is timeless His word 2000 years ago should have the same effect today. We may want to be modern but he is not under our jurisdiction.

[DCT]

Thanks for the comment. Where we differ is that IMHO, it is not just ill-advised, it is in fact sinful, to treat Scripture as an absolute authority the way that many conservatives and evangelicals do. Here's my reasoning:

1. Most Christians would agree that we have a duty to God to make the "best" choices we can in life. How one defines "best" is of course open to debate, but for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that it means "pleasing to an all-good God."

2. As fallible humans, we can't assume any of us -- past or present -- perfectly knows the mind of God. We have to make our choices as best we can, based on our best judgment -- "educated guesses," if you will -- about what would be pleasing to God.

3. To do this, we have to use the limited minds that God gave us. (To do otherwise incidentally is to disobey the Great Commandment that we love God with our whole minds in addition to with our whole hearts, souls, and strength. )

4. We must accept that we're ~all~ fallible, sometimes spectacularly so. Therefore, in making our choices, we must strive to recognize and learn from the errors that we and our fellow humans have made. This includes paying attention to the past experience of the human race, and also listening respectfully to each other's differing views, because none of us knows everything, and much of what any of us thinks s/he knows is likely to be not-quite-right. Even so, each of us is still individually responsible to our heavenly father for our choices.

5. Scripture can be a source of important and often compelling moral guidance. But its authors, copyists, and translators were fallible humans, just like us.

6. Consequently, it is morally impermissible to treat Scripture as an axiomatic, preemptive source of authority. That amounts to an abdication of our individual responsibilities to God; it is at bottom an exercise in bibliolatry, and perhaps in self-indulgent sloth. (I apologize if this sounds harsh, but after many years of study I feel pretty strongly about it.)

Many thanks for the feedback and for reading the blog.

[Skeptic]

Erm... maybe you should get your head out of that crusty old book and look at the facts.

Up to 10% of animals (across different species) are naturally homosexual. If this God thingy created them, and he's perfect, then it must have been intentional (can anyone think of any reasons why he might have done this? I can't.).

Ergo: it's not immoral.