So, how does the interpretation of scripture and the teaching of the Church change?  It does so slowly and after reasoned debated and discussion.  It does so at the level it wants to.  For example, what vestments (if any) is very much a local custom, but one that has theological implications.  What music (if any) is used in worship is local.  How much area or how many congregations as bishop should be responsible for is also a local function.  Selection of clergy is local.

Morals, on the other hand, are not local.  They are part of both the natural law and the revealed law.  To change our teaching on morals would require a new understanding by the Church -or at least by the Anglican Communion.

This is indeed an important point.  Do moral laws change over time or vary across cultures, or do they remain constant for all places and all times?  Before answering that, though, I think it’s important to ask what exactly do we mean by “moral laws.” What makes a particular law “moral”? I’ve often seen people distinguish between “civic” and “moral” laws, but is that distinction actually present in the OT Law, or is it an interpretation placed over it?  Would a Jew in Jesus’ time, for example, have considered dietary laws merely related to purity, or would there be a moral dimension to it?  Could the distinction lie in one action being considered public and another private, but can we actually say that a particular activity is purely public or purely private?

Hi Kevin,

These are good questions.  I would say that the moral law does not change and is not different between cultures.  However, our understanding of that law does change.  Operationally, I don’t know that there is a difference but I think it is important to understand that we were designed by our creator to live a certain way and within certain guidelines.  Our understanding of those guidelines changes over time.

As an aside, I live and work in the business world as an IT consultant.  One of the business sayings that causes my head to twitch is “Perception is Reality.”  Perception is not reality.  Reality is reality.  The differenc between perception and reality can be seen as “sin” (or in secular language - your degree of psychosis).

To apply that to our discussion, our understanding of the moral law is not, itself the moral law.  We come to know God’s law as our relationship with Him grows - both as a Church and as persons.

If you read C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, you will see that there is agreement on the vast majority of the moral law among almost all peoples and faiths.

But this just sifts the question from does the Moral Law change to how does our understanding of it change?  I still say that for the Church to say that the understanding of the moral law has changed requires the whole Church - or at least the Anglican Communion as we are not likely to gather the RC and EO together.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Michael Russell - 05 August 2009 03:26 PM

Of course I consider that, just as I did when the church was racist and made the same claims.

In that same post you suggest I have disfellowshipped others.  I have done no such thing.  Others have decided to cut relations with me, I am will welcome any of them to God’s table at All Souls’.
(....)
In the end, however, the Church Universal does not have such a good track record on tending to the outcasts qua Church Universal. The history is pretty darn checkered with tons of avoidance and denial.  Of all the sources of authority, the Church Universal’s is the least significant. 

There is no position in the Doctrine of the Episcopal Church on homosexuality.  Doctrine within TEC is the Creeds and Catechism, not some jumbled heap of accumulation from past centuries.  Except for Mr. Hooker of course.

You say all of this as if it were a good thing. It strikes me as being exceedingly legalistic.

Karen Younge - 05 August 2009 01:56 AM

Michael Russell - 04 August 2009 12:40 PM

Karen Younge - 03 August 2009 01:43 AM

What is your argument? (snip) What sequence of thoughts led you to come to that conclusion?
Karen

 

However, I want to reply to the remark in your comment which I have put into bold italics above. If HS stands for “Holy Spirit”, by saying that the Spirit didn’t know about the type of relationship under discussion, you have just denied that God is omniscient. Do you really mean that?

Karen

(corrected misplaced quote tags)

HS= Hebrew Scripture in this instance.

Share on Facebook

Dick Wire - 05 August 2009 06:37 AM

Michael. Your credentials are impressive; you should incorporate them into your profile on this site.

Your position on homosexual practice and related matters reminds me of this Scripture: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” [2 Tim. 3:7 KJV]

“Never” is a strong word. I pray it is not applicable in your case.

Dick

Wow, Dick you left your condescension faucet running….

How about St. Paul, “Knowledge puffs up, love builds up.” 

Of course, relevant to the reasserters is:

Matthew 23:23
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

Fortunately for me I have long known Jesus as Lord and Savior, and acted, as best my feeble frame allows to follow his example. 

But we could lob scripture mortars all day and at the end of the day have no further edification.  That is another shortcoming of an interpretive life spent in proof texting.  I much prefer to discern the full arc of the Gospel, rather than skimming off quotations here and there.

Charles Wingate - 05 August 2009 10:51 PM

You say all of this as if it were a good thing. It strikes me as being exceedingly legalistic.

I try not to romanticize the Church Universal or “catholicity” into some Shangrila.  It seems to me we have to acknowledge that the Churches have routinely through history allied themselves with powerful interests and sought to be a powerful interest in their own right.  There are some shining moments here and there as people carried the faith to new places, but once institutionalized the Churches have hardly represented the kingdom work of Jesus.

It is a sad thing, but important to highlight in the present frenzy to buff up and idealize the Church Universal.

Michael. In the interest of full disclosure, perhaps you should add to your profile where you serve as a rector and what other roles you fill in TEC. You apparently serve in the Diocese of San Diego, which lists a Rev. Michael Russell as one of its Deputies to CG 2009; and Louie Crew lists a Michael Russell as one of the Deputies coming from Seabury-Western, your alma mater.

May I guess how you voted on D025 and C056?

Your concern over alleged “condescension” leveled at both Phil and me suggests that you are playing the role of an agent provocateur on this blogsite. You’re pretty good at introducing wedge issues to distract from the central issues facing TEC and the Anglican Communion. I doubt, however, if many are fooled.

Dick