Wednesday Afternoon Press Conference

Matt Kennedy reports for Stand Firm from Lambeth:

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 • 8:11 am

Yesterday was somewhat chaotic, a slower news day to be sure, but a frustrating one. The morning press briefing was perfunctory and the afternoon press conference was fluff. There were rumors as Mr. Naughton [Episcopal Cafe blog] tells us that proved unfounded. I was, I confess, among those believing the rumors and following, shamelessly, the press horde here and there looking for bishops who never arrived.

We did, however, receive a blessing from Bishop Ackerman who was press gaggled on his way out of TEC's provincial meeting. "You all look like you need a blessing" he said and raised his hands and prayed aloud for all of the assembled media. And we did.

In any case, there were press conferences and rumors of press conferences but the end was not yet. I did, however, manage to live-blog a fringe event entitled "African Voices" sponsored by Integrity and Changing Attitude which I'm correcting throughout the day and publishing as I go.

The biggest story Tuesday was the Archbishop's presidential address which, in my opinion, represented a push-back against the direction signaled by the Windsor Continuation Group. Te archbishop called on the orthodox to recognize the push for blessing homosexual behavior as coming from within the boundaries of faithful Anglicanism and Christianity and continued to press the the Covenant as the ultimate solution to the Anglican Crisis.

Today promises to be somewhat more exciting.

I am now waiting for the afternoon press conference to start and afterwards I will run off to take part in another Anglican TV roundtable.

Archbishop Aspinal is now about to speak.

Aspinall: I know that today’s topic is not sexy, The Bible and Mission. But so many find it hard to understand why there is so much tension in the AC and a lot of it is because of the bible.

AB David Moxen from NZ who is the Archbishop of New Zealand, he is primate in NZ and has done some interesting experiments in dealing with this issue there.

Prof Gerald West is the president of a seminary in Africa. He has taken part in the writing of the bible studies here at the conference.

David will start first:

Moxen: The issue of homosexuality comes down to an issue about the bible. That is why it is engaging and why it has caused so many problems. Underneath the crisis is the question: what is our view of the bible and how do we understand the texts in it?

Understanding how we use the bible will help us get underneath the issue itself and start talking about why we understand things so differently.

In NZ we got as many people as possible as deeply as possible and as long as possible to look a this issue. We came up with 4 principles

We imagine that we are trying to build a large house.

1. There is the floor. Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God. The bible reveals Christ as the living word. The inspired words of the bible Reveal the Living Word who is Christ.
2. The entrance to the house: This is the way you take the time to understand the world the writers of the bible lived in when the bible was written. It is important to do this because often the context has changed from then to now
3. The walls. The wall is understanding the world we live in. How do we relate what God said then to what God is saying to us today?
4. What is the roof: how does the church overarch or provide the shelter for the living word and Jesus Christ?

What you want is a strong house.

There is a hermeneutics proposal, a proposal to study this worldwide. We have been devoting a lot of time to this proposal. What we found as we tried to inhabit this house in NZ is that what you want to emerge is high ground, high consensus, once you do that I think you find that you can live in it and that will give us a way of beginning to address the question of homosexuality in the church.

West: I come more from the perspective of a biblical scholar rather than a bishop. I think there are at least 4 features of interpretation that make up the process of interpretation and I think these 4 are all employed in the AC but each one can be and often is emphasized different ways.


Here they are:

1. There is in the AC a common commitment to be shaped by scripture. We agree, Anglicans, that the bible must in some way shape us. The problem is the “in what way?” question. there is variation in that commitment

2. The detail of scripture. One legacy of Anglicanism is that it has a history of being interested in the detail oft the bible. This can be approached in a variety of ways: from a social, literary, thematic, or ecclesio/theological perspective. Let me give some examples:

From a social perspective: did homosexuality as we understand it now exist in the biblical world? This is an important question if you want to apply what was written then to our own context? Are we talking about the same thing?

From a literary perspective, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you look at what happens there in that story you note that it takes place after Abraham has entertained 3 angels.. If that is the true, then the problem in Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but inhospitality as demonstrated in male rape

From a literary perspective, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you look at what happens there in that story you note that it takes place after Abraham has entertained 3 angels.. If that is the true, then the problem in Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but inhospitality as demonstrated in male rape

Now what that means is that in terms of the literary narrative it is a narrative of hospitality.

Thematic: to what extent can one find a theme dealing with human sexuality and if so would we include the texts dealing with homosexuality in that line? Does it fall in the same line as incest and adultery and all of the sexual sins that we find? Some would draw the theme line different

3. A common commitment among Anglicans is to bring our contexts into engagement with Scripture. In the South African contexts we think what should be emphasized is HIV AIDS. The self-select session here on that topic was attended by one bishop and me and five presenters. The Lambeth conference is consumed by issues of sexuality. What you think important in your context shapes your engagement with scripture.

4. Ecclesio/theologcal framework…what holds the bible together for you? Were you evangelized by evangelicals, Anglo Catholics, or liberals? This will shape who you are and how you interpret the bible.

What is exciting to me and I will conclude with this, is the participatory nature of this conference. For the first time we are able to share where we stand in each of these four areas with each other and begin to understand why we stand in different places, this is valuable time.

Missed a number of questions because I asked my own:

Me: I have a question for Dr. West. Would you say that the author of the NT book of Jude was incorrect when he wrote this about Sodom and Gamorrah, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire…” that was from verse 7. Would you say that the writer of Jude got the context wrong?

A: No not at all, I think he was referring to the sin of inhospitality.

Me: When he uses the phrase “sexual immorality”?

A: Yes, that was the way they were being inhospitable.

Q: To Professor West, the points you have highlighted, you seem to miss out on tradition. The bible is read in the context of tradition and leaving it out can also jeopardize ecumenical dialog.

Archbishop: I would include that in my image of the roof; the overarching canopy which is the Church

West: The excitement of the moment is that we are able to engage with tradition. The Anglican Communion is no longer what it used to be. It is changing.

Q: Is it your sense that there are widely different understandings of the bible and interpretation and if so how do we get any sense that the bible can be authoritative over such a wide range?

West: I do not think our understandings of the bible or interpretation are that widely different. That is the claim. but actually the same process of trying to understand and be shaped by the bible is happening all around the world. Everyone has their own process of making sense of the bible. They are all doing the same thing, so those who claim their process takes the bible more seriously are just trying to stamp their feet a little harder.

Archbishop: I should say that in the 39 articles it makes clear that that bible is the primary source of authority and that all the church does must be tested by it. We will not depart from that principle.

Q: for the archbishop: I am confused about the process that took place in NZ in the 1998 conference. The 98 Conference made it clear that the onus is on those who want to change the teaching on sexuality. They had to prove the point. They had the burden. Are you now saying all arguments are equal?

A: Well, what we are doing is we are going back to first principles about the way we are going to understand the bible. We are wiping all of that away and getting under the various understandings to get at the question from the level of how we read the bible and the sitting together under the Spirit to see where the spirit leads us through scholarly engagement

Q: To Professor west: What do you think of Lambeth 1.10?

Long pause…

A: West: I don’t have a clear position on 1:10 personally.

Q: has the church been negligent about the rate of biblical education, has the understanding of the bible been more advanced in some places of the world than in others?

A: archbishop: I do not ink there is a quality control way to grade the difference.

A: Professor West: You have raised a good point that should be taken forward. In the South African context, the bible was used to support Apartheid and the liberation struggle. We embrace the ambiguity of the bible; that it is not self-evident and we struggle to find ways it can be life-giving.

end