[Magdalen] What We Believe - St. Paul's Bellingham

[James Oppenheimer-Crawford]

Yep. Dudgeon is used here all the time to avoid answering the question.  I
understand.

And yes, with all due respect, TEC sure HAS set aside lots of scripture. If
the sky's clouded over, you can say it's blue til the cows come home; still
doesn't change what is.

I think people have gotten so inoculated with TEC double speak (it's
typical in TEC never to say what you actually mean when some obscure
oblique reference will serve) that they forget how to say something
straight.





James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
*“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved,
except in memory. LLAP**”  -- *Leonard Nimoy

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Ann Markle <ann.markle at aya.yale.edu> wrote:

> Sorry, Jim -- I forgot your question in my dudgeon over your incorrect
> phrase "setting aside the scriptures."  You say we do it all the time.  I
> say, who is "we?"  The Episcopal Church does not.  Perhaps you do and some
> other "we" you have in mind do, as well.  But not TEC.  Nevertheless, do I
> say the scriptural teachings on homosexuality are the truth?  My Answer:  I
> think we dismiss the "truthfulness" or not of scripture at our own peril.
> Can the scriptural teachings/citations be interpreted in such a way as not
> to condemn homosexuality?  Yes.  We need not set them aside, if we
> understand them correctly.  I believe the bible says NOTHING about
> homosexuality as we understand it today.  And certainly Jesus does not.  So
> are the scriptures "true?"  Yes, if properly studied, interpreted, and
> understood -- with the qualifier that there are no scriptural teachings on
> homosexuality as we understand it today.  Your question is like asking if
> the scriptural teachings on automobiles or the internet are "true."  And as
> far as I'm concerned, "reason" doesn't permit us to dismiss Holy Scripture,
> but to understand it more fully as regards contemporary issues.
>
> Ann
>
> The Rev. Ann Markle
> Buffalo, NY
> ann.markle at aya.yale.edu
> blog:  www.onewildandpreciouslife.typepad.com
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:28 PM, James Oppenheimer-Crawford <
> oppenheimerjw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > With all due respect, yes we do set aside scripture. We've been doing it
> > all the time, and rightly so. Some scripture is terrible and needs to be
> > set aside. I'd say we don't set aside scripture because we disagree with
> > it, although that's a perfectly good consideration, since scripture is
> not
> > some kind of magically produced text, written by the finger of God.
> >
> > I'd say we set this group of texts aside because it flies in the face of
> > many other sections of scripture. Same reason I set aside the raging
> > against Babylonian children!  And rightly so.
> >
> > You didn't answer my question.  That's okay.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Ann Markle <ann.markle at aya.yale.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There is no movement in the Episcopal church to "set aside those
> > > scriptures," but rather to use our God-given reason to correctly
> > interpret
> > > them.  This has been adequately done.  Probably 6-8 years ago we used a
> > > very good Lutheran scriptural study at St. Raphael's to discuss this
> > > issue.  Again, it's not about "setting aside those scriptures."  That's
> > > unacceptable from an Episcopal point of view (at least the larger
> church
> > --
> > > what laypeople decide to do is pretty much up to them).  We seek to
> > > understand them more correctly, and to make theological arguments that
> > > widen the meaning of marriage from "one man, one woman."  That has also
> > > been done -- a very good beginning was offered by Sam Candler at
> General
> > > Convention in 2003, and it has been expanded since that time.  We don't
> > > just throw out scripture if we disagree with it -- we seek deeper
> > > understanding, including alternative possibilities for
> re-interpretation.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:29 AM, James Oppenheimer-Crawford <
> > > oppenheimerjw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ann, did I understand you to say that the scriptural teachings on
> > > > homosexuality are actually the truth, and the movement to set those
> > texts
> > > > aside is wrong?  Because, based on what you said about scripture
> > trumping
> > > > reason and tradition, that would appear to be the outcome of such a
> > view.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>