From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion
Subject: Re: NEWS: Sex and the Archbishop
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:36:25 GMT


Hi, Darren


I wrote:
>> Compare Jesus' attitude to the woman taken in adultery in John 8,
>> and Paul's attitude to the immorality amongst the Corinthian
>> Church in 1 Corinthians 5. It is not immediately apparent what
>> the Church's attitude to immorality should be - to shelter and
>> refuse to condemn, or to condemn and cast out. It is a matter of
>> interpretation and debate, which continues in the Church. There
>> are some who have the 1 Corinthians 5 attitude to homosexual
>> people, and some who prefer to act as Jesus did. No doubt this
>> debate will continue.

On Sun, 02 Aug 1998 13:11:47 GMT, 
wrote:
>G'day Nigel, I am posting because I said I would in private email on
>Thurs/Fri? But I have been unable until now, the thread has moved on (some
>may say degenerated!) so I will try & be brief!
>
>Contextual situation, Jn 8 (if it is Scripture!) was a unlawful trap set for
>Jesus. The woman is probably not a believer and so Jesus deals with her as
>such.  (Although I acknowledge in principle that our ministry is one of
>reconciliation not condemnation)

I do not have any problem with regarding John 8 as scripture -
but then I do not have any problem with regarding either or both
endings of Mark as scripture either. These doubtful texts enrich
our understanding of the debates about what Jesus said and did
that took place in the early Church. I cannot know for sure
whether the original author of the fourth Gospel wrote this
story, but I still find it an interesting and illustrative
account of what some people in the early Church believed Jesus
had said and done.

I am not sure what you are trying to make of "The woman is
probably not a beleiver". Do you think Jesus had a different
attitude to sinners who were not believers? 

The woman had been caught committing a sin punishable by death.
The crowd brought her to Jesus - and we cannot tell whether they
did so in order to make trouble for Jesus, or because they
accepted his ministry and wanted him to make the final judgement.
He refused to condemn her, challenged the crowd to look at their
own sin, and send the woman away commending her to 'sin no more'.


This story tells me pretty clearly where a follower of Jesus
should stand when the crowd is pushing for the death penalty. It
also has implications for our attitude to sexual sin.

>I Cor 5 deals with an unrepentant man who bragged about having sex with his
>mother and needed according to Paul to receive severe punishment in the hope
>of genuine repentance. Wisdom needs to be used.

This man, too, had committed a crime punishable by death
according to the letter of the law (Leviticus 20:11).It is
doubtful that he had the power to enforce the ruling, but 1
Corinthians 5:5 looks pretty much like a call for the death
penalty to be enforced.

In John 8 Jesus shields the sinner who has committed a crime
punishable by death from the wrath of the crowd, and refuses to
condemn. In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul condemns, and calls for the
death penalty. 

The point I was making was that it is a matter of judgement and
interpretation, which of these responses should be normative for
Christians today, and under what circumstances. We could all make
up our own minds, or we could accept the consensus and guidance
of the Church.

Where do you stand? Do you think that the Church should call for
the death penalty against those (believers or not) who commit
adultery and/or incest?

>> >The Bible says you shall not Murder. The Church says you can. Who has the
>> >authority?
>>
>> Actually the commandment says you shall not kill. The Church  has
>> mostly accepted the inevitability of killing in war, and at times
>> Christians and churches have supported capital punishment and
>> abortion. Would you say that the commandment "You shall not Kill"
>> takes precedence, or does the Church have the right/duty to
>> interpret this commandment and allow killing under some
>> circumstances?
>
>Actually I would say the commandment says you shall not *murder*, your
>attempt to confuse the usage of the verb in not helpful. 

Sorry, but the usage of the scriptures is probably even less
helpful. The word in the commandments, *ratsach*, appears 47
times in the Hebrew text, and although it conveys the sense of
'slay' or 'murder', it also often refers to accidental killing
and killing in war. In fact, in Dueteronomy 22:26 the word means
capital punishment!

There is a much more common word, *harag* which occurs 160 times
in the scriptures and almost always means deliberate murder. But
even this word is used in Deuteronomy 13:9 and Joshua 13:22 for
legal killing.

I am not tryig to confuse - my point is that we need to read the
scriptures with intelligence, and apply them for today. Does the
commandment against murder apply to any or all of Capital
punishment, Abortion, Euthenasia, War? Personally I think that it
applies to all - all are against God's will and fall short of the
ideal for humanity, but I also recognise that there are
circumstances where it may be the greater good to allow these
things to take place.


>Clearly, we should
>translate the commandment and its N.T parallels contextually which would
>require the rendering murder (unlawful killing). Is there any translation
>that support your translation Nigel?

The KJV and the RSV both translate the word in the commandment
"kill", not "murder". There may be others. The term is ambiguous.

>Considering God instituted Capital Punishment in Gen 9 and went into battle
>with the chosen people surely you jest when you suggest that the commandments
>teach 'Thou shall not Kill'?

I do not think that the ancient Jews understood the commandment
that way, but  I think that Jesus moved Christian thinking in
that direction. Of course there is disagreement on this issue, on
both scriptural and ethical grounds, and the debate rages. I know
where I stand (see above).

<snip>

>> If the scripture has an antecedent authority, how did it come
>> into being? Everything I have read seems to indicate that the
>> Church existed first, and it was the Church that wrote and
>> authorised the Scriptures. If, as you say, the Church only has
>> authority derived from the scriptures, can you tell me how the
>> scriptures came into being?
>
>By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as Peter tell us. It is God breathed and
>authoritative. This has been the subject of many posts - let me summarise by
>saying the church *recognised* the antecedent authority of Scriptures as
>opposed to giving it authority. It is the same as men wrote the Word of God,
>but as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. God has always been pleased
>to use human vessels to bring about his perfect plans.

Then why did the process take so long? There were different lists
of tha canon of the NT circulating for nearly 300 years after the
ressurection. Bishops, synods and individual theologians
published their own lists, and consensus was eventually received.
I agree that the whole process took place under the guidance of
the Holy Spirit, as does everything in the Church, but do you
think that the human beings who took part in this process had
personalities, thoghts of their own, etc. Were they fallible? Was
their work infallible? If you think they were infallible, how can
you justify this?

>> I hope that I do not ever abuse/ ridicule the evangelical
>> position on anything. I do think that the liberal position is
>> more intellectualy rigourous, because that it the conclusion I
>> have come to from many years of study, and many years of faith.
>
>Perhaps there was a day when this was so, I suspect this is far from the
>truth. 

What part of my statement is far from the truth? The sentencet
that begins "I hope...", or the sentence that begins "I do
think..."?

>Most main line Churches do BTh etc which requires the same standard. I
>will admit that a liberal will complicate the simple because of the
>presupposition of fallibility (and thus *appear* to be more rigourous)as
>opposed to the evangelical position of infallibility.

I assume fallibility in anything that human beings have done, and
cannot concieve of any reason why I might do otherwise. The
position of infallibility is not even based on secure scriptural
grounds (which would be a circular argument anyway), and in wider
logical and academic terms it has no standing whatsoever.


>> It is hard not to ridicule the position AJ recently argued when
>> he told me that he was aware of many contradictions in the BIble,
>> but he refused to look at them because he was sure the Bible was
>> infallible, but I hope that I can question and challenge such
>> views without resorting to ridicule.
>> Hyperbole - maybe, but abuse - hopefully never.
>
>I refer to previous statements like, 'to believe in inerrancy is idolatry.'

Idolatry involves taking something that humans have made, and
investing it with the power of God and/or treating it as though
it were God. I believe that when people use terms like
"infallible, saving, perfect, all-powerful" of the written text
of the Bible, they are involved in idolatry.


>> Please don't make the mistake that others have made here of
>> thinking that a person who holds a liberal understanding of
>> scripture does not have faith. Christian Graus has told me many
>> times that I am not a Christian, and Graeme Hunt has recently
>> started saying that I am "not a believer", but I know that they
>> are wrong. I have a sure and certain hope in God, and a living
>> faith.
>
>As I have said, and will do so publicly, I am in no position to make
>judgements on your relationship with the Saviour. I do not feel it is wise
>nor helpful. There is a fine line between discernment & judgement.
>
>My reference to faith concerned your lack of faith in the revealed will of
>God, and my observation that this is the diff between our positions (as
>opposed to your inference that it was intelligence).

My faith is in God, through Jesus Christ his son, in the power of
the Holy Spirit. I do not 'believe in' the Bible - that would be
idolatry, as I have explained above, but I do regard the Bible as
the cornerstone of the witness and tradition of the Church, which
is the Body of Christ and which teaches us the faith.

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell