From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion
Subject: Re: NEWS: Sex and the Archbishop
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 00:41:16 GMT

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998 01:00:18 +1000, "Darren R Middleton"
<> wrote:


>G'day Nigel,

>I share table fellowship with sinners all the time (not to mention my family
>;-), however, this is not communion. Jesus set us an example on how we
>should respond to 'sinners' ie table fellowship of which I agree 100%....
>And I know you do too (G'day Theo ;-)
>However, communion is for the disciples of Christ.
>We might ask where were all the unconverted at the last supper?

Hi, Darren,

Indeed. There are some who argue here on the newsgroup that there
were no "christians' until after Pentecost, and by that
definition everyone present was 'unconverted'. 

Of course, as an Anglo-Catholic with liberal leanings I am duty
bound to disapprove of the Last Supper anyway, because it is an
example of lay presidency, and there were no women in leadership
roles. (That's a joke - sort of).

Seriously, let me make my position clear in this. I do not
advocate inviting anyone and everyone to participate in the
sacrament - _but_ I would consider denying the sacrament to a
person who presented themselves at the altar  to be a decision of
the utmost gravity. Excommunication of a notorious and
unrepentant sinner would be an extreme step, and I certainly
would not use it against a person involved in non- exploitative
sexual sin. 


>>We also may have to agree to differ on the issue of homosexuality. I
>>do not think the line of demarcation between ceremonial, judical and
>>moral law is as clear as you make out.
>
>O, I reckon we must be close.
>The Moral law (ten commandments) still binding.
>The Judicial Law the outworking of the moral law specifically applied to the
>nation Israel are not binding on the disciples of Christ (no?).
>The  ceremonial Law was a shadow of the things to come (no?).

Firstly, you are making a false distinction. Neither the Hebrew
scriptures themselves, nor their ancient or modern Jewish
interpreters, make the distinctions you have set out above. The
Law is the Law.

Secondly, if we as Christians, for the sake of convenience and
interpretation, make the distinctions as you have done, I would
argue that the prohibitions in Leviticus against homosexual
behaviour come into the Judicial/cultic area, and therefore do
not apply to Christians. Further, the NT references to
homosexuality can also be understood in the context of the cultic
practices of other religions and the cultural norms of the 1st
century. A case can be made that the prohibition against
homosexual behaviour should be considered to have the same weight
as the prohibition against women having their heads uncovered or
speaking in church. 

>
>>There are two points I would like to follow up:
>>
>>I wrote:
>>>>I also wonder where you stand on disputed passages like John
>>>>8:1-11 and the alternate endings of Mark. Are they included in
>>>>the canon - and how do you decide? There is also the whole matter
>>>>of the apocrypha...
>>
>>In <35c6ac2a.0>, "Darren R Middleton"
>><> wrote:
>>>Seek to get as close to the autographs as possible.
>>>Jn 8, no. Mk, no. Apocrypha, no.
>>
>>
>>It interesting that I would take a more inclusive line here. I think
>>that the Apocrypha, John 8, and the endings to Mark 16 show us
>>important things about the religious life and attitudes of the first
>>century. I am sure you are aware of the history of the Christian use
>>of the Apocrypha - it was accepted virtually without question until
>>Jerome wrote against it in the fourth century, when it dropped into
>>disuse, only to be vigourously affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church
>>in the 16th century, and equally vigourously rejected by the
>>continental reformed Churches. The Orthodox have always read the
>>Apocrypha, and some other books as well, in their scripture, and
>>Anglicans 'read the books, buyt do not use them to establish
>>doctrine'.
>>I guiess what it boils down to for me is that when Jesus, Paul and
>>others referred to "scripture" in the New testament, they were almost
>>certainly referring to a collection of bvooks which included the
>>apocrypha.
>
>
>I am not convinced at all Nigel.
>It is well known that the Jews did not refer to the apocrypha as inspired
>(confirmed at Jamnia). Furthermore, it denies such an authority itself
>(which book was it?).
>The apocrypha only got legs when the tridentine Fathers framed their
>position in reaction to the reformers.

The Apocrypha was included in the Septuagint, which was the main
version of scripture used by Greek speaking Jews and 'god
fearers' throughout the Roman empire. Most of the people who
became Christians in the first 100 years after the ressurection
fall into this category, so it is likely that when they spoke of
'scripture', they were referring to a collection of books which
included what we call the apocrypha.

As you rightly point out, it was the Rabbis (spiritual
descendants of the Pharisees) at Jamnia who rejected the
apocrypha early in the second century. It always find it
interesting when protestant Christians consider themselves bound
by this decision.

Also- the Apocrypha contains so much good material to help us
understand the faith of the Jews immediately before the time of
Jesus. The book of Wisdom contains just as much useful and
inspiring material as the book of proverbs, and the heroic
stories of faith, witness and martyrdom in the books of the
Maccabees are truly an inspiration - and give the lie to the
Christian caricature of Jewish faith as weak, opportunistic and
manipulative.

Graeme has pointed out on another post that the books of the
apocrypha contain historical inaccuracies. Some research would
show that they were no less accurate than the canonical books of
either testament with regard to external references.
>
>>I think that John 8:1-11 is entirely within character for Jesus, so it
>>would be a shame to leave it out (do you ever read it in church and/or
>>teach from it. I wonder?).
>
>It may well be representative of the character of Christ but is it
>Scripture?
>No, I do not read from it nor have I preached on it.
>

Well, IMHO your people are missing out on an important story
which is an instructive part of Christian tradition.

It is a new concept for me that a preacher would take up his
Bible and ask the question "is this scripture or not?" before
deciding whether or not to preach on a passage like Mark 16 or
John 8. Are there other such passages on your exclusion list?


>>Conversely, I think that the long ending of
>>Mark 16 is entirely out of character for Jesus, but it represents an
>>important minority view in the early Church (which persists today - Hi
>>Chris!), and we do our understanding of the breadth and depth of the
>>Christian faith a disservice if we leave it out.
>
>
>Disagree. The question is, is it Scripture, I doubt it.
>Textually it seems very late, and ill fitting.
>

We are in danger of returning to the mulberry bush here. How do
you decide whether it is scripture or not. So far as I know,
every printed and officially sanctioned version of the scriptures
includes both John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:8-20. Are there any other
passages in your bible that you would say are 'not scripture'.
Are there any passages or books not included in your Bible that
you would include - the Gospel of Thomas, perhaps.
Of course, the most important question is - how do you decide? Do
we judge for ourselves, or do we seek a consensus - and if we
decided by consensus, should we be guided by Church leaders,
Biblical scholars, or both?


>>Also:
>>With reference to your attitude to the commandment "You shall not
>>kill/murder", you described abortion and euthanasia as
>>unlawfulkilling.
>>
>>I asked
>>>>In a society where abortion and euthanasia were legal, would you
>>>>have a different opinion?
>
>
>I saw it but I forgot to answer (I meant to).
>When I referred to unlawful, I had in mind the Bible not secular laws.
>Abortion is legal in Victoria and has been for some time, so that has no
>bearing on my opinion.
>
>In choosing this phrase I was trying to illustrate the diff between killing
>& murder. We can kill someone without murdering them. Hence, abortion is
>murder, capital punishment for murder is killing. 'You shall not Murder.'
>

Once again, I think you are seeing black and white where in real
life there are shades of grey. I would have thought that an
useful working definition was murder = illegal killing, but that
does not apply in your example. 
What definition of "murder" do you use to include abortion (and
euthanasia?) and exclude capital punishment and killing in war?

Just to remind you of my position, I understand the principle of
the commandment to be "do not kill". I think that abortion,
euthanasia, capital punishment and war are all wrong, but I can
imagine circumstances in which they might be permitted for the
greater good.

Thanks for an interesting discussion. Looking forward to your
next instalment.

Cheers

N+

Nigel B. Mitchell