November 1, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

July 11, 2012


TEC Opens Bible, Discovers Shocking Things Written There

John Burwell reports on the tragic comedy that is General Convention:

“We began the afternoon by Reconsidering A061 which added some newer Biblical translations to the list of officially authorized versions. Yesterday (that would be Saturday for those of you in real time), we added an amendment that would make the ESV an officially sanctioned version for the Church.

As we were ending our night last night, a deputy asked for reconsideration, because he felt that the House had been deceived by the people who offered the amendment His main complaint was that we deputies had not had ample time to read the ESV version before being asked to add it to the approved list. (On that, he did have a point.) But then he said something very near to this [this in not an exact quote]: “I did read some of it, and in 1 Corinthians 6:9, it says, ‘Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality… will inherit the kingdom of God.’ We were told that this version is a literal translation, and it is clearly not. This version says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

There were gasps in the room, and within seconds we voted to reconsider, which would mean that we would start back over, and present the original resolution, without the ESV amendment, for a vote. Killing the inclusion of the ESV. That’s where we ended for the night.

Evidently, overnight, someone did some checking and found that the RSV, the NIV, the CEV and several other versions of the Bible already approved for Episcopal Church usage used those exact words in 1 Corinthians 6:9. In fact, most of the versions that we were being asked to approve in this resolution also used that same exact offending word. Who knew!”...more

Sadly for General Convention deputies, the NRSV, the most commonly used version in Episcopal parishes also contains shocking language. In 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 we read

: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”

And in Romans 1:26-27 we find

: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

What to do?


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

45 comments

Of course, the only thing to do now is to form a committee to re-write the Bible, following Bp Bennison’s prophetic words.

[1] Posted by AnglicanXn on 7-11-2012 at 06:56 AM · [top]

Anglican XN,
Agreed. Let them rewrite the Bible to conform to their agenda. That would be the only honest thing to do for these types ....... along with becoming Unitarians. If they don’t like the various translations we have, I suggest they get together a committee and start translating it themselves.  When they get to these various passages, I would really like to know what they would do. Just skip over them as others have done in the past?

I remember what Dr. Gagnon said at Mere Anglicanism a couple of years ago. He was pointing out that trying to have even a discussion with these people is impossible as their priorities are not the same as the orthodox.  I bet his talk is still archived on Anglican TV. The clearest distinction between these two groups came when he had a powerpoint slide with priorities of both groups- Feelings were at the top of the list for these sorts and Scripture was at the top of the list for the orthodox.  Gotta admit- that made it crystal clear to me.  I knew the differences before but to have so succinctly put in two lists. Perfect!!

[2] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-11-2012 at 07:21 AM · [top]

Seriously, they didn’t even know those passages existed?  I hope you are kidding.  Well mostly.  Maybe if they really didn’t know God will change their hearts…I pray this is so.

Ignorance is NOT bliss…when it comes to our eternal salvation!

I have blogged with many in the homosexual leadership who “poo poo” these passages with “well homosexuality as we know it today was different back then”, etc.  But when I get to Jesus quoting Genesis in Matthew 19 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?” 

Generally at this point they drop out of the conversation…because they “got noth’in”.

[3] Posted by B. Hunter on 7-11-2012 at 07:30 AM · [top]

I’ve so far resisted posting what I think might be appropriate English translations of “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai,” conveying the strength of Paul’s earthy language in a way that no translation committee would dare. Not being a Koine Greek scholar, I don’t feel that I should do that. And, I’ve tried to get such words out of my English vocabulary, anyway.

However, Matt, you are tempting me. I will continue to exercise restraint. I will try.

The word choice “sodomites” of the NRSV does make me smile, though. These same activists INSIST that the problem with Sodom was only a matter of hospitality.

[4] Posted by Ralph on 7-11-2012 at 07:37 AM · [top]

The Church Publishing Company is probably bidding for the contract for the NEB (New Episcopal Bible) right now. Of course, like most of the material from their catalog it won’t sell because Episcopalians don’t need the Bible anyway… We’ve been baptised!

[5] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 7-11-2012 at 07:41 AM · [top]

Oh my, such tender apple blossoms that dwell within TEo, getting the vapors over Biblical condemnation of the newest trendy GC saltlick.  Can putting bloomers on piano legs be far behind?

[6] Posted by Jeffersonian on 7-11-2012 at 07:44 AM · [top]

From B. Hunter

Seriously, they didn’t even know those passages existed?  I hope you are kidding.  Well mostly.  Maybe if they really didn’t know God will change their hearts…I pray this is so.

I know. Me too. It really is surprising that such a gasp of surprise was heard. Then again we are talking about TEC deputies who nearly did not pass a resolution to read the Bible in 2013. Only did so because someone thought it might look bad to the secular world if they did so.

Here is what John Burwell+ said about that resolution and discussion!

Right after that, we considered a resolution that would invite the church membership to read the Bible in 2013. You ready for this? The committee that presented the resolution recommended that we reject this resolution. They claimed it was redundant. In debate, a deputy urged the resolution’s defeat and said, “We are in favor of the Bible, but we don’t want just anyone reading it. They might get wrong ideas.” Oh yes, she did say that!

Deputy Farrell of North Carolina saved the day. He said, “I would not like to pick up USA Today and find a headline that says the Episcopal Church is not in favor of reading the Bible. We’d best pass this resolution.”  We did, by the way. Passed it handily.

bold is mine.

[7] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-11-2012 at 07:46 AM · [top]

Well, #4, people who are ignorant of 1 Corinthians and Romans are surely just as at sea over Jude:

“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” - Jude 1:7

[8] Posted by Jeffersonian on 7-11-2012 at 07:48 AM · [top]

Pewster, thanks for the laugh!

[9] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-11-2012 at 07:48 AM · [top]

Duh! Maybe these people at convention should have tried reading the Bible now and then. Apparently they haven’t read any approved version. Guess they’re going to have to disapprove the approved versions and come up with their own! They never noticed the references to sodomy and homosexuality before? They look like the idiots they are.

[10] Posted by Nellie on 7-11-2012 at 08:05 AM · [top]

These passage hae apparently been removed form the lectionary and thye would not know them.

[11] Posted by Pb on 7-11-2012 at 08:13 AM · [top]

REDACT!!!!!!  Fainting couches will need to be supplied at GC15 should they ever open the Bible again. They will need to wear hazmat suits next time they pick one up.

[12] Posted by Bill2 on 7-11-2012 at 09:45 AM · [top]

I don’t understand how ANYONE who is a Priest, Deputy or Lay Person going to convention has any business being there if they don’t have a daily walk with the Lord - reading Holy Scripture and Praying on a DAILY BASIS. 

Regardless, to be at convention and not even know what the Bible says about homosexual behavior when it is THE KEY ISSUE, is shameful at best.

I attended the Dallas GC years ago - I was frankly shocked and disappointed at the ignorance of many of the Priests and Bishops on that and other topics.  And then they wanted to ARGUE about topics they knew nothing about.  Totally amazing.

To me, it would be like your job is to be in charge of accounting, having never taken an accounting course or having your CPA.  Wouldn’t you get FIRED for that??

Shame on Priests and Bishops in particular who don’t have a DAILY walk with the Lord.  In not having this discipline, they are inviting satan in through the front door; he is grabbing a beer from the fridge, sitting in the “comfy chair” and clicking on his favorite porn to share with them.

God help the church.  We are sheeple at best…

[13] Posted by B. Hunter on 7-11-2012 at 09:57 AM · [top]

A Bold Prediction: Prior to next convention some will have the idea that just as Mormons and the Catholic church have their versions of Scripture, so should TEC. A working committee will have been established and sample draft revisions will be available for review by convention attendees, including the Gospel of John and 1 Corinthians. The convention will vote overwhelmingly for the work to continue.

[14] Posted by Festivus on 7-11-2012 at 10:03 AM · [top]

#14 - they will have to do something, because their “arguments” against what Holy Scripture says about homosexual behavior are weak at best - the only real way to deal with the issue is to re-write the Bible itself.

Talk about blasphamy…

[15] Posted by B. Hunter on 7-11-2012 at 10:13 AM · [top]

Aha!  With the Episcopal Revised Version (ERV) there will no longer be any silly debates about sin and other uncomfortable things.  While we’re at it, just eliminate all references to baptism—who needs it!

[16] Posted by hanks on 7-11-2012 at 10:38 AM · [top]

I think I read it here a couple of years ago, about some gay scholars who finally concluded that homosexuality just can’t be defended by parsing scripture.  The Bible just has to be discarded in order to justify it.  Does anyone remember the names of those particular scholars?  I find myself in more and more conversations where those names would be helpful.

[17] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 7-11-2012 at 10:45 AM · [top]

[16] Hang on, Hanks!  Baptism is your All Access badge to everything Episcopal.  Must get your ticket punched.

[18] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 7-11-2012 at 10:52 AM · [top]

#17, it’s not like it’s a secret.  Recall the recent thread where a Christian man was berated and cursed for witnessing at a Gay Pride parade.  The homosexuals who were verbally abusing the guy were enraged that he would be there professing openly a way of life utterly incompatible with the gay lifestyle.  I’d like to see Susan Russell or Louie Crew sit them down and explain why they’re wrong.

[19] Posted by Jeffersonian on 7-11-2012 at 11:02 AM · [top]

The weird, the goofy, the fringe.  That’s who runs the Ep. Church.  I’ve often wondered when all this type of “news” out of the Ep. Church would cease to be “news”.  I think we’re at that point.

I’ve scrolled around the internet for newspaper stories, and there are mentions of the Gen. Conv., and the churches’ voting all this junk in, and read the stories.  There aren’t really that many comments, and the ones that are there are the same old comments from young people saying “Jesus loves everybody”, and “you can’t help it if you are gay, it’s nice that the church lets them get married” type comments.  There are also a few comments about this being an abomination.

But mostly, I sense just a shrug of the shoulder.

Out with a whimper.

[20] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 7-11-2012 at 11:11 AM · [top]

The “Jesus loves everybody” contingent thinks that way because they’ve never been taught to think at all - by the church, by the schoolds, by their parents. Of course, we have plenty of older people - products of the 60’s - in our ocngregation who are the same. These people don’t understnad that whil;e Jesues does indeed love everyone, He doesn’t love what everyone does. The left - both in the church and in government - is very good at laying on the guilt trip if you don’t buy that anything goes and we have to be “tolerant.” Interesting thing is that all that lovely tolerance is one-way.

[21] Posted by Nellie on 7-11-2012 at 11:17 AM · [top]

The solution is simple: Adopt whatever version is the most fashionable, then edit the lectionary to remove the more objectionable verses. It’s worked in the past so why change things now?

[22] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 7-11-2012 at 11:27 AM · [top]

This afternoon I was checking in on “the latest” on my smartphone outside.  A co-worker was teasing me about being too attached to the news.  I told him what was going on with my (former) denomination.  His reaction? 

“Oh, are they still around?  Huh.”

[23] Posted by GillianC on 7-11-2012 at 11:34 AM · [top]

Cindy T. in Texas: one of the scholars is Luke Timothy Johnson.

[24] Posted by tomcornelius on 7-11-2012 at 12:08 PM · [top]

For the record, Johnson is not gay. But he is one Cindy T seems to have in mind.

[25] Posted by AnnieV on 7-11-2012 at 12:20 PM · [top]

Can’t they just substitute something other than the bible for approved reading? I was going to suggest the Koran - but that won’t solve the problem. My great grandfather was an episcopal minister. My grandmother says he preached using the sunday comics. That would work

[26] Posted by Paul PA on 7-11-2012 at 12:59 PM · [top]

Thank you, tomcornelius [24]!  I appreciate it…

[27] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 7-11-2012 at 01:08 PM · [top]

#17, and #24. Actually, that’s the only argument (that I’m aware of) that actually works for me.

First, you acknowledge and affirm what Holy Scripture says about homosexual practice.

Then, as a Church meeting in council, you state that those passages are no longer applicable.

That’s how it’s been done for 2000 or so years.

The problems with that are:
1. There hasn’t been a Church Council in a long time.
2. The living Patriarchs of the Church are unified in opposition to homosexual practice. Some, in very strong language.
3. TEC, not even having a Patriarch, doesn’t have the authority or power to make that kind of statement.

If every one of the living Patriarchs were to affirm in a church council that homosexual practice is not a sin, then one might assume that the God is at work revealing New Truth to the world, and everything else would fall into place.

When one little part of Christianity ignores an important teaching, that’s heresy.

[28] Posted by Ralph on 7-11-2012 at 03:08 PM · [top]

Ralph #28. The same can be said about the ordination of women practice of TEC.

[29] Posted by tomcornelius on 7-11-2012 at 06:16 PM · [top]

TEC, not even having a Patriarch, doesn’t have the authority or power to make that kind of statement.

Obviously, that’s not stopping them from doing so.

[30] Posted by the virginian on 7-11-2012 at 07:09 PM · [top]

Ralph, if you are granting such authority to modern Patriarchs, why on earth are you an Episcopalian?  Ask any Patriarch, they will tell you to get yourself out of Anglicanism and into a church whose clerical orders they recognize.

[31] Posted by tjmcmahon on 7-11-2012 at 07:39 PM · [top]

I had tremendous respect for Pope Shenouda III, and I recognize the Holy Orders of the Patriarchs despite certain substantial theological differences. In the matters of marriage and extramarital sex, I agree with them completely.

No other group has the authority to convene a Churchwide Council. Of course, that’s not going to happen, so the LGBTMXYZPTLK thing isn’t going to be resolved by declaring that those parts of the Bible aren’t binding anymore. That’s the major weakness in Luke Timothy Johnson’s argument.

If not the Patriarchs, then who DOES have the authority? Certainly not the itty-bitty TEC.

Yet, I don’t hear a call to leave Anglicanism, or TEC. Foolish, perhaps.

[32] Posted by Ralph on 7-11-2012 at 08:23 PM · [top]

“If not the Patriarchs, then who DOES have the authority?”

Errr, no-one actually.  The patriarchs do not have such power, nor does an ecumenical council. 

We honour and study the works of the early church patriarchs and the ecumenical councils, because they followed this teaching themselves.  They didn’t presume to add or take away anything from scripture, but only to faithfully apply what was written there to the particular situations of the church.

Which is a bit of a contrast to this GC!

[33] Posted by MichaelA on 7-12-2012 at 01:54 AM · [top]

Ralph:

If every one of the living Patriarchs were to affirm in a church council that homosexual practice is not a sin, then one might assume that the God is at work revealing New Truth to the world, and everything else would fall into place.

Not at all!

Let us suppose that an ecumenical council consisting of most of the world’s bishops could somehow be assembled at the present time, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican alike, with the pope and all the Patriarchs involved.  Such a council would have no authority whatsoever to adopt the position that “homosexual practice is not a sin,” even if an overwhelming majority agreed.  The truths contained in Holy Scripture cannot be voted up and down by the Church’s bishops.

If something like that did happen, the Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail would continue to be represented by those orthodox Christians who rejected the decision of such a council and continued to adhere to the clear teaching of the Bible.  The bishops in question would be nothing more than heretics and apostates and their council nothing more than the General Convention of the Episcopal Church writ large.

[34] Posted by episcopalienated on 7-12-2012 at 07:26 AM · [top]

P. S.  Anglicans don’t believe in The Infallibility of the Church, nor should they.  George Salmon demonstrates adequately, I think, why it is both possible and necessary to accept the dogmatic definitions of the first four Ecumenical Councils without attributing any special charism of infallibility to them.

[35] Posted by episcopalienated on 7-12-2012 at 07:42 AM · [top]

The Patriarchal Argument has clear flaws, as noted above. But, it’s the best I’ve heard.

The closest Biblical analogy I can think of is the Council of Jerusalem, which decided to make circumcision optional for Gentiles converting to Christianity.

[36] Posted by Ralph on 7-12-2012 at 08:04 AM · [top]

There is good precedent that TEC can follow.  Where the bible does not conform to your theology, just change it as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did with the New World Translation.  That way you take care of all the thorny issues, hoping your followers do not stumble upon the preponderance of versions that refute your revised aberration.

TEC has become such and outrageous spectacle that they may actually cause onlookers to open the bible in disbelief, resulting in greater literacy.  Before long people will be writing Snopes asking, “Does the bible really say that?

Are the remaining TEC members so biblically anorexic that they don’t know the scripture-torture that is being fed them?  They seem to neglect the fact, that to be an Apostolic Church means you adhere to the teachings of the Apostles.  All too often they marginalize Paul’s teachings and Jesus’ divinity.  If Christ is the head of the Church, then you would think that His word would be the first counsel before making their deviant pronouncements.

Why do I rant when it is almost voyeuristic to check in to see what shocking thing the spoiled little nine-year old girl has done this time as she prances around in her wide phylacteries, saying, look at me, look at me.

[37] Posted by FollowerOfTheWay on 7-12-2012 at 09:21 AM · [top]

I am all for TEC rendering their own Bible translation.  I can hardly wait for those lawsuits for using an “unauthorized” version.

[38] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-12-2012 at 09:47 AM · [top]

Yes, by all means do everything possible to accelerate your demise.  She has a propensity to fall on her own sword.

[39] Posted by FollowerOfTheWay on 7-12-2012 at 10:19 AM · [top]

“he felt that the House had been deceived”

I love it. People as ruthless and deceptive as the revisionista-gay contingent are complaining about offering this popular, accurate translation as being somehow deceptive. Projection? I guess they should go all Jehovah’s Witnesses and just produce the NEP, all expurgated and eisegeted to suit their tastes. What about the “Good As New” translation that Dr. Druid endorsed a few years back? That should fit the bill.


#25 “For the record, Johnson is not gay. But he is one Cindy T seems to have in mind.”

But his daughter is, which is why he flip flopped.

[40] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 7-12-2012 at 11:27 AM · [top]

“The closest Biblical analogy I can think of is the Council of Jerusalem, which decided to make circumcision optional for Gentiles converting to Christianity.”

I suppose you could call that “deciding”, but they weren’t deciding to invalidate any teaching.  Christ had done that, when he taught that he had fulfilled the law.

What the Jerusalem Council decided was how this new teaching emanating from Christ applied in practical terms to a particular situation.

[41] Posted by MichaelA on 7-12-2012 at 06:07 PM · [top]

“Why do I rant when it is almost voyeuristic to check in to see what shocking thing the spoiled little nine-year old girl has done this time as she prances around in her wide phylacteries, saying, look at me, look at me.”

FOTW, very true.  All christians are shocked by these actions of GC.  You don’t even need to be Anglican to understand that something very wrong has gone on here.

[42] Posted by MichaelA on 7-12-2012 at 06:11 PM · [top]

“There is good precedent that TEC can follow.  Where the bible does not conform to your theology, just change it as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did with the New World Translation.”

Interesting point.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses started out relatively orthodox, but then evolved into the non-Christian cult we see today, and many members who were Christian realised too late that the change had happened around them.  I wonder if TEC could go the same way?

[43] Posted by MichaelA on 7-12-2012 at 06:15 PM · [top]

As one of my co-workers would say, “you just can’t make this stuff up!”

As one of the lectors at my parish, I routinely use the ESV translation for the lectionary readings.  It is one of the better “word for word” translations, with solid Reformed/evangelical scholarship behind it.  I doubt that the revisionists in our parish even recognize that it’s not the New Really Swell Version, or any version.  Nor do they tend to show much interest for Bible study.

Which may explain why TEc is as far down the broad road as it is.

[44] Posted by Joshua 24:15 on 7-12-2012 at 10:44 PM · [top]

Personally, the Nearly Infallible Version (NIV) (pre-2011 version) is a great translation.  May not be suitable for TEC because of the classification of the word “homosexual” as sin.  It would not surprise me at all if TEC publishes a revised bible that removes every thorny issue related to all deviant behavior. 

It seems that the TEC’s greatest opposition comes from the Word of God not from Orthodox Anglicans.  Their re-defining God is an attempt at constructing an idol that they hope will, “bless them but not mess with them”.  A tenet throughout the scripture is, “Choose life or choose death”.  TEC’s membership trends indicate that many are taking the scripture below seriously.

2 Cor 6 14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”[c]

17 “Therefore come out from them
  and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
  and I will receive you.”[d]
18 “I will be a Father to you,
  and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”[e]

[45] Posted by FollowerOfTheWay on 7-13-2012 at 08:39 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.