Bishop of Stafford and Warming

In response to
Bishop of Stafford clarifies environment comments

Dear Bishop your said:

“Some of the emails I’ve received say that I should keep my nose out of climate change issues because I’m not a scientist. This is the very response that must be condemned. If we leave this important issue to scientists we have a convenient excuse to do nothing.”

I am trained as a scientist and worked over 30 years in the sciences. I am also second career clergy. You are taking action based upon lack of knowledge.

At point is that the issue is not fully understood as most people who are in science understand. The problem is at two levels. One there is conflicting evidence about whether or not there is climate change. The natures of the studies which allege to support climate change have the logical problem of using short term data to tell a long term story. If I take the temperature outside at 3 am, 5 am, and 7 am and use this data to predict what will be the temperature in three days, I will get an answer of very hot. There is also the problem with the method of data collection itself, which does not address the fact that local environment around weather station has changed. There is strong counter evidence in that the ocean surface temperature shows level to cooling.

There is a second problem, that is the question if climate change is man-made. There is clear evidence that over the years the earth has had temperature changes.

The issue has enough evidence to warrant continued study, but nothing more. The problem with the global warming debate is that it has real negative effects on real people right here and now. The restrictions on industry mean few products, higher costs, and few jobs. This is much akin to the DDT ban, which was done with questionable science. Many year later, we see that the ban likely did little to help wildlife, and as many as millions have died to been gravely ill, because the public health needs which DDT was the best approach went answered with a second best approach.

There is no money to be made at the university to study if there is global warming, but much to be made to study the effects of global warming. So deference to university studies like they are without influence of the political is just wrong.

My dear Bishop, in this case you are lending your office to that which is not true. You are doing the same thing which the Roman Church did in the case of Galileo.

Yours in Christ,

Scott+

Motives of Those Who Call Homosexual Acts Sin

People who have quit smoking are some of the most anti-smoking people. Could this be because social pressure has harmed them at some time in the past? I think it reasonable that people who were hurt by social pressure to engage in harmful behavior would be strong voices to change that social pressure. Rather than being something sinister, this is the voice of experience, bad experience talking.

Without getting into the whole discussion of homosexual by nature, I know of several men who had previously engaged in homosexual acts who had exited the lifestyle. In these cases the entry into the homosexual lifestyle, was from social pressure. This is where the witness of the Church is most important. Had these men been grounded at the time in the teaching of the Church, my guess is they would have never entered the homosexual lifestyle in the first place.

Which Theologian Are You?

You scored as Karl Barth. The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology.

Is Winning the Culture Part of Evangelism?

On the blog Father Neo’s White Rabbit he posted an invitation to comment on the topic he entitled “Mainstream or Diaspora?” I posted that winning the culture is a part of evangelism. I open that idea here as a thread for discussion.

Homosexuality and Reason

In the whole sexuality discussion, focusing on Scripture is not to concede reason to the other side. Reason in Anglican tradition, is to be used within the framework of Scripture. The idea that reason is equal to scripture is not valid. Reason is used to understand Scripture and Tradition it does not stand alone.  I have generally taken the tact that if Scripture is clear, not to engage in the discussion using reason. For the most part, I have only engaged in the discussion about reason when charges of being unreasonable have been put forth.

Nevertheless, there are good and shall I say secular reasons that homosexuality is a social problem. I here present a short summary of my thinking on how homosexuality defeats comradeship. I with this suggest that comradeship be a very necessary social function.  This is one reason the homosexuality is not good for the social structure, there are others.

There are sometimes when the sexes are to be separated. To me this is proper when comradeship is a required element. I know of nothing that can hurt a unit’s view of its common purpose than sexual attraction. The most clear examples are things like combat units in the armed forces.

As I am using the term, comradeship is a close personal attachment without sexual desires. This can be with an individual or a group.  While I am not saying that comradeship with a person of the opposite sex cannot occur, I am saying that sexual attraction destroys comradeship. Large group comradeship of mixed sexes is very difficult if not impossible.

Homosexual attraction also destroys comradeship. If I am part of a group of all men, I feel more open to comradeship, and I think that this is true of most men. This is where a even homosexual proclivity becomes a problem I need to be sure that my comradeship is not viewed as sexual attraction or a sexual advance. When I go on a men’s retreat, I do so in large part for comradeship. Homosexual attraction being part of the group destroys comradeship. This idea can be generalized and should be.

If I am part of a larger group of comrades, I want to think that the decisions of all in the group are made devoid of sexual attraction. It is not my original idea, but I contend that in any group of people where leaders or members of the group are required to make decision which effect the group in less than two seconds, need comradeship and must not have sexual attraction. This is why mixed sexes and homosexuals should not be in things like combat units.

I close with the reminder that homosexual acts are sin.  Holy Scripture tells us this, so the above is additive.   Even if the reader feels the logic of this posting is wrong, it does not change the sinful nature of homosexual acts.

I write this post because the topic has come up on the email group I am a member as well as posting by Brad Drell on his blog.

Mount Soledad Cross

It was until recent times that the United States could have been called a Christian country. It was not that Christianity was the only religion, but rather it was the force which created the morals by which people interact. Every government has morals which underpin the laws of the country. Sometimes these morals are fear, as in Iraq before the invasion. The laws of the United States are based upon the morality of the Jewish and Christian religions.

The idea that the government could not establish a Church is not saying that religion has no place in government. It is a job for religion to maintain moral order, and in that respect it overlaps with the role of government. Let us all be honest, government is all about morals. Morals are what make laws acceptable to people. There is no such thing as a government that does not have morals. They may be what I would call bad morals, but they have their moral none the less.

No scientific basis for ‘born gay’ theory

Canon Kendall Harmon posted at Titusonenine a piece from the Salt Lake Tribune. I think that the posted piece may be a bit misleading, but much less than the revisionist misstatements. If my memory serves me right, similar research exists for alcoholic abuse. Does anyone want to say that genes are an excuse of abuse of substances?

First as a scientist I would say that most that can be said is some certain groups of genes are correlated to being homosexual. This is not the same as saying that they cause homosexual attraction. I get sick of people willfully confusing correlation with cause and effect.

The strongest anti-hypothesis which can be stated being consistence with the data is that certain genetic makeup provides a proclivity for homosexual attraction. To say more is to ignore the identical twin studies. This should end the discussion about being born gay and having no choice. A person is no more born gay than they are born an alcoholic. As a free moral agents people make choices.

We are born sinners and each has their own set of sins which are particular problems to them. The proclivity to some particular sin may be from our genes or it may be from the environment. This proclivity does not matter. We are called to avoid sin, when we do sin we are called to repent and to avoid that sin.

Women as Priests

Most people who put forth the proposition that woman can hold any office in the Church use Saint Paul’s saying “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”Gal:3:26: as their proof text. This passage may very well be one of the most quoted scriptures, which is used to attempt to establish the false contention that in Christianity there is no distinction between the sexes. In the Old Testament the Law clearly made clear distinction between the role of the sexes. In Gen:1:27 we are shown that in our earthly body it was God who made us male and female. It is very clear the priests of the Old Testament appointed by God were the sons of Aaron (Ex:28:). It is also clear from the Old Testament that there is a desired hierarchy in the family. (Gen:3:16) ” Unto the woman he said,. . . thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

How then does this relate to the idea of woman clergy. One must first discuss what is the meaning of clergy. Some define clergy as someone who has a formal ministry within the Church. usually in preaching, or teaching. This view of clergy is held by most of the Protestant denomination. This is clearly not the Catholic view of Holy Orders as understood by the Eastern Church, the Roman Church and the Anglo-Catholics.

I think it wrong to equate the terms Holy Orders and clergy. Men in Holy Orders are clearly clergy. In modern times the common understanding of clergy has included nuns and monks not in Holy Orders. I would suggest, that one can find support for the definition of clergy as a formal minister in the Church, in the writing of the early Church.

With this as the definition of clergy, I find no scriptural warrant to exclude woman from the office so defined. It is clear that Saint Paul had the Deaconess Phebe. It is very clear that Phebe had a very important role in the Church (Rom:16) This role was one which was important enough that St Paul called for all of the Church in Rome to lend her assistance in whatsoever business she hath need of you. It is clear that she had a mission and Saint Paul granted his authority to complete that mission.

I contend the title of clergy does not convey with it a sense of Spiritual Authority. It describes someone with a formal Church office. It does and should convey the sense of education, training, or experience which are helpful in the ministry. It does convey a sense of organizational authority. It may also convey a reality of secular authority such as being the CEO of the local church, but usually not Spiritual Authority. The term clergy does not necessarily mean a man with sacerdotal duty. Spiritual Authority is implied with the term Holy Orders.

My study suggests, it is the sacerdotal concept that makes a distinction as to whether or not woman can hold all offices. In sacerdotal churches, men in Holy Orders are given and expected to use authority. In the sacrament of Penance the Priest is to forgive sin as Christ has so provided.(Jn:20:21) It is not my intent to get into Spiritual Authority and the office of priest so I leave this one example.

In sacerdotal churches, the sacraments are not only a sign or symbol. The sacraments actually conveys the grace for which it is a sign. Baptism and Penances actually convey the forgiveness of sins. The Holy Eucharist is the actual feeding upon Christ. Matrimony enables married Christians to fulfill the duties of family life. Unction confers upon the sick and dying graces as may be best for their condition, which may in many case include actual healing. The sacraments have their root in the New Testaments and were developed by the early church.

The ministerial priesthood, a term used to distinguish it from the priesthood of all believer, is a representative of the whole body of Christ. The Priest does not represent himself or the local congregation, he represents the whole Body of Christ, the Church. As such no one is ordained because a group of people like his teaching or personality, he is ordained by the Bishop acting for the whole Church.

The Bishop is a man who has been delegated by the Church to hold the authority of his office. He hold this authority by virtue of been from an unbroken line of man so authorized, each having been given authority from other Bishops. This authority goes back to Christ giving authority to his Apostles (Jn20:21) and the Apostles delegating their authority to others. (Acts:1:26)

The ministerial priesthood is an assistance to the Priesthood of All Believers. The priest perform a very specific and necessary function. Just like the hand can not see, the various members of the Church each have their function. This is a New Testament concept express by Saint Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. (1Cor:12:)

Christ only chose men to be Apostles. This not withstanding the facts that it can be inferred that a sizeable portion and possibly majority of those who followed him in his lifetime were women. It is presented by those who want to ignore this fact, that this was only a matter of then social convention. This is a bogus argument. To accept this argument, you must ignore the fact that Christ was God. You must also ignore that Christ made major upsets to the social convention of the time. It can logically be inferred that social convention not upset by Christ are acceptable to God. (Please note here I said acceptable to God, not necessarily God’s will)

On the other hand, there are references to women in the New Testament, and some which clearly show women in ministry (Mt:27:55:) and leading payer (Acts:1:14:) On the other hand scripture (1Tm:2:12) clear talks about women not having authority over men. How far does this go. It clearly does not universally apply to civil authority for there were women in the Old Testament who held the authority of Judges. (Judg:4:4). (Esth:9:29)

This then all seems to focus on spiritual authority. What then is spiritual authority? Authority is found is in Scripture, when Saint Paul says that all should be under authority (Rom 13:1). Rejection of authority and it consequences is also found in Scripture in the fall of Satan (Isa:14:12:). All authority comes from God (Rom 13:1)

Spiritual authority on earth was given to Christ. Christ delegated this authority to the Apostles who delegated it to the Church.(Mt:16:18). One of the delegations of authority by the Church is the delegation to its clergy. Back almost as far as New Testament times the Church has viewed the priest so authorized as being a form of the Old Testament Priesthood.. That is man who is authorized to perform the various sacramental acts on behalf of the whole Church.

The Old Testament required that the Priest be male, Christ did nothing to cause this to change, and this has been the practice of the Church back into New Testament times. Therefore, the Church has no authority to allow women to be priests. The changes in the culture do not negate this.

Our present day is not the first time which people have made claims that women should be allowed to be priests. There was a movement which feigned to ordain women as priests during the time of the Ecumenical Councils, and this was summarily rejected by the undivided Church.

This priesthood is a function of the Church which has since the time of Christ only been performed by men. As such the burden of claiming this is a valid ministry for women falls upon those who desire to change. In some parts of the Church, it is alleged that this has been done. In fact, what has been done is a political process for a very small part of the Church. Because, ministerial Priest acts on behalf of the whole Church no province has the authority to make such changes.

How does this relate to women in the Church leadership. It is clear that the assorted denominations have very diverse views on the subject. Some Churches take the position, that no leadership role exists for women, even in secular things. As mentioned before, this position is not consistent with the whole of Scripture. (Judg:4:4) ( Esth:9:29) Others ignore the teaching of Saint Paul and the Tradition of the Church, and make a claim that women can hold any office in the Church. If the offices of those denominations do not have a sacerdotal function, then on the surface this is not in conflict with Scripture. My problem is not with women being able to hold any office within that denomination, it is their lack of a ministerial Priesthood.

In summary, the definition of the office is what makes women holding that office acceptable or not. It is clear from Scripture and the Tradition of the Church that women are not to hold the office of Priest.

Within the Anglican movement there are groups which appear to be Orthodox, with the exception of the Ordination of Women. However, when I look at these groups it is not the issue of the ordination of women which separates us. It is the understanding of the meaning of priesthood. Within the Anglican movement, there has been great differences in Ecclesiastical understanding of many topics. We have the Anglo-Catholic understanding and we have the understanding which can best be described as Calvinistic.

In the study of the history of the Book of Common Prayer you will find the influences of these two different groups. The most obvious single point is in the words used while administering the elements during Communion. The first part is the Catholic part; “The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”. This reflect the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. The second part is the Puritan part “Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.” This reflects the fact that it was the death of Christ which gives salvation, not the celebration of the Eucharist. These statement are a good example of conflicting truths, both are true, yet if taken to their logical extreme, or even taken out of context, they would appear to be conflicting.

While, I tend to prefer simple services, which at times brands me as “Low Church”, I am an Anglo-Catholic. I went to a seminary which was Catholic in its understanding of the Mass and the Sacraments. I fully believe that there is real grace given in the administration of the Sacraments. But I also realize that there are people of Faith who do not hold these views.

At my ordination, I was required to state that I believe that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for Salvation. I realize that if one limits their view to Holy Scripture, one could fail to find the necessity of the Priestly office. To fully see this you need to look to the writing of the Church Fathers. Therefore, I must accept that those who do not share my understanding of the Church are still Christians and if they use the same form of Worship, they can be viewed as Anglicans.

I, as an Anglo-Catholic, must support those “low church people” in their fight to maintain the Biblical Faith. Does this mean I should be in “communion” with them. Of course formal recognition of formally being in communion is a function of the office of Bishop, but I would suggest the answer is mixed. Assuming that the Celebrant has valid Holy Orders, the Mass is valid. I would therefore, not view it as improper to receive communion when attending one of their services.

I would share in all sorts of non-worship ministerial and pastoral duties, just as I would with a Lutheran or a Baptist. But what is know as Full Communion, may not be possible, because their understanding of core theological issues are substantially different. One of these issues is the issue of women in Holy Orders. They may have tactical Apostolic Succession, but they do not hold to the same understanding of Holy Orders.

I would suggest that the differences with some groups which ordain women as priests have more to do with the understanding of Holy Orders than women in specific offices. It is their lack of a sacerdotal ministerial priesthood which is the larger stumbling block. Without the sacerdotal ministerial priesthood, the understanding of the Holy Eucharist is very different. The Holy Eucharist is the primary worship of God, which is our primary duty.