A Season of Fasting

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori offered the following reflections following the February 15-19 meeting of Anglican Primates near Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

A Season of Fasting: Reflections on the Primates Meeting

The recent meeting of the Primates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, was a challenging one. Fourteen new primates joined the group; three longer-serving primates were unable to be present. It was a great joy to meet and begin to know a number of the primates, and to renew friendships with others. While much of our time and energy was focused on the Episcopal Church, several other agenda items were of considerable interest to many of those who gathered.

The Design Group for an Anglican Covenant submitted an initial draft for consideration by the Primates' Meeting, which in turn commended it to the Communion for consideration, debate, and revision before the Lambeth Conference next year. This covenant is a further step in the Windsor process, engaged in the understanding that all human communities need boundaries in order to function. Anglicanism has always valued a rather wide set of boundaries, and boundaries are a central issue in the current debate - where are they, and how wide a space can they contain? The Covenant in its current draft attempts to define what the essentials and non-negotiable elements of Anglicanism might be, and how the Communion might live together in diversity.

The new United Nations observer, Hellen Wangusa, was installed during our meeting, and also led a discussion on the Millennium Development Goals. The Goals are directed primarily toward the governments of this world, both those in the developing world, who will have to design the systems to implement the goals, and the governments of the developed world, which are asked to contribute 0.7% of their annual incomes. She challenged us to recognize that these goals only go part way toward achieving full healing in the world, and that our own vision is of a world entirely reconciled and healed in God.

We also heard about the work being done on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion (TEAC). This body has produced thoughtful and creative, outcome-based guidelines for theological education of our baptized and ordained members.

The highlight of our meeting was the visit to Zanzibar and the remembrance of the end of the slave trade. We worshiped at the Anglican Cathedral in Zanzibar, built over the old slave market. Slavery was outlawed in British Empire in 1807, but it took another 90 years for the trade in Zanzibar to finally come to an end. Anglicans were a profound influence all through that period, and the Sultan of Zanzibar only signed the final treaty when faced with British warships in the harbor. David Livingstone is commemorated here for his tireless efforts to put an end to the ancient and inhuman practice of slavery. The struggle to end slavery has some parallel with our current controversy, and we can note the less than universal agreement about the moral duty of Christians over a lengthy period. The United States also experienced major division over slavery, even though the Episcopal Church did not fully divide. Some see that part of our history as shameful, while others see it as a sign of hope, and that, too, has current parallels.

We traveled home from this meeting at Carnival, the farewell to meat (carne vale) that comes just before Lent begins. That is an image that may be useful as we consider what the Primates' gathering is commending to the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has been asked to consider the wider body of the Anglican Communion and its needs. Our own Church has in recent years tended to focus on the suffering of one portion of the body, particularly those who feel that justice demands the full recognition and celebration of the gifts of gay and lesbian Christians. That focus has been seen in some other parts of the global Church, as inappropriate, especially as it has been felt to be a dismissal of traditional understandings of sexual morality. Both parties hold positions that can be defended by appeal to our Anglican sources of authority - scripture, tradition, and reason - but each finds it very difficult to understand and embrace the other. What is being asked of both parties is a season of fasting - from authorizing rites for blessing same-sex unions and consecrating bishops in such unions on the one hand, and from transgressing traditional diocesan boundaries on the other.

A parallel to this situation in our tradition might be seen in the controversy over eating meat in early Christian communities, mentioned both in the letter to the Romans and the first letter to the Corinthians. In those early communities, the meat available for purchase in the public market was often part of an animal that had been offered (in whole or in part) in sacrifice in various pagan religious rites. The troubling question in the Christian community was whether or not it was appropriate to eat such meat - was it tainted by its involvement in pagan religion? Did one participate in that religion (and thus commit apostasy) by eating it? Paul encourages the Christians in Rome and Corinth to recall that, while there may be no specific prohibition about eating such meat, the sensitive in the community might refrain if others would be offended. The needs of the weaker members, and the real possibility that their faith may be injured, are an important consideration in making the dietary decision.

The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the main stream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.

God's justice is always tempered with mercy, and God continues to be at work in this world, urging the faithful into deeper understandings of what it means to be human and our call as Christians to live as followers of Jesus. Each party in this conflict is asked to consider the good faith of the other, to consider that the weakness or sensitivity of the other is of significant import, and therefore to fast, or "refrain from eating meat," for a season. Each is asked to discipline itself for the sake of the greater whole, and the mission that is only possible when the community maintains its integrity.

Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season. The word of hope is that in God all things are possible, and that fasting is not a permanent condition of a Christian people, nor a normative one. God's dream is of all people gathered at a feast, and we enter Lent looking toward that Easter feast and the new life that will, in God's good time, be proclaimed.

Comments

[JStrader]

I respect the Presiding Bishop's call for justice, love, and mercy. I also would like to ask her how long shall GLBT persons and their allies continue to wait for justice in our time. I wonder for how long shall we have to wait for reconciliatory and steadfast love from other persons within the Church Catholic. I wonder how I shall explain to same-sex partnered college students in my chaplaincy that the Episcopal Church is a welcoming and safe place for them and that they can be blessed here. Should I tell them to go elsewhere? I wonder for how long shall we have to sit by and observe GLBT persons in places such as Jamaica, Nigeria, and elsewhere around the world continue to receive anything but mercy from these nations' court systems and ecclesiastical authorities. Will we observe such an Easter banquet at any time in the forseeable future?

Paul reminds us, in 2 Corinthians, that now is the acceptable time, now is the day of our salvation.

[Marie]

This is beautiful prose. It's reasoned and thoughtful and makes some interesting comparisons. Here's one that I find particularly poignant. "A parallel to this situation in our tradition might be seen in the controversy over eating meat in early Christian communities..."

So am I supposed to just go away until my manner of life no longer presents a challenge to others in the Communion? Is that how you will fast from me?

What witness will we make? Will we be proud of the stand of our Church in 150 years? I think not.

[Dirty Davey]

The PB says "What is being asked of both parties is a season of fasting - from authorizing rites for blessing same-sex unions and consecrating bishops in such unions on the one hand, and from transgressing traditional diocesan boundaries on the other."

It seems ++KJS has a different version of the communique than I have seen circulating--the one I read did not request that anyone stop transgressing boundaries. It suggested that maybe someday someone MIGHT stop, but it made no request that such actions cease.

[Bill Carroll]

I am grateful that the Presiding Bishop acknowledges that the pro-inclusion side also has the right to claim the privilege of the weak in the discourse about meat offered to idols. This is an undeniable move forward when compared to the shameless abuse of this teaching by the Windsor Report.

I would point out another biblical precedent that of Paul's face to face confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’"

The anti-inclusion party is living with a false understanding of the Gospel, which compromises the witness of the Church before a watching world and which must be confronted. I hope that the Episcopal Church will have the wisdom to work on our relationships without giving up our discernment. What we have done is not optional. It is required of us by God. Rather than pit oppressions against one another, the Presiding Bishop should show us how the evils that beset the world's poor are part of the same Empire-structue (Paul calls them principalities and powers) that lead to violence of all kinds (physical, emotional, and spiritual) against LGBTQ folk worldwide.

She deserves our trust and respect, both for her office's sake and also for her proven personal integrity of character. She runs the risk of allowing the desire for unity to trump the demands of justice. Some forms of unity are sinful. Peter's attempt to please James is a perfect example of the risk that she is running here. Paul rightly would hear nothing of that.

Having made the painful choice of supporting B033, a choice which sacrificed some of her brothers and sisters to appease an angry mob and a choice she had no right to make, which contradicted the canons of this Church as well as our baptismal covenant, she should consider how this kind of request for fasting places the burden of unity disproportionately on the shoulders of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

I believe that, with the prince of the apostles, she is making a mistake and needs to be confronted.

[John-Julian,OJN]

The first public words out of her mouth as PB led folk like lambs to the slaughter in passing that horrendous resolution at GC – leaving the floor with dozens of sobbing, hurting, crucified people who voted for the damned resolution ONLY because she asked for it.

And now she does it again – the next chance she has. Again she lifts high the cross and asks that the already-bloodied gays and lesbians mount it for a little more "temporary" crucifixion – a crucifixion she herself never has experienced and never will experience.

The glow of the New Hope Angel has certainly faded fast to black. What kind of a person would bring herself to repeat such a blasphemy – twice within mere months? It is obviously a habit, so it seems we can forget about anything from her for the future.

[Arturo]

As always, I appreciate Bishop Jefferts Schori's thoughtful, insightful, and comforting words. It is clear that the meeting in Tanzania must have been a highly charged and difficult situation. It is striking how she strives to describe the anti-gay position in such fair and diplomatic terms, especially given the hyperbolic and abusive language used by the other side (Akinola has called the Episcopal Church's confirmation of Bishop Robinson "a satanic attack"). Unfortunately, I must take issue with a central part of her message. I fail to see the manner in which 'reason' plays a role in the Global South's power play. Every mainstream scientific study and authority (and the personal witness of hundreds of thousands of Christians) agrees that sexual orientation -- be it heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality -- is not a choice. The only morally significant choices involved pertain to whether you act on that sexuality in a loving, honest, and responsible fashion. Religious conservatives habitually ignore these facts to preserve the self-serving myth that sexual orientation is a choice. Thus, it appears that any further progress in the Episcopal Church's embrace of its LGBT members is being held hostage to fundamentally irrational biases and the willful ignorance of the leaders of the Global South group. I will pray that, in the end, love and reason will triumph over hubris and hate. I hope that the Anglican Communion ultimately will be defined by the Love of Christ not the Hate of Man.

[Karen+]

Although I am an admirer of the Presiding Bishop, I must say I'm very disappointed by her signing of the Communique and her reflection above. I wonder how she will be fasting along with those of us who are once again being called to sacrifice ourselves yet again for the sake of unity? Just what will ++Katharine have to sacrifice? I would suggest that she re-read Isaiah 58 before issuing any more calls for fasting.

[Arturo3888]

As always, I appreciate Bishop Jefferts Schori's thoughtful, insightful, and comforting words. It is clear that the meeting in Tanzania must have been a highly charged and difficult situation. It is striking how she strives to describe the anti-gay position in such fair and diplomatic terms, especially given the hyperbolic and abusive language used by the other side (Akinola has called the Episcopal Church's confirmation of Bishop Robinson "a satanic attack"). Unfortunately, I must take issue with a central part of her message. I fail to see the manner in which 'reason' plays a role in the Global South's power play. Every mainstream scientific study and authority (and the personal witness of hundreds of thousands of Christians) agrees that sexual orientation -- be it heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality -- is not a choice. The only morally significant choices involved pertain to whether you act on that sexuality in a loving, honest, and responsible fashion. Religious conservatives habitually ignore these facts to preserve the self-serving myth that sexual orientation is a choice. Thus, it appears that any further progress in the Episcopal Church's embrace of its LGBT members is being held hostage to fundamentally irrational biases and the willful ignorance of the leaders of the Global South group. I will pray that, in the end, love and reason will triumph over hubris and hate. I hope that the Anglican Communion ultimately will be defined by the Love of Christ not the Hate of Man.

[Sanctus]

I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 12: 7-14

If we our all equal members of Christ's body shouldn't we all refrain from blessing any union of persons or the election and confirmation of any bishops during the fasting period? It certainly would not hinder us from the celebration of the only two biblical defined sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist.

St Paul also reminded us that in Christ there is no male or female.
Isn't it just as honest/valid to say in Christ there is no gay or straight?

Why are we being asked by the Primates to be divided in our union in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 7-14

"7: To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
8: To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
9: to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10: to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
11: All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
12: For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.
13: For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free -- and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14: For the body does not consist of one member but of many."

[Indy Joe.]

It occurs to me that an explanation of the value of the Anglican Communion is necessary.

As a cradle Episcopalian, I've always considered the Communion as a pleasant historical entity that served to maintain connections with the various outposts of our English religious heritage. That it fostered scholarly research, coordinated good deeds, and so forth spoke well for the effort. Yet its key raison d'etre seems merely to be an occassional gathering of clerics. A thoughtful party.

This seems hardly worthy of sacrificing groups of people for "unity". First, it is morally wrong to do so. Second, there is no unity or "reconciliation" if the "offending" groups are merely sent elsewhere.

The Anglican Communion is already dead. A New Anglican Communion is being built -- one that is antithetical to The Episcopal Church. It seeks to interpret our faith for us, much as the Roman Catholic Church is wont to do.

I know that you will do what is right as September approaches.

Thank you.

Indy Joe.

[pcourry]

I will not abandon my brothers and sisters in the hopes that injustice buys us unity. Unity is not worth the price they ask for it.

I've seen too many relationships between two men or two women that were godly and filled with the Holy Spirit to turn my back on them. I can not blaspheme before the Holy Spirit and say "you are not present
here".

Let the communion do to us as they will. The Holy Spirit's presence is not to be denied, lest it cost us our immortal souls.

[Sdaniels]

I was in a parish in Montgomery Alabama where the Rector, Curate, and most of the vestry took 600+ members to create a new Anglican Church under leadership from Nigeria. The hate that I felt when the vestry joined the Anglican Network made me leave that parish and "retreat" to another parish where I was welcomed. Things at the old church have settled and things are so much better now. I have returned to my old parish and everyone is accepting and loving. The Church of The Ascension, Montgomery, AL is a true Episcopal parish where ALL ARE WELCOME. I hope that leadership in ECUSA are reminded that Justice is far more important and crucial to live a GODLY and SOBER life in Jesus.
Peace of the Lord be with all in this issue.

[Billy]

I can feel the hurt and anger in all of the emails above, and I pray for you comfort. I would suggest to you that there is another side to this, about which the majority of the rest of the Anglican Communion (and many in TEC) feels just as strong and is, also, hurt. Though I would not have voted for the current PB, based on her inexperience and her policies in her diocese, I have read her response to the Tanzania meeting above and find it to be well balanced and reasoned. I would further point out that no LGBT person has been kicked out of our church or even called for it. TEC is still controlled (in many cases with an iron hand) by those sympathetic and supportive of the LGBT way of life and agenda. And even in "conservative" churches, no such call is made. But there are many in TEC and in the AC who sincerely believe that sex outside marriage (defined by our church and by the Bible as being between a man and a woman)is sinful and that persons who do not repent of such conduct, but rather celebrate it like +VGR, should not be elevated to being leaders in the church, nor should that conduct be blessed by the church. Whether you agree with that position or not, it is supported by scripture, tradition, and reason. To dismiss it as injustice is not necessarily right or correct or even the workings of the Holy Spirit, regardless of your emotional feelings about it. I would take the PB's admonition to all of us to withdraw from the "battle field" for a season in fasting and prayer and allow the Holy Spirit to work in all of us to find our way forward, hopefully, prayfully, and faithfully together, in one church, TEC.

[JLucas+]

What sweet sentiments, but the logic of the fast will not hold. If it were to hold the only decision for ++KJS would be to step down as Presiding Bishop until her manner of life, as a woman, is acceptable to the great majority of the communion. My reading of the communique does not ask for a fast. This may be how she wants to spin their words to make it all the more palatable, but the primates seem to ask for submission to their authority on the backs of our GLBT brothers and sisters. I stood with thousands in New Hampshire and said that I would uphold +Gene as bishop. I did not say I would uphold him unless someone told be not to.
I also find it greatly disturbing that she has not even commented on the fact that the House of Deputies would be left out of this decision if made by Sept 30. Will there be a special convention or will we throw away over 200 years of Episcopal polity and turn our House of Bishops into a house of Cardinals. Our system of governance was organized so that just this sort of thing could be avioded.
I know that she wants to make this seem temporary but what it seeks to do is create an "on the ground" reality that would be the basis of the covenant. If the starting point is rejecting what we have done, that becomes the norm of the covenant. Then whenever it comes up later and we grovel to the primates asking to end our fast they can say "You signed a covenant, if you break it..."

[toujoursdan]

I hate to put it this way, but recent comments from our PB and ABC have lead me to contemplate fasting from church for a while. I have been in this abusive relationship too long.

[Sanctus]

All that is asked of us (Gentiles) was defined by the Church of Jerusalem and is found in Acts 15: 21-31. The key is verse 29 were we are told to refrain from 'unchastity' (promiscuity). Isn't a blessed monogamous relationship of any kind in conformity to that single command from the Apostolic fathers?

" 22: Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,
23: with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, greeting.
24: Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
25: it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26: men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27: We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.

28: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

29: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

30: So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.
31: And when they read it, they rejoiced at the exhortation."

[The Rev. Joseph Duggan]

I want to applaud the courage of the Presiding Bishop who has given us a glimpse of walking forward together as an Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church and indeed the Anglican Communion needs to find away to stay in communion that does not diminish the pace of justice or the authority of tradition. This means that all of us must pursue the well being of the one who repels us as much as the one with whom we agree. Then Anglicans will lead the world beyond beyond the binary divisions that our political culture fosters. Interdependence does not have a constituency like the left, right and center, but if we are to live in communion with God, as God cherishes the diversity of difference beyond our human ideologies, then we must embrace this challenge together and without further delay. I encourage the PB to build an ecclesiological strategy to embody her suggested Lenten fast, so that the entire Anglican Communion begins to talk about another way of going forward together.

[Bill Carroll]

Acts 15 is a deliberate effort on Luke's part to tame the radical Pauline Gospel represented by Galatians 2. It is ideological speech. It belongs within the canon, but Galatians 2 and the early chapters of Ephesians are the lens through which we should read it. The question is, I suppose: Is every instance of a sexual act between two men or two women an example of fornication? The Church has taught otherwise, and in many places it still does. But, as Bishop Duncan Gray III of MISSISSIPI reminded the Church after 2003, "we've been wrong before."

The Anglican Communion will self-destruct no matter what anyone does to try to save it. We should be planning for what Anglican mission and cooperation among provinces will look like after the Anglican Communion no longer exists.

[Tom Wetzel]

To the Rev. Joseph Duggan--

Thanks for offering one of the few postings I have seen of late that gives me any hope for the future of the Anglican Communion. I am shocked at how many people here and elsewhere have said they must stand with *our* (read: "our American") gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, ignoring the fact that ALL Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ (including those who repel us). What has happened to the "preferential option for the poor" that activates so much of liberation theology and reminds us that the third-world is a legitimate (and frequently prophetic) theological voice to which we must listen because they are our brothers and sisters in Christ?

I am not saying Archbishop Akinola is correct; I simply am noting that when I hear references to Global South "fascists," "angry mobs," and "hatemongers" (all quotes found today in online Episcopal commentaries on Tanzania), it sounds dangerously close to a denial of the right of the Global South as a whole to speak. When I see links here at EpiScope to online news articles from Africa that are clearly by journalists who do not understand the issues about which they are writing, I see a fanning of the flames of intolerance equal to those fanned by Archbishop Akinola. Hopefully, these inflaming words are unintentional, but I do hope we can find a way forward together rather than apart.

For if we leave the Anglican Communion over this issue, who then stands before the Communion to speak for the very gays and lesbians in Africa who are being persecuted? If we choose to walk away now, we "prove" to Archbishop Akinola that his assessments of our church--and of gays and lesbians--are correct.

We are part of the Anglican Communion not because it is an historical nicety (indeed, the Communion itself is a relatively recent development). Rather, we are part of the Communion because we are committed to the belief that we can teach one another, learn from one another, and discover the working of the Holy Sprit together. We believe we must be a world communion because the Church is a world communion. If we no longer believe that, then we already have abandoned communion long before this incident arose (which, by the way, is exactly the point that Archbishop Akinola has been arguing: again, are you prepared to prove him correct?).

[Sanctus]

Reference 1:00PM Posting by Rev Duggan:

"Acts 15 is a deliberate effort on Luke's part to tame the radical Pauline Gospel represented by Galatians 2. It is ideological speech."

My point is very simple. The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem issued a letter to the church(es) clearly stating what Law applied to the Gentiles. They clearly state that none of Law of Moses applied to Gentiles. They do reference the law given to Noah and therefore thought to be binding on all mankind.

Is Paul or Luke or Peter's belief greater then the collective wisdom of an Apostolic Council?

Acts 15: 5-11

"5: But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."

6: The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;

9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.".

[Billy]

Thank you Fr Duggan for your wonderfully inciteful remarks. As a conservative, traditionalist, reasserter (whatever), I could not agree more. Nor could I agree less with the 7 Primates who refused to be at the table in Zanzibar. We all have to be at the same table. I have to be willing to hear that 2 monogamous people of the same sex consider their love for each other to be "holy," without calling that perverted. And those people saying that have to be able to hear me say that I think that is a sin of fornication and of non-celibacy named by Jesus in the gospels without being called homophobic. We have to be able to discuss these things together without the name calling and pray for understanding, while at the same time taking communion together at God's table (not our table). God will sort out those who are taking communion under false pretenses; that is not our job. He will sort out the wheat and tares at the end of time. We cannot tear up our fertile fields now by trying to take out tares that will take the good wheat with it (and it's not our job anyway). In this season, the PB is so right: we must withdraw and pray and let the Holy Spirit come among us and heal us and teach us (all of us) what is God's will. God bless all of you, no exceptions!

[Bill Carroll]

The apostolic council is a fiction of Luke's, created for ideological purposes. It is part of the canon, but it likely never happened. We deal with it because it is part of the canon of Scripture, but Galatians 2 should be the canon within the canon here. Paul is telling us about something that actually happened, and it was his missionary strategy that won out, not that of James.

Even if we believe that the apostolic council happened, we can still debate the meaning of fornication. Does it apply to all sex between two men or two women, regardless of context. What about D039? That seems to provide a good implicit definition of fornication to me.

[Tom Wetzel]

I am more than a bit confused as to why Galatians 2 is the "canon within the canon" at this point in your interpretation. Do you have an interpretive principle by which you are making this claim? Leaving aside for the moment the problematic claim of "fiction," we still need to decide why Acts 15 is in the canon and why and how it should be read in its context. In other words, the judgment that something is "created for ideological purposes" applies just as easily to claims about a "canon within the canon" as it can apply to a passage of Scripture.

I also am unsure why we should trust Paul more than the writer of Acts at this point. A hermeneutic of suspicion should remind us that Paul too has reasons to "remember" events differently than they actually occurred (recall the different ways in which Paul's Damascus road conversion are recounted). Paul's letters are just as "ideological" as the rest of Scripture. This is why we need to explore all the more carefully in coming days how we are going to learn to read Scripture together, rather than throwing Bible verses at one another.

Scripture is a function of the Church's interpretive tradition: "ideology" or not, "canon" or not, the Church's understanding of Jesus and of Israel led it to declare this group of texts essential to the faith. The Bible does not do much for us when it is interpreted in isolation from the tradition. The loss of this ability to read together is (for me) probably one of the greatest reasons we now face the possibility of schism.