The construction of an ethical theory, as a general matter, inevitably implicates philosophical theology.

“We do not offend God unless we act contrary to our own nature.” This remark, which Thomas Aquinas makes in his book Summa Contra Gentiles, is a pithy summary of his view of morality. It encapsulates morality’s twofold source in human nature and God’s law. God commands us to act in accordance with the human nature that he created, so actions are specifically good or bad depending upon whether or not they perfect human nature, and therefore are reasonable for us to choose or avoid, respectively. Thus, in choosing well, we please God by our obedience, and in choosing badly, we offend him by our disobedience.

In our present intellectual climate, where rival atheist and theist camps disagree about whether God exists, why not circumscribe God’s role in this picture, bracket the question of his existence, and focus upon the ethical requirements of human nature alone? I want to consider a few reasons why this strategy is flawed, if it is adopted as a general method of ethics. It is, of course, possible to address many individual ethical problems in piecemeal fashion and on theologically neutral terms. There is no reason why vexed contemporary debates about abortion or gay marriage, for example, need to implicate theology. But the construction of an ethical theory, as a general matter, inevitably implicates what natural human reason can know about God.

Read here

In one of his columns for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof once pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are “less intellectual.” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin Birth really necessary?

Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time,” he explains, and the percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth “actually rose five points in the latest poll.” Yikes! Is this evidence of secular backsliding?

Read here

Sir, In his piece (18 November) Stuart Walton asserts that "Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality". He recognises that "Jesus believes strongly in marriage" and concedes that "this might be presumed to extend to any other types of liaison". He then immediately drops this line of thinking, which is unfortunate if he wants to take Jesus seriously.

Jesus had nothing to say about rape, incest or even pederasty. But if we put together the things he did say about the sexual realm and the cultural setting in which he spoke, we can be absolutely clear about his total opposition to such practices. Jesus did not warn people of the evils of idolatry! He did not need to in his setting ( but in a wider setting the apostle Paul did).

Indirectly, however, Jesus did have something to say about homosexual sexual activity. In the gospels, adultery is sexual infidelity on the part of a married person and fornication is a sexual connection outside of marriage. Between them the words serve to channel sexual expression exclusively to marriage.

Last Wednesday’s Metro (p35) ran the story of ‘a burly rugby player’ who ‘suffered a stroke in training and woke up to find he was gay’ (See ‘Different strokes – 19st rugby player now gay hairdresser’)

Mr Birch (pictured) was ‘straight’ and engaged to be married when he suffered a freak accident in the gym. The 26-year-old tried to impress his friends with a back flip but broke his neck and suffered the stroke. When he woke up, he underwent a drastic personality change that included an attraction to men.

Claiming that he ‘had to be true to (his) feelings’ he broke off his engagement and found a boyfriend.

The article speculates that ‘the personality change could have been caused by the stroke opening up a different part of his brain’ and quotes Stroke association spokesman Joe Korner as saying, ‘During recovery, the brain makes new neural connections, which can trigger things people weren’t aware of such as accent, language or perhaps a different sexuality.’

Read here

The Anglican Studies Institute is to train South African clergy and lay people in active church planting and renewal, in a new move that will enhance relations between Anglicans and Pentecostals in South Africa. The dramatic new development arose out of an international conference held by the Shofar churches there. Over 2,000 people attended, with representatives from other nations in southern Africa also taking part.

The theme of conference was the convergence of worship and mission – emphasizing that true mission emerges from a proper worship of God and that proper worship of the true God should result in mission. Worship leaders Graham Kendrick and Brian Doerkson from Canada were complemented by speakers such as Canon Vinay Samuel from India and Dr Corne Bekker from Regent University Virginia. Following the conference the Stellenbosch Theological Institute (STI) held two introductory lectures for its online BA (Honours) course in Applied Theology to start in February 2012. The convergence of Anglican and Pentecostal Churches in South Africa in the work of these two institutes will seek to bring the best of the DNA of the churches to resource each other.

Shofar Churches ( www.shofaronline. org) have enthusiastic modern worship styles that could benefit from the ordered “beauty of holiness” in the more objective Anglican worship. Vinay Samuel said he would love to hear Shofar churches sing the classical Te Deum. Some Anglican Churches in South Africa find it difficult to find clergy trained in South Africa to minister to their charismatic Anglican tradition and so have often recruited such clergy from the UK

.

To tackle this shortage in South Africa, the Anglican Studies Institute has been formed and aims to bridge the gap between the two traditions.

A new course in Applied Theology will also be offered by a newly formed Anglican Studies Institute, which will be part of the STI. The Institute will offer courses in Anglican Foundations, focusing on Anglican belief, culture and liturgy and Anglican Mission, drawing lessons from the many Anglican mission initiatives in Africa.

The convergence represents the best of ecumenism as churches from different traditions genuinely seek to draw new life from the gifts each church has received.

The convergence will also seek to draw in the gifts of the black Christian community. Currently many high-profile charismatic churches are predominantly of the white community and are seen by some as representing a “white flight” from the presence and leadership of black Christians.

During the same period at the end of September the Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori was a speaker at the Southern African synod of bishops. Archbishop Ian Ernest, who was initially announced as a speaker, did not attend.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori spoke of the experience of colonialism and the colonial church in North America. She was asked by the Bishop of Pretoria about consecrating actively gay bishops. She said it was in conformity with TEC canons and she was very sorry. She then left for the airport.

Speaking about the colonial history of The Episcopal Church (TEC) indicates the importance of resisting colonialism. The Theological Education in the Anglican Communion programme run from the Anglican Consultative Council presents orthodox Anglican theology in Africa as the legacy of colonial theological imposition. Is the implication that TEC is the vanguard of theological independence and liberty now as it was in 1776?

In November the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans South Africa will hold day conferences on the Church, Human Rights and Aids in Cape Town and Durban attended among others by the Archbishop of Kenya, Eliud Wabukala and Dermot O’Callaghan from the Church of  Ireland.

Review Article ‘Deciding Differently: Rowan Williams’ Theology of Moral Decision Making’
Mike Higton; Grove Ethics Series, E162.

This is a useful guide based on the plenary address ‘On Making Moral Decisions’ which Rowan Williams, then Bishop of Monmouth, gave at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. It will help those unfamiliar with Williams’ writings to get a feel for his theological mood and reflective evangelicals will certainly find food for thought, but, like the author’s ‘Difficult Gospel: the Theology of Rowan Williams’ (London: SCM, 2004), it is surprisingly uncritical.

Mike Higton’s tendency to take Rowan Williams at face value means that we get a somewhat sanitised account which does not really give enough weight to the fact that Lambeth 1998 was the focus of a concerted attempt by Western liberals to win at least acquiescence to the homosexual agenda and Williams’ address was the official attempt to frame the debate. Despite appearances, he was by no means above the fray and it was he who subsequently drafted a ‘letter of apology’ which a group of liberal leaning bishops sent to the Anglican gay lesbian constituency after the Lambeth Conference had reaffirmed its adherence to the Communion’s historic and biblical teaching in Resolution 1.10.

The strategy behind Williams’ address was not to promote his views on homosexuality directly, but to reflect on the process by which moral decisions in general should be made – not so much to play the game, so to speak, as the more ambitious task of actually trying to define what the playing field should look like. And this is the enduring significance of his address thirteen years later as he continues to promote ‘indaba’ and ‘listening process’ strategies which focus on the process of decision making, while all the time kicking the can down the road in the hope that the institutionally messy consequences of closure can be avoided.

Read here

[...]   Using the testimony of pagan authors, Augustine argues that irreligion and immorality were the true cause of Rome’s downfall. Kingdoms which were created by God became evil when they departed from His holy will. Thus the brilliant saint gives us a synthesis of universal history in light of Christian principles, from the act of creation to God’s intervention in history through a small, uncultured Semitic people to the coming of God-man which was the turning point of history.

When the great power of God was brought to earth in the person of Christ and His teaching, what was the response of those whom He created? It fell into two categories based on the object of their love: the heavenly city or, more properly, a society built up by the love of God to the contempt of self, and the earthly society built up by the love of self to the contempt of God.

Man has the power to choose his own good: either by subordinating his will to the divine order, or to the satisfaction of his own desires and making himself the center of the universe. The struggle between these two societies constitutes the substance of history.

Read here

A friend of mine has been engaged in a discussion with someone who cannot understand why Christians oppose "marriage" between two people of the same sex. He's been struggling with answers and asked me for my thoughts. I thought it might be helpful to post up what I wrote in response.

Dear _______

I'll try to make this brief but I don't know that I'll be able too since your questions does require providing some context before diving in.

Usually the conversation starts with a number of assumptions on the part of your discussion partner that you'll want to challenge:

Here are some of them…

Read here

Today’s Bible Belt is situated mostly in the Old South [image:  Atlanta, GA], where pre-Civil War pastors and plantation owners infamously quoted Scripture in support of slavery. Atheists and skeptics have often pounced on this, claiming that it proves Christianity is immoral at its core, or at least hopelessly behind the times and playing ethical catch-up with the rest of the world. In recent years this accusation has rung especially loudly from prominent “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

It’s an important issue. We have have seen what a scourge upon the earth slavery can be. Who doesn’t shudder when thinking of the way African-Americans were treated in the Old South? Who could imagine God permitting such a thing among His people in the Bible?

The answer, it turns out, is that He didn’t. Slavery in the Bible is a complex issue that takes us into unfamiliar ancient worlds, and scholars who have delved into those worlds have discovered that things are not what they seem on the surface.

What Did Slavery Mean in the Bible?

Read here

I have great respect for Dr. Moore but I believe that he is very mistaken in his assumption that women priests is a matter of church order and not a matter of doctrine. The dichotomy of church order and doctrine sends a dangerous and false message. The Church is to embody doctrine down to the smallest detail if it is to represent the "new creation" of which St. Paul speaks.

The Origins of the Priesthood

The priesthood is and has been from its origin a messianic symbol. The ruler-priest among Abraham's ancestors united the people to God through sacrifice and united the peoples. This is why he wore a double crown, symbolizing the uniting of two kingdoms. "The LORD Almighty says: 'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two." Even the rabbis recognize that the 2 crowns (or double crown) of Zachariah 6:11-13 is a Messianic reference.

The double crown of ancient Egyptian rulers represents the Upper and Lower Nile regions which were united under the Kushite Pharaohs. The Kushites were descendants of Kush, the son of Ham, the son of Noah. One of Kush's sons was Nimrod, the great Kushite kingdom-builder and an ancestor of Abraham.

The double crown of the Israelite high priest was essentially the double crown of Horus worn by the rulers of the Nile Valley. The mitznefet was the white turban of the Upper Nile and the tzitz was the circlet worn around the turban, like the red circlet of the Lower Nile. Narmer (Menes) was the first recorded to wear the double crown. He was the founder of the First Dynasty around 3100 B.C. Abraham was closely related to the rulers of Egypt. The Babylonian Talmud indicates that his maternal grandfather was a priest of Karnak in Egypt.

Read here

The Muslim community in London is celebrating the creation of a chair in Islamic studies at Huron University College.

The new position is the first of its kind in a theology faculty in Canada, the college said.

“It’s an incredible milestone. It speaks to the fact that the Muslim community has roots here and we’re part of the fabric of this society,” said Nabil Sultan, head of the London chapter of the Muslim Association of Canada.

Huron is an Anglican college affiliated with the University of Western Ontario.

“Today we live in a different cultural religious context,” said Bishop Robert Bennett of the Anglican Diocese of Huron. “We need to relate to each other and study each other as it impacts our own faith.”

Read here

Oxford University’s historic theology department looks set for a controversial multi-faith rebrand.

The department may also ditch the requirement for all theology undergraduates to study Biblical subjects such as Old Testament and New Testament.

And a revised syllabus could place more emphasis on religions such as Islam and Hinduism.
 
The controversial proposals feature in a 40-page review document of Oxford’s Faculty of Theology.

The review urges the department to “strongly consider” changing its name because many theology students want to study Islam, Hinduism and Judaism as well as Christianity.

Read here

And what has any of this to do with something most Americans also believe, that the God of ultimate justice and truth was fully and finally revealed in the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, who taught people to love their enemies, and warned that those who take the sword will perish by the sword?

There is a fairly widespread assumption in the prevailing culture of Britain that people of faith rely on dogma and bigotry and that no one with a brain can believe in God. I am exaggerating, of course, but you know what I mean.’ So wrote Jane Williams, wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury and a theologian in her own right, in the Church Times. She described attitudes to people of faith in contemporary Britain as ‘lazy’ and ‘scornful’. Meanwhile the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, has launched a ‘Not Ashamed’ campaign urging Christians to stand up for their rights.

All this is admirable, if a little belated; but it comes strangely from the lips of two enthusiastic proponents of the ordination of women. Have they not noticed, one is obliged to ask, that laziness and scorn are the hallmarks of those within the Church who have relentlessly sought to marginalize those who in conscience disagree with them?

Accusations of bigotry, misogyny and worse have been stock in trade. If liberal ‘mainstream’ Anglicans are feeling the pinch now, they are merely experiencing for themselves the treatment which they have meted out to others.

Speaking for myself I can bear with something approaching equanimity the not infrequent insinuations that opposition to women’s ordination is akin to a sort of personality disorder. It is the wholly unfounded intellectual arrogance of the women’s ordination lobby which gives me grief. How in the world can they effortlessly assume the intellectual high ground, when their arguments are so weak and so fraudulent?

How did it come about, for example, that the General Synod of the Church of England (a body not noted for either its scholarship or its intellectual acumen) could opine that ‘there are no fundamental objections’ to the ordination of women – when the best minds of the two greatest churches in Christendom assert that there are?

One has only for a moment to consider a selection of the ‘arguments’ generally advanced to support the innovation to see how threadbare is the carpet on which the proponents stand.

Read here

For Christians gathering in churches this Easter weekend, the gospel accounts of Jesus’s death and resurrection bring us to the absolute core of our faith. But, even as I am caught up in the savage brutality of his Crucifixion, and then the rebirth of hope, symbolised by the empty tomb, I cannot help noticing those inconsistencies and contradictions between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s versions.

Hundreds of millions of Christians will celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday. And after a century and a half of liberal Protestant attempts to redefine the resurrection into merely a metaphor, the vast majority of Christians still believe that Christ's body physically arose. Revisionist theologians still find airtime on the History Channel or PBS, but their project never gained a mass following. Even most secular media coverage about religion today focuses largely on orthodox expressions of Roman Catholicism or evangelical Protestantism. Whatever their own beliefs, most reporters and pundits intuit that rationalist liberal theology does not command a lot of adherents.

The Jesus Seminar, founded in 1985 to adjudicate over which Scriptures were historically accurate, and which always excluded any talk about miracles, once gained widespread attention for its routine objections to traditional Christian belief. "Christ's Body Actually Eaten by Wild Dogs!" was a typical headline from a Jesus Seminar gathering, where liberal scholars would vote with color marbles over which biblical verses were valid. Eventually these self-selected academics ran out of incendiary claims, and the media mostly stopped heeding their pronouncements after founder Robert Funk died in 2005, if not well before. Co-founder and former Roman Catholic priest John Dominic Crosson, now about 76 years old, still soldiers on. He and other kindred academics routinely speak around the nation, gathering usually small audiences of gray-headed, mostly retired clergy. Of course, the Jesus Seminar skeptics insist notions about a divine Jesus being born of a virgin or rising from the dead were self-servingly and dogmatically imposed by the later church. They themselves typically and dogmatically assert Christianity's unqualified support for a redistributive welfare state, sexual liberation, and opposition to the American "empire."

Read here

Sir,

Slavery in the Bible is a subject which is repeatedly raised in relation to current gender issues, namely human sexuality. Yet again this slavery argument is “trotted out” by Benny Hazlehurst to support his recent spurious ideas on marriage and relationship fulfilment, (April 8). The message we hear is that because the Bible misleads on the subject of slavery, so likewise it misleads on matters of gender and sexuality.

This accusation against Scripture does not stand. It reflects a total misunderstanding of slavery in the Bible, presenting a fallacious argument in an attempt to align the teaching of today’s Church with secular and so-called progressive culture changes. May I suggest that we need to understand Biblical slavery within its own context?

For us in the 21st century, the emotive word, “slavery”, brings pictures to the mind of our fellow human beings who were chained and shipped abroad, ill treated, abused and exploited in a way that was utterly inhumane and unacceptable; and that was the evil form of slavery which Christians rightly campaigned to abolish.

That kind of slavery, however, is very far removed from the slavery /servitude in the Bible. Slaves in the ancient biblical East were “owned” people who ideally acquired various rights which were laid down and practised within a humane and civilised framework according to Old Testament laws and customs. “Do not rule over them ruthlessly” is the recurring injunction in the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

In the Bible there is a sense of care towards slaves, in God’s name, which was absent in the law codes of harsher and more oppressive nations, such as Babylon and Assyria. For some, such as the very poor, being sold into slavery was their only means of livelihood. Treatment given to slaves would depend directly on the character of their master, and human nature being what it is, inevitably there was some exploitation, but in the Law of Moses there is a stern rebuke for the manhandling of slaves, which could result in the slave being freed. To steal a person or to commit a kidnapped person to slavery was an
offence punishable by death. (Exodus 21;16) Equally, there were relationships of trust and even affection between slaves and their owners.

For all Hebrew slaves the period of servitude was limited. Insolvent debtors were to be released in the seventh year of their slavery, and others in the year of Jubilee, with the option to remain with their master if they so wished. On release, there were redemption provisions which gave sufficient assets for the redeemed slave to make a new start in life. When free, they were to be restored to family and property, possibly becoming tenants or hired labourers. “Do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the Lord your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you.” (Deut 15:12-15) Therefore, this Biblical pattern and intended practice for slavery is one of deliverance, provision and compassion.

The book of Job addresses the issue of justice for slaves, showing the equality of all people before their Creator God: “If I have denied justice to m menservants and maidservants when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me? Did not he who made me in the womb make them?” (Job 31; 13-15) According to Jeremiah, when God’s people abused the law of the 7th year release by seizing a slave back, they were severely
condemned for this disobedient practice: “You have profaned my name — You have violated my covenant.” (Jeremiah 34:8-17)

In the New Testament we note that slavery becomes more akin to servant hood, indicating subjection without the idea of bondage. St.Luke explains how the Roman centurion “highly valued” his servant and demonstrated his care for him in hurrying to seek Jesus’ healing. (Luke 7:1-10) The apostle Paul shows similar care and concern for Onesimus, Philemon’s runaway slave: “Welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.” (Philemon 17-18)To the Ephesians Paul pleads for fair treatment for slaves: “Do not threaten them, since you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favouritism with Him.” (Ephesians 6:9)

So, does the Bible “get it wrong” on slavery?  Mr Hazlehurst uses this false argument again to substantiate his novel and strange interpretation of marriage, which defies both human tradition and authentic Biblical theology.