I spent yesterday morning killing some time in a City Bookstore, and just had a look around at a few of the books there.
One which I thought was worth at least looking at was the book “Reflections in Glass” by Archbishop Peter Carnley (Reviewed in SC March 2004).
I decided that I would have a look at the passage called “Scripture”.
It seems quite scary on reading this chapter that an Archbishop could challenge the nature of Scripture as God’s Inerrant Word, and rather see it as something which has had a “positive” (ie. detracts from being God’s word) contribution from the individual authors. It was then claimed that scripture still has the power (even when not completely God’s word) to judge, teach, and a few other things.
To me this seems to create a great deal of trouble, not the least that it then makes it up to the individual reader to decide which bits God put in, and which bits the author decided were important, but not from God.
I think this is the essense of liberal theology, sitting as a culturally enlightened reader over the bible and working out what it says.
Some links found googling which may highlight this further (from both sides) are here…
www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1069425.htm
www.onlineopinion.com.au/July00/Carnley.htm






After reading through a lot of the reviews, I am reminded of perhaps one of the biggest flaws in denominationalism. We are stuck labelled with the same brush as those who we disagree with on fundamental issues of the Christian faith.
Is it time to say “enough is enough, we will not be in communion with you, because you dont view the bible/salvation/the resurrection/God the same way we do”?
I am disgusted as a Christian to be part of a church community which in theory is led by someone with these views. 
The situation we are in reminds me of the CICCU and SCM battles in the early 1900’s in England.
Some comments would be welcome.

I believe fully in the authority of the Scriptures -they contain all that is needed for Life and Godliness and there is no fresh revelation outside of them pertaining to God.

Now in saying that, is there any difference between the binding authority of the Scriptures and God telling an individual to go and do something, that is within the scriptural boundries.

For instance if God was to tell someone today to go out to the desert road and wait, then they did that and God told them to climb up on the chariot to explain the scriptures - or perhaps he may tell a missionary to go to china, or in the case of the bloke who was the instigator (apart from God) who started the welsh revival to go and give a message to the churches at home -

If those individuals did not obey and follow God’s leading would they be guilty of disobeying Gods word?

If they were guilty of doing so then does that mean that Gods word is not just the Bible?

Again I am not talking about new revelation of God - I am talking about God talking to us in ways that are Scriptural or contained in scripture.

craig

Steady On!

I haven’t read Archbishop Carnley’s book so can’t comment on the specifics or what he does or doesn’t assert.  From what I have heard about the book though I don’t think I agree with his views on many items BUT

As Christians of whatever denomination, surely it is not our role to be “disgusted” with organisations or people.  THe greatest commandmant is not to defend biblical authority(or any other “issue") at all costs but is to love God with all your heart and soul and mind and others as yourself.  I know this causes difficulties when you are trying to reconcile important issues of doctrine-but surely we should still strive(even tho it will be really difficult at times) to love and serve and understand one another either as brothers and sisters in Christ, or even just as “people” afterall it is God who will judge us-it is not our job to judge another man’s servant.

FWIW here’s some links to our stuff on the book:

- Book Review: Reflections in Glass: Trends and tensions in the contemporary Anglican Church by John Woodhouse (Peter linked to this above)
- Carnley’s response, Woodhouse’s clarification
- Book Review: 1st chapter of Reflections in the Glass by our very own Michael Jensen ;)

Re: Steady On!

[quote author="Melinda Seed"]As Christians of whatever denomination, surely it is not our role to be “disgusted” with organisations or people.  THe greatest commandmant is not to defend biblical authority(or any other “issue") at all costs but is to love God with all your heart and soul and mind and others as yourself.

Yes I don’t think disgusted is a word I would use but one does not want to dance around the issue as if it had little impact. At what point would you stop defending biblical authority to love Dr Carnley? I don’t think its an either/or position. You can respect someone as a person yet have a serious objection to their views and beliefs.

Rodos

Just addressing some issues…

Melinda, Surely we are allowed to be “disgusted” with views and behaviour (as opposed to organisations and people as you said), although it should not be a self-righteous disgust. (Although as Rodos may have indicated, this may be me using my relatively small vocab to try and find a word to fit my feelings)
(Some examples of Jesus showing this just from Matthew include: The Temple Incident - 21:12-13, Cursing the Fig Tree - 21:18-22, and then the Pharisees were regularly attacked… eg 15:1-9, to Peter as a correction 16:21-23, and there are more elsewhere)

Luke, Thanks for those extra links. It was good to read Michael Jensen’s paper especially, to get a more enhanced view on this.

Craig, I agree on at least the first bit, but there are some reservations with what you have written here…

For instance if God was to tell someone today to go out to the desert road and wait, then they did that and God told them to climb up on the chariot to explain the scriptures - or perhaps he may tell a missionary to go to china, or in the case of the bloke who was the instigator (apart from God) who started the welsh revival to go and give a message to the churches at home -

If those individuals did not obey and follow God’s leading would they be guilty of disobeying Gods word?

If they were guilty of doing so then does that mean that Gods word is not just the Bible?

Again I am not talking about new revelation of God - I am talking about God talking to us in ways that are Scriptural or contained in scripture.

Generally, I Hope this discussion keeps going for a while though, because the implications of dealing with heresy are pretty big (although it may be hard for honesty on a public site).

After reading through a lot of the reviews, I am reminded of perhaps one of the biggest flaws in denominationalism. We are stuck labelled with the same brush as those who we disagree with on fundamental issues of the Christian faith.

Remember that he probably feels the same way about the Diocese of Sydney and our Beloved Archbishop, that you do about his “liberal” theology… In fact IIRC, isn’t that the point of his book?

What Melinda said goes a long way, I think. On both sides.

Another thing to remember in all this is: You think Carnley is wrong because of the way you understand systematic theology to work. He thinks you are wrong, because he understands systematic theology to work differently. This is largely because you are using completely different platforms from which you build your arguments. For all your “respectful disagreement” (on both sides) we must all realise that ultimately we CANNOT understand each other, mostly because we WILL NOT try to understand from the alternate perspective - because we have decided that it is “wrong” according to our worldview.  *rolleyes*

Jesus himself, as Word of God, is the Way, the Truth and the Life: only he is able to say whether Carnley is heretical and should be forever fuel for the sulphur fires, or whether certain leaders of the Diocese of Sydney are actually inching their way over the precipice… My suspicion is that he has very different concerns than whether one’s theology is correct. And, I rather suspect that truth is neither hard cut nor easy to come by - pearls before swine and all that…

But then I am forgetting. Most posters here cling to the Bible as Word of God (as opposed to subordinating the Bible to Christ as Logos/Word of God). QED: if we have different sourcings of authority, we cannot hope to understand each other and are forever lost in condemnation of the other point of view - and here’s the rub: the main reason we condemn other beliefs is because our own beliefs find validation in the condemnation of other beliefs.

It’s hopeless.

Nunc I take your point about the error of

subordinating the Bible to Christ as Logos/Word of God

But what is the alternative?

Is there any other way to know Christ, if we cannot trust scripture to be an accurate authority for his life and works?

And please don’t mention that we meet Christ in the faces of the poor and homeless - because we only have the word of scripture that Jesus ever said that.  If the Bible isn’t trustworthy, then maybe he didn’t and you can’t.

If we are allowed to pick and choose what parts of the Bible we think trustworthy, and what parts not, then we will just end up making up a Christ of our own imagination.

That may be (I suspect) the real point of liberal theology, but I know from reading your views here that it is not your theology.

How do you consider we can know Jesus without (in your awkward phrase) subordinating him to the Bible or (as I would prefer it) trusting the Bible to tell us the truth about Him?

Having read through this thread, I can’t help but wonder something.

If we are allowed to pick and choose what parts of the Bible we think trustworthy, and what parts not, then we will just end up making up a Christ of our own imagination.

I couldn’t agree more with what Alan says, but don’t us Bible believing evangelical style Christians do that already by the way we use the Bible? This is something that I really struggle with.

It seems to me that with a wink and a nod we all tip toe around, or even ignore, the parts of the Bible that cause problems for what we believe. Whether someone wants to call themself a liberal or evangelical or fundamentalist - labels that I don’t particularly care for - I sometimes think we are all guilty of emphasising the passages we “like” or feel comfortable with and avoiding the ones that don’t sit so easily.

Given that, I am not keen to judge Archbishop Peter Carnley too harshly. I would like to give an example of passages that I am thinking of, but parenting responsibilities beckon (assertively demanding actually)…

[quote author="Samantha Young"]It seems to me that with a wink and a nod we all tip toe around, or even ignore, the parts of the Bible that cause problems for what we believe. Whether someone wants to call themself a liberal or evangelical or fundamentalist - labels that I don’t particularly care for - I sometimes think we are all guilty of emphasising the passages we “like” or feel comfortable with and avoiding the ones that don’t sit so easily.

Samantha I would not agree that we ignore parts of the bible or have passages we avoid. The discussions here on these forums are a good testament to that. There are many opinions here but most attempt to base them on Gods word in the Bible. There may be differences in hermeneutics (interpretation) but I can’t remember anyone saying ‘Oh, that part of the bible does not count, I ignore that bit’.

Unity within the church

Just a few quick thoughts guys.....

If Primate Carnely, trusts in Jesus as his saviour, he is a christian. If you trust in Jesus as your saviour, you are a christian. Lets not focus on the smaller parts of our faith, or people who aren’t christian will see christians, as a squablling bunch of debaters (how far from the truth would it be though?), how are they supposed to agree with what we believe, if we dont even agree with what we believe!!! Let us unite under the banner of Christ, and not bicker, argue, and nit-pick about the smaller things, and thus divide ourselves into more and more denominations and factions, rather let us stand united so that as a combined force we can serve god together as one, and allow the work of the lord to progress un hindered....as it says in the bible...."all one in Christ Jesus”

Thanks

Your Brother in Christ

Chris

[quote author="Chris Entwistle"]If Primate Carnely, trusts in Jesus as his saviour, he is a christian.

It would be nice if it were so simple. What if I trust the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar as my saviour, or the Jesus of Barbara Thiering as my saviour? If I trust in Jesus as my saviour, but my Jesus bears no substantial similarity to the Jesus we find revealed in the NT, am I a christian?

I am not saying this applies to Peter Carnely, or anyone else in particular (well, mentioned Barbara Thiering by name here is a bit of a give-away), but am simply seeking to highlight the fact that the assertion on its own cannot stand as a universal truth.

Hi Guys,

I’m halfway through Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided see here and here

Anyway, its making me think heaps about unity. So when Chris wrote:

If Primate Carnely, trusts in Jesus as his saviour, he is a christian

it made me think about what I’ve been reading. While the comment may be true, it may really depend on what Carnley (or anyone) understands that phrase to mean:

What if someone meant that phrase to mean Jesus saves everyone? Or what if someone else means that we are saved from ourselvesbecause God is love and would never judge someone to hell? Or what if they mean that they trust Jesus, but he was only a man and not God’s son? Or to be saved you must be baptised? Or that if you are baptised but don’t have faith, you are still saved through Jesus (through your baptism).

Anyway, I guess my point is I think we need to be a lot more clear than simple one line definitions of our unity.

I highly recommend Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided

-A-

ps, oh, and a MM review by Tony Payne

Re: Unity within the church

[quote author="Chris Entwistle"]Lets not focus on the smaller parts of our faith, or people who aren’t christian will see christians, as a squablling bunch of debaters (how far from the truth would it be though?), how are they supposed to agree with what we believe, if we dont even agree with what we believe!!!

Chris the problem is its not this simple because the issues are not smaller parts rather bigger ones. IMHO people need to believe in the truth and that truth needs to be upheld. Otherwise we are saying you can believe in anything and its not really going to make a difference. It will make a difference.

And yes we can still debate in a Christian and respectful manner, this too will speak to no believers as they look on.

Rodos

I think that Nunc is onto something terribly important when she says

For all your “respectful disagreement” (on both sides) we must all realise that ultimately we CANNOT understand each other, mostly because we WILL NOT try to understand from the alternate perspective - because we have decided that it is “wrong” according to our worldview. *rolleyes*

if we have different sourcings of authority, we cannot hope to understand each other and are forever lost in condemnation of the other point of view - and here’s the rub: the main reason we condemn other beliefs is because our own beliefs find validation in the condemnation of other beliefs.

Most of us have great difficulty in accepting that there may be validity in another persons understanding of the truth when it differs from ours. We incorrectly surmise that either they must be wrong or else we must be wrong when in reality there may be at least one other option: - that neither of us has a complete grasp of the truth and we need each other’s insight in order that we each may see a little more clearly and fully. This requires humility and openness and a preparedness to listen and genuinely seek to understand where the other person is coming from. It also requires us to consistently have the intention of breaking down barriers and divisions, seeking to do away with a “them” and “us” mentality and seeking to discover the “we” that is at the heart of the Gospel of reconciliation. I tend to agree with Nunc that Jesus probably has

very different concerns than whether one’s theology is correct.

And, I rather suspect that truth is neither hard cut nor easy to come by

How would you distinguish such a view from that which Pontius Pilate took— “What is truth?” He too would have agreed that it’s all too hard to work out. It’s really a view that says that truth is not discoverable.

The Jesus I read about in the Gospels seems more concerned about loving one another and “being one” and doing justice than about doctrinal purity.

False dichotomy. Jesus’ actions were pure, and his doctrine was pure as well. He criticized his enemies because they failed in both areas.