David

Well, to try to make my point, lets take the phrase in the Apostles Creed The third day he rose again from the dead.

Does this phrase exclude from good theology the belief that the tomb was not empty?

Dear Phil,

The limits of good theology are defined by the historic creeds. Beyond this good theology is proved in the  church by reason and its faithfulness to scripture. The is no better standard than the bible itself.

...own life, for myself.'

Ambiguous ! 

By 'for myself' I mean I shan't allow any bishop of Rome /Canterbury/Winchester/Chester/Abuja to run my life for me--anymore than I shall let them tell me what the Bible says.  What the Bible says is not a moatter for computers or computer minds--it is about a living, dynamic realtionship with the Book. each person's relationship is, and shall be, different.  I'd love to know what the Bible says to THEM.  And vice versa!  I'd love to know of it,in the fullness, integrity and brokenness of their lives. And vice versa.  I believe I may have a start, myself..

(cf Report of the Dutch Reformed Bishops 'The Bible Speaks Again' They put this with panache, about 30 years ago.).

'This is not a reason for rejecting the the moral view that hetrosexual marriage is the only context for sexual activity which is approved in scripture. '

Read the Bible --not other people's books    a b o u t  it ---- often they haven't read it either!*

As a protestant, i read and shall read the Bible for myself.  Just as I shall live my own life, for myself.  The CofE as is, has little to commend it.  People like John Gladwin are very thin on the ground (or flattened to the ground--or under it). 

Paradoxically, this was the * advice of George Harpur in his book : Meet the Book.

My point was that relativists who tell us it is all a matter of personal choice so that they respect the choice of others but "what is right for you is not necessarily right for me" often use the language of morals to denounce others in an inconsistent way.

Moral relativism and moral pluralism are not quite the same thing altough the terms are used inconsistently. According to Wikipedia, moral pluralism is the acknowlegement that there are a range of moral views whereas mral relativism is the denial of any objective viewpoint from which to compare them see  Moral relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Moral universalism asserts that the are universal values at some level. This is the traditional christian view and was held for example by Kant. The acknowledgement of moral pluralism pushes these back to more general principles such as love of God and man, truth is better than falsehood, an action which increases the happiness of one person and reduces the happiness of none is good. Thus moral practices can be compared and the arguments used reveal the underlying principles. C S Lewis presents and interesting argument for moral absolutes in "The abolition of man" and also provides an interesting summary of the common moral wisdom of man in different cultures.

I am not saying that ECUSA rejected biblical exegsis. I am saying that they found exegetical grounds for rejecting the traditional interpretation of certain passages. This by itself does not require the acceptance of homosexuality. The most that can be shown is that some homosexual lifestyles practiced in modern society are not condemned in scripture (i.e. faithful lifelong unions). This is not a reason for rejecting the the moral view that hetrosexual marriage is the only context for sexual activity which is approved in scripture. The approval of homosexuality must derive from changing psycological understandings, the demand for equal treatment from homosexuals and moral arguments such as freedom of action where it does not affect anyone else.  

 '...I find it strange then that on the one hand their are several issues on which holders of differing views remain in the same church whith little prospect of agreement such as abortion, war, contraception divorce ...' (David)

This is moral relativism, and O'Donnovan seems not to  have noticed that, we are moral pluralists now !

ON ECUSA and gayness ---  ECUSA didn't reject biblical exegesis.  I t was the exegesis of the bible that led ECUSA to emrace its lesbian and gay members and parishoiners.  Thus they avoided the true sin of Sodom.

David

You posted &&&A better theology is one which is grounded in a knowledge of Scripture, has taken account of other views in the church, leads to worship and action, and is held as a matter of conviction rather than speculation&&&&

Does it matter whether this better theology has any content at all? Does it matter, if this better theology has content, what that content is?

Oliver O'Donovan's third sermon raises the spectre of moral pluralism. He regards this thinking which has been influential in ECUSA as ill concieved and irresponsible. So that on the subject of homosexuality they did not consider agreement with other sections of the church as important but went ahead and followed prgressive culture.  His main argument is that such moral pluralism is difficult to justify. I find it strange then that on the one hand their are several issues on which holders of differing views remain in the same church whith little prospect of agreement such as abortion, war, contraception divorce and on the other hand many liberals seem to have strong moral views on such issues as globalisation and animal rights and certainly do not find pluralism acceptable here but bemoan the complaceny of the rest of the church. I think that the members of ECUSA would see their actions in a more principled way in that they have recected a past culture of homophobia, accepted the equlity arguments and rejected arguments made from Scripture on exegatical grounds. They would then hope that the rest of the church would follow their lead. Respect for human rights is more imporatant than respect for human prejudice. Inorder to counter this a moral argument against homosexuality is needed wwhether this is based on the harm to individual or society or the natural order of things. If we merely quote scripture, we will be dismissed as fundamentalists.

Oliver O'Donavan does not see the disregard for the African as racism. However I semember that some very peronal attacks were made about  Peter Akinola at the time of the Lambeth conference 

Dear Phil,

I believe that all christians are called to know their faith and in that sense are theologians, whether good or bad. It is not enough for sound statements to be in books. They must affect our minds and our lives. In this sense it is quite possible to be a good theologian in the sense of having orthodox beliefs and at the same time be a bad theologian in the sense of having naive concepts and misinterpreting scripture. Our theology is only improved by study and discussion. A better theology is one which is grounded in a knowledge of Scripture, has taken account of other views in the church, leads to worship and action, and is held as a matter of conviction rather than speculation.

The question of what liberals believe is difficult to answer other than to say some do and some don't. The writings of leading theologians are one thing and the beliefs proclaimed by local clergy may be two very different things.  I think you are correct in saying that the nature of Revalation is a key issue as this determines what we can say we know

David