The Archbishop of Canterbury is in a very odd situation.
To briefly explain for those who will not read the linked to article, before Rowan Williams was the Archbishop of Canterbury he held to the position that it is wrong to condemn homosexual relationships. In fact, in personal letters that have come to light he says that a consensual loving homosexual relationship may not be against scripture. This is in opposition to official Anglican Church teaching, and is at odds with the public position he has taken recently as Archbishop (As has been pointed out by his defenders). This therefore puts the Archbishop in a position where he is publicly defending the churches teaching, yet in all likelihood, privately disagrees with it. The liberals believe he has betrayed their cause, the conservatives don’t believe he can be trusted. Both of those positions opposing him seem to be quite clear, but what of those bishops who are defending him?
Is there anyway that the Archbishop positions in this matter can be reconciled? I think they can, if it is recognized that he is putting the churches understanding of scripture above his own understanding of scripture. I do not doubt that Rowan Williams understands scripture not to condemn loving homosexual relationship, but he recognizes that this understanding is out of sync with the historic Christian understanding. Taking his position as Archbishop seriously he has recognized that he must protect the churches understanding above his own. Rowan Williams has separated what he believes as a theologian from what he practises as a church leader. Is this however valid?
I must first applaud Rowan Williams’ commitment to the church and his office. Putting weight in how the church understands scripture is something that needs to be encouraged among Christians today. Today’s Christians are individualistic. They have no time for traditional understandings, or abiding by decisions made outside of their control. The Archbishop’s willingness to abide by the churches understanding is refreshing. Scripture is the book of the church, not of the lone wolf.
I of course disagree with the Archbishop’s personal understanding of the topic of homosexuality, yet I would rather have him admit what he does believe then cover it up.
I have often asked myself what I would do if I was put in a similar situation as the Archbishop; one where I come to, after much study, an understanding of scripture that is different then what the church teaches. I have faced this decision on a local church level, having reached conclusions on the sacraments that were incompatible with the church I was a member of, but a question such as homosexuality is a bigger question. What if I was to, no matter how much I wanted to agree, disagree with the historic church on a question such as the Trinity, the nature of Christ, or justification?
I have said many times before to friends that a person cannot go against what they believe is right. That is, I cannot simply stop believing something if I am convinced it is true. I can however subject myself to follow an authority that I disagree with if I believe following that authority is more important then my personal beliefs. This may sound strange in a modern world where freedom is placed as the most important goal, but in a world view where community and tradition is put above freedom holding to such a position would not be unnatural.
In the perfect world my understanding of scripture (as well as everyone else’s including the Archbishop’s) would match up with what the church has historically taught. It doesn’t. I therefore have to decide on each individual issue if I think my understanding is so much more important then my commitment to the church, and if the issue in question is worth going against the churches teaching over. I also have to decide what the church has historically understood (which is a huge task in and of itself). This, or something similar is the position the Archbishop is in, and it seems that he has chosen the church on this particular issue..
Now I would much prefer the Archbishop to actually be convinced homosexuality is sinful, and by the Spirit’s working I hope that one day to happen. I also think it is important for the leader of the church to actually believe what the church teaches. However, with the situation being what it is, I am happy that the liberal who is Archbishop does take the church seriously since there are many liberals and conservatives who do not.
It is wrong to teach or behave in a way you believe to be inconsistent with Scripture. Misleading others as a teacher is not only dishonest, it violates your responsibilities as a teacher. There are definitely doctrines which I am willing to remain silent about if in disagreement with my church, but this is far different from presenting false teaching. That said, it is valid to refrain from an activity that is allowed, but would cause others to sin:
1 Corinthians 8 (CEV)
1 Corinthians 10 (CEV)
To summarize, it is dishonest and sinful to teach things that the Bible does not support, but there may be a need to hold ourselves to a “higher” standard than what the Bible teaches for the edification of others.
I don’t think it is wrong to say “the church teaches..” when you don’t personally believe it.
Obviously my leanings on this come from a completely different side of things than Bryan. I just don’t view “the church” as any kind of authority. It is a term that defines the unity of individual Christians.
It’s a very Catholic and Anglican thing to say that “the Church teaches.” It should never be the Church that teaches or tells us anything, but God and His Word. Granted, every denomination have their doctrinal leanings, but their beliefs should be phrased in such a manner that it doesn’t imply that they are the ultimate authority. Whenever I hear some Catholic priest in a movie say “the Church teaches,” I cringe, since it implies that the Church has some theological authority.
You think it doesn’t Darius?
I think I know what my next entry will be on.
There is some de facto authority, of course, via the writings of theologians and pastors. What concerns me is the use of “the Church teaches” in Catholic or Anglican circles instead of saying “the Bible teaches.” It might be mostly semantics, since what the Church teaches SHOULD be what the Bible teaches, but still, I believe it’s important.
Bryan, I am definitely interested in any article you can write justifying teaching something contrary to the Bible. The Bible is the express Word of God, and to place any higher authority on ANY group of humans than we do on the Bible is not only unwise but sinful and blasphemous.
Jasen, while it is perfectly accurate to teach history from that perspective, it is WRONG for a church authority to present discipleship form that perspective. The Biblical standard for teachers holds the teacher accountable for the truth of what they say, not only in semantic terms but also in how the listener understands the message. Misleading one’s students in Scriptural matters DOES carry penalties (assuming one believes the Bible to be true).
Valid: Archbishop does not believe Bible teaches against same sex relationships, but teaches that while such relationships may not be condemned by Scripture his congregants should avoid them due to the violation of conscience such relationships result in due to the current teachings of the church.
Invalid: Archbishop violates his own beliefs teaching something he believes to be false by teaching that the Bible opposes same sex relations. He believes he is misleading his congregants, and in doing so commits sin even if what he is actually saying is true. Violating one’s conscience is ALWAYS sin, even if the act itself was correct.
Justification: Paul taught that eating meat offered to idols didn’t make a difference since the idols were fake. Despite this, if eating the meat caused problems for others due to perceived sinfulness (believers or unbelievers), it shouldn’t be done since it is not a spiritually necessary action. Violating one’s conscience though is always sinful.
No church should ever ask its members to teach in violation of their conscience, and except in areas of core doctrine teachers should be allowed latitude so far as is defensible from Scripture. Anyone who does not agree with the church in areas of core doctrine should not be endorsed by the church as a teacher.
Atanamis, I won’t be arguing that there is an authority higher then the bible in faith and morals (Well the only reason scripture has authority is becasue God/Christ invested it with such so they are above it but I’m not sure if I’ll touch on that yet), but what I will argue is that the bible can only be properly understood by church becasue it is a book directed to the church and not to individuals (Before you jump on me for saying this keep in mind I have not defined church so don’t think I’m going RCC here). My response was directed at the comment “I cringe, since it implies that the Church has some theological authority.” and I said I would respond to that. That is I will argue that the church is invested with theological authority. I do not think this authority is above scripture, nor do I think it’s in conflict with scripture.
Can I assign homework? Please, everyone who is at all interested in this subject get yourself a book called “A High View of Scripture?” by Craig D. Allert. I’ve recommended it before, but it’s am amazing book on the formation of the canon and how evangelicals have dealt with it.
I do disagree with your last paragraph of your comment strongly, and will respond to it but I’m in my boxers right now on the way to take a shower and go to sleep so I’ll get back to it tomorrow after work if I remember. If I don’t get back please remind me.
Ok, now that I’ve slept (Yesterday I had just got home from a wedding) I don’t disagree with your paragraph as strongly
I misread it last night, I think I get what your saying now, but I think it gets a lot dicier in practice. I’ll start to work this out in my post a bit (it’s bound to become a series)
Bryan, please do write on the theological authority of the church’s teaching. I think a lot of people are interested!
I would definitely agree with the general assertion that the church has theological authority, and that in fact the very selection of the canon BY the church validates this fact. I would disagree that elements of the “church” that teach something contrary to the Bible are right though.
The RCC is a good example of what was the universal gathering of believers refusing to accept valid correction regarding their doctrinal errors which resulted in a fragmentation of the church. The reformation was not initially intended to divide the church, but to purify it. Only when the existing church leaders refused to heed valid censure was division needed. Even assuming the Pope as holding direct authority from Peter, when Peter was corrected for improper behavior he heeded that correction. No human leader can claim inerrancy, and the behavior of some past Popes should prove this.
However, I definitely agree that one SHOULD heed the teachings of the church in regard to the interpretation of Scripture. But where those teachings and Scripture itself clearly differ, a true believer MUST adhere to what Scripture teaches as opposed to what men teach. As Paul himself stated, even if he himself were to come preaching a false gospel, he ought to be ignored. The Berean believers were praised for validating Paul’s teachings against Old Testament Scritpures. If that need for validation against Scripture and the gospel were true of Paul, how much more must it be true of any living leader of the church?
From what I have read, I am thrilled to find a fellow Southern Baptist brother and scholar committed to careful exegesis, sound theology, a Trinitarian emphasis, the canonical witness, and (from the testimony of my brother who is one of his students) the obedience of faith. These commitments lead him to this thesis concerning the New Testament’s testimony. The NT is about God magnifying himself in Christ through the Spirit (13), or from his introduction, …NT theology is God-focused, Christ-centered, and Spirit-saturated, but the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit must be understood along a salvation-historical timeline, that is, God’s promises are already fulfilled but not yet consummated in Christ Jesus (23).