Catholic school defends cross-dressing kids

Is that the official Anglican policy worldwide?
Are all Anglicans of this opinion?

 

These were the words of somebody called Paul.
Do you mix up Paul with God?
Has the Trinity been enlarged: God Father, God Son, Holy Ghost, and Paul?

 

Are all Anglican women worldwide of this opinion?

 

All those that are informed, yes, Anglicans believe scripture is above the church, we don't have the liberty of saying doctrine or tradition can overrule/be considered equally to scripture like other denominations can. But the opinion of what submit means varies among Anglicans.

As Botolph correctly highlights, it is not only wives that must submit to their husbands - husbands must also submit to their wives. That clearly limits the most heinous and abusive forms of relationship from the outset. Anyone that wants to behave like his wife's master, and treat his wife as a servant is clearly misrepresenting the word of God, adding their own biases to scripture (Proverbs 30.6).

Husbands are commanded to both be subject to their wives and love their wives. I interpret this kind of subjection like we subject ourselves to God. God is our Lord, but he is not our Tyrant. He does not abuse us, beat us, force us into obeying him. Our devotion is a willing byproduct of our love. Such is the reverence a husband ought to show to his wife, and in turn a wife ought to show to her husband. Marriage is a two way street, a covenant where both parties give equally and receive more.

These are the words of Scripture which are divinely inspired. Paul said many things and wrote many letters, only some of them made it into Scripture. Ephesians itself may be what we call "Deutero-Pauline", meaning the text as we have it in the bible was actually written by the immediate followers of Paul, maybe 10-20 years after his death, not as a genuine letter but as a mechanism for education. None of that really matters, because the Spirit inspired it.

No.

 

I am not sure how to answer the question as you have attributed to me the words of @Rexlion and as such I feel I should let him answer.

My view on the matter should be fairly obvious in the response I wrote to those words, however I would never pretend to encompass the whole view of Anglicanism ever.

There is a saying, with some measure of levity, if all the Anglicans in the world were laid end to end they would never reach a conclusion!

 

In any way - I am surprised ....

 

Great verses, if you happen to like that kind of thing. Not sure they would be in my top 10, but each to their own.

Now show me the ones about children playing.

 

Show any woman a husband who loves her as Christ loves the church and I am pretty sure she will be happy to listen to what he says. And no doubt they will live happily ever after.

Back in the real world, far too often women have to step up and look after their home and family when the husband fails to do so for one reason or another. As DH Laurence observed in Sons and Lovers, take the father from a home and the mother will certainly struggle, but the home and family will survive. Take the mother from a home and it will rapidly fall apart.

In the far worse scenario of an abusive home, giving the man the same authority as Christ over his wife and family, and telling women to 'subject themselves' to what he says is beyond dangerous and can even cost lives. In this case the man's 'authority' becomes blasphemy because he is claiming Christ's authority and misusing it for his own ends. No question; this is abhorrent.

Therefore, I personally will never use such language to any woman. And especially not to one in an unhappy marriage.

 

This thread wasn't about 'children playing,' so that is out of context. The problem being addressed is adults (who should know better) teaching the children that disobedience to Scripture is okay, that cross dressing is normal and morally acceptable. Adults are charged with the responsibility of raising children godly principles so they might grow up to love, honor and obey God. Instead, we see adults teaching kids errors that could damage their lives forever by warping their concept of Scripture and teaching them that man's reasoning takes precedent over God's will and word.

As for the author of the book featured in the original post, Jesus' words (in Luke 17:2) seem apropos: It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

 

I did say, "decent Christian men do not abuse their role of leadership." That statement should show that I am not discounting the 'reciprocal point'. But when I'm making a point, it should not be necessary for me to provide an exhaustive commentary that covers all conceivable points which could be made, for such writing would only serve to obfuscate the valid point being made.

Indeed, some people prefer to obfuscate by centering attention on the 'reciprocal point' to the exclusion of the main point (see post #28 for example).

 

The Scripture certainly teaches about the mutuality of a relationship between the husband and wife. It is not a 1-dimensional despotism. But nor is it equality.

It is very clear from Ephesians that the wife's relationship to the husband is different from his relationship to her. She is to submit to him, while he is to cherish her. Certainly there is mutuality there, but the mutuality is not equivalent. God does not believe in feminism.

 

We really need to break down the hold of modern White Liberalism (more in a presuppositional/philosophical sense) on how we interpret the Bible and theology. I remember some Libertarian telling me that if I didn't believe in "classical liberalism," then I wasn't saved. We should read the Bible with an open mind without attempting to read our politics/presuppositions/philosophies into the text (to what extent possible). Sorry for the ramble or out of context.

 

I see your first and third statements as being in direct conflict with one another. Either free enquiry ultimately leads to the truth or it does not. The belief that it does is the core epistemological conviction of liberalism, wherever applied, going back at least as far as J.S. Mill. The alternative is authoritarianism, in thought, and in practice. That is what I think a lot of "culture war" Christians in the West actually want: someone to say what the rules are and then kick out whoever disagrees. It's not about doctrine, it's about certainty: the one thing liberalism never promises, since human beings are fallible and thus all knowledge is provisional. The notion that all this is about "orthodoxy" just doesn't hold water. The Episcopal Church never removed the Trinity, or the Incarnation, or the Atonement, or the Resurrection, or the Last Judgment, or the Bible, etc., from the Prayer Book or from our worship. (It did moderate the Prayer Book's language on original sin in the baptismal liturgy, but that was done in the 1928 Prayer Book which so many here claim to revere, not in the 1979, which actually added the Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition for the very first time in this country.) These things are sung, said, and taught every Sunday (and daily for those who recite the Daily Office). Some in the church may have rather idiosyncratic notions of what those things mean, but I would rather have that than be a part of an overbearing, intrusive, authoritarian organization that stifles growth and initiative. If free enquiry ultimately leads to the truth, then whatever is not true "cannot really be useful" (cf. Mill), and will die out on its own. That is the core conviction of conservatism, and is why great thinkers like Burke - himself an Anglican - understood that the two naturally go together. Christianity has a very, very long history of aligning itself with authoritarian rulers, organizations, and governing philosophies and structures. That is not a history that I think anyone living today should wish to repeat.
https://www.wycliffecollege.ca/archive/document/would-john-calvin-stay-episcopal-church

 

The wife and husband have different duties in the relationship, agreed, but I would highlight the husbands role is to both cherish her and submit to her.

"Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ." ~ Ephesians 5.21
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," ~ Ephesians 5.25​

I relate with Botolph's eagerness to reiterate the reciprocity, because the frequency with which people often quote Ephesians 5 beginning at verse 22, and skipping verse 21, is concerning. I don't mean to imply anything untoward to Rexlion (or to you Stalwart), in Rexlion's case he was specifically talking about the wife's duty so it made perfect sense to start at 5.22 in this case, but I think it's useful to say sometimes focusing on the reciprocity isn't to obfuscate but to correctly inform many who spend a good portion of their early lives completely ignorant of this dynamic. We never know who might be perusing this thread in the future and for the first time be reading these verses.

 

If Liberalism were to be defined merely as "seeking the truth," then I would agree that we should read the Bible "liberally." However, I am in no way obligated to agree with the ravings of enlightenment thinkers and their philosophy of selfishness (classical liberalism). The truth naturally is authoritarian in nature because it exists and affects us regardless of if we consent or recognize it to be so. Classical Liberalism with its enthroned "Goddess of Reason" has probably been the most destructive force in all of human history.

I also do not believe that human reason would ever get you to Christianity without the grace of God. There are many extremely intelligent people who are atheists and/or active opponents of God that have used their "reason" to go against the truth of Christianity. Based on human reason, I would not be a Christian right now. Only through God taking our heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh do we begin to seek after him in rejection of our own earthly reason (which is pretty authoritarian if you ask me).
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Paul speaks against the philosophy, vain deceit, and traditions of men (ie human reason) of the ancient world in which the enlightenment thinkers attempted to emulate.

What I'm not saying: That reason cannot be used to determine the truth of earthly things, scientific theories, political policy, or what would be best to eat for lunch. However, human reason offers no aid (only an impediment/stumbling block) to faith in Christ and the Gospel. Only when God has granted us grace can we even begin to decern the truth.


The TEC uses the Trinity, the Creeds, the Councils, and has an Orthodox BCP liturgy. "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me."

"Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting."- The services of the TEC become an abomination in the eyes of the Lord when the heart of the congregation and the celebrants are far from him as occurred to the Old Testament Priests/congregations.

As to Calvin staying in the TEC: For a man who sanctioned the burning of heretics, and allowed the drowning of many Anabaptists in a lake, I think he would have a heart attack and die if he attended a TEC service today.

 

I have no idea what this means. "Truth" is "to say of that which is, that it is; and of that which is not, that is not" (cf. Aristotle). There's nothing mystical about it. It's a judgment taking place in the mind, which corresponds with reality. To discover "that which is", I know of no more reliable method than free enquiry and open debate.

I never said it did, and I'm not sure what relevance that has. Truth and law aren't the same thing. Merely observing reality will not tell a person what he or she ought to do.

That's unfortunate, since human reason - which God created - is not contrary to Christianity. One was quite literally fashioned to receive the other.

Nonsense. This is contrary to what St. Paul says in Acts 17 and Romans 1-2, for starters, to say nothing of the whole tradition of Christian natural theology, or the use of logic and reason in the definition and defense of Church doctrine.

In other words, because you can't prove it, that proves it. It must be nice to be able to dispense with observation and rely solely on one's own intuition for one's convictions about others. Of course, you have absolutely no way of actually knowing what's in individual churchgoers hearts and minds. It's certainly not an accurate description of my own. For someone committed to circumscribing the abilities of human reason you seem to put great store in your own. Even if true, do you mean to tell me that a certain lukewarmness among churchgoers isn't common across confessional/denominational lines (and even across religions in general)? Have you not read the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares?

Speaking for the dead isn't a valid form or argument, and again, you have no way of knowing this. In the parish I attend, I doubt Calvin would hear anything to which he would object. He would probably be delighted that his understanding of the Lord's Supper still finds echoes in the language of the Book of Common Prayer's communion liturgy.

 

It is a dogma of the faith that Pelagianism is false, and we cannot initiate the process of salvation through our own strength. That was settled in the 400s AD.

I am of course a firm believer in reason and natural theology, but I recognize that faith is not a natural gift, but a supernatural gift.

 

I never said anything about or pertaining to Pelagianism, nor did I deny that faith is a supernatural virtue. That’s a red herring. I am responding to the notion that somehow “liberalism” is the source of the Church’s woes. The antiliberal vision can only be an authoritarian one. That’s what this is all about; not doctrine, not “orthodoxy”. It’s about certainty and control. No thank you.

 

Cross-dressing kids are OK.
They are no abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

 

Barnes' Commentary might be of some help in understanding this section of Ephesians 5:

Submitting yourselves one to another - Maintaining due subordination in the various relations of life. This general principle of religion, the apostle proceeds now to illustrate in reference to wives Eph_5:22-24; to children Eph_6:1-3; and to servants, Eph_6:5-8. At the same time that he enforces this duty of submission, however, he enjoins on others to use their authority in a proper manner, and gives solemn injunctions that there should be no abuse of power. Particularly he enjoins on husbands the duty of loving their wives with all tenderness Eph_5:25-33; on fathers, the duty of treating their children so that they might easily obey them Eph_6:4; and on masters, the duly of treating their servants with kindness, remembering that they have a Master also in heaven; Eph_6:9.​

The point Barnes makes is that the passage is moving from a general principle (people submitting to other people) to a more specific example (wives submitting to husbands). It is not appropriate to 'rewind' the writing and apply verses 22-25 onto verse 21. In other words, verse 21 isn't talking about husband-wife relations.