CREW: For example, those proposing an Anglican Covenant purport to promote unity, but do so at the expense of homosexual persons and their friends. Scripture can seem on their side: Scripture tells us to value unity. But not above all else. First you must love your neighbor as you love yourself.

VOL: To argue that an Anglican Covenant was written "at the expense of homosexual persons" is plain nonsense. First of all the majority of those who had a hand in writing the Covenant were theologically liberal, including the archbishops of NZ ( John Paterson) and Australia (Phillip Aspinall) to name just two. Nearly all the committees involved in this process were stacked with liberals with an odd orthodox person thrown in for good measure. The fact that Section 4 was wrestled with indicates a deeply felt need to make the Covenant as inclusive as possible. Furthermore, the entire "Listening Process" is designed exclusively to broker non-celibate homosexual persons into the communion as painlessly as possible. It is disingenuous of Dr. Crew to claim that the covenant was put together to exclude homosexuals.

The covenant (section 4) talks of "interdependence" and argues that "where a shared mind has not been reached...every effort must be made to facilitate agreement." It is true that the Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action, say consecrating Mary Glasspool, a lesbian, as the next Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles, but would not the Covenant also exclude any African Anglican bishop practicing or promoting female circumcision? Why infer that homosexuals are the only persons at risk of breaking up the communion.

Furthermore, the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1:10 still stands and was not rescinded at the 2008 Lambeth Conference. What about marriage between a man and a woman does Dr. Crew not understand? Those who framed the covenant had to consider what was and is already on the table. Dr. Crew should also recognize that while GC2009 resolutions D025 and C056 were passed, B033 was not rescinded and it was Mrs. Jefferts Schori who told the Archbishop of Canterbury that these two resolutions are descriptive not prescriptive

CREW: Yoo-hoo. Hi there. Yes, us, your Queer neighbors, and with you joint heirs of Jesus Christ.

VOL: It is highly presumptuous of Dr. Crew to say that a person living in a non-celibate homosexual relationship specifically condemned in both the Old and New Testaments is "a joint heir with Christ." (Rom. 8:17) He cannot biblically or historically support that. In fact, in the course of 2,000 years of Christian history and Christian interpretation of Scripture, no such ruling by the counsels of the church, the Reformation or Roman Catholic teaching would agree with him.

CREW: Scripture tempted Jesus to hurl himself from a cliff to reveal his power because Scripture promised that he would be rescued by angels. Given his own struggle -- unable to be taken seriously by any but Samaritans, tax-collectors, and drunkards -- he found that prospect very tempting.

VOL: Scripture did not tempt Jesus, SATAN did. The temptations of Jesus by the devil as detailed in each of the Synoptic Gospels (Mt. 4:1-11, Mk. 1: 12-13 and Lk. 4: 1-13) occurred after being baptized. Jesus fasted for forty days and nights in the desert. It was during this time that the devil appeared to Jesus and tempted him to demonstrate his supernatural powers as proof of his deity. Jesus refused each temptation with a quote of scripture. The Gospels then state that having failed, the devil departed and angels came and ministered to him bringing him nourishment for His body.

CREW: "That would show them who I am." Jesus thought, but then he rejected that use of Scripture as satanic, and trumped it with another, "It is written, do not put the Lord to the test." That is, he followed the first commandment: he loved God with all his mind.

VOL: This is plain nonsense. Jesus never rejected Scripture. He rejected the MISUSE of Scripture. He rejected the Pharisaic and Sadducean interpretation of Scriptures that laid heavy burdens on people, but Jesus never rejected scripture, ever. He fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. He did not reject any part of the Old Testament.

CREW: Sola scriptura? Yes, if you test all scripture against the first and second commandments. That requires reason, tradition, and experience.

VOL: The Reformers never placed Scripture on an equal footing with reason, tradition and experience. Scripture always stood above the others.

In the Episcopal Church frequent references are made to what is sometimes called "the three-legged stool" [Scripture, tradition & reason] or "the four-legged stool" [Scripture, tradition, reason & experience] of Richard Hooker. (circa 1600) However, the common belief is at best a half truth.

The reference to "Hooker's threefold, 'Scripture, tradition and reason'" is a 20th century phenomenon with roots in the late 19th century. [See Francis Paget, Introduction to the Fifth Book Of the Laws..., 1899, p.226.] It seems to have been an attempt by high churchmen to make use of the prestige of Hooker to buttress what was later to be called the Anglican theological method (the 1968 Report of the Lambeth Conference for a reference to the authority of "reason" as a special Anglican tool).

Those who know Hooker's writings know that he did not use this modern expression. There is only one place in his writings where he seems to come near to asserting this 20th century formulation: "What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever" ( Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14).

Hooker then speaks of Scripture, reason and the voice of the Church, in that order. Dr. Crew misuses Hooker's three legged stool to build his own construct and interpretation of Scripture to justify his own behavior.

CREW: But love does not come by Scripture, reason, tradition, or experience. To be able to love, you must be born again. You must get a life -- a life of the spirit.

VOL: No one ever said "love comes by Scripture" this is to strangle and distort Scripture so Dr. Crew doesn't have to obey its clear teaching about sodomy. Finally Dr Crew should try being "born again" until he gets it right. As far as "a life of the spirit" is concerned, VOL is glad he used spirit with a lower case "s". To have put it in upper case would have been to disembowel the Holy Spirit of his proper job which is to point us to Jesus (not our sexual proclivities)...a Jesus whose atoning death has the power to liberate Dr. Crew from the bondage of homosexuality that has wrecked The Episcopal Church and brought it to its knees.

END