I was present at an Anglican ordination ceremony and I remember (though not the exact words) that the newly-ordained deacons and priests vowed that "All that I preach will be based on the bible".

Coming to think of it, they did not vow to support or accept each and every verse of the bible. This leaves open the possibility of selectivity, which I think is good, since the bible is a patchwork containing anything from the most holy to the most profane.

Yes Yutustu, and the oldest known bible is in a Munich museum and is a completely different book in both word and substance, from the ancient scribblings relied on today.

On another topic and because some assertions need an informed reply. Our God given instinctive behavior is the result of completely autonomous behavior and has absolutely nothing whatsoever, [like left handedness,] to do with choice!

People that are left handed just are and as the maker made them; and their completely autonomous instinctive behaviour, which like the gender specific sex instinct, is sometimes more powerful than the survival instinct and may still be motiating some of our behavior and normal cravings, right up until the day before we die!

Apologies for straying off topic, but some massively ignorant assertions cannot be left to stand unchallenged!

As far as I'm aware the gay community don't pose a threat to the hetrosexual community. Except in the transmission of a disease bisexually, which needs to be criminalized and treated as attempted murder!

Particularly as a rubber and safe sex practises, would prevent the spread of HIV/aids!

As for other non related issues like paedophillia and child rape I know of no genic cause that would excuse any of this! And would see the (incurable) offenders removed from civil society for the term of their natural lives!
Alan B.

To Peter.

I have to say that your resolve to talk on Christianity in these articles is a refreshing sight among so many voiced views against Christianity and religion as a whole. However I'm troubled by your view of the bible as a general rule. I hope I'm wrong but it seems you say in a few different ways to not read the bible and trust it as it's written.

"To do otherwise, to simply read the bible as if it actually reflected the will of God is to make an idol of it"

"The Evangelicals, who insist on a dumb reading of the bible disregard over a hundred years of historical criticism of biblical texts that gives us valuable insight into the formation of those texts."

To me it seems like your distancing yourself from the bible. If that's the case, I have to ask. What is your foundation of faith based on? What would you recommend the foundation be for those of us who are pew sitters with little or no further study available outside of the bible, or bible studies and books from the book store.

This is a bit off topic from women being bishops, so I apologize. But I think I'd like to know where your coming from with at least a few if your points. If not from the bible where do you recommend a Christian to rely on as the foundation of their faith?

Not_Now.Soon,

Scripture is central to Christian theology. It is the witness upon which everything depends. However, this is not to say that "if it is in the bible it must be true". Are we to accept that the two creation stories really give us an account of how the world came to be? Wellhausen (1844-1918) was one of the first to understand that the bible could not, by a rational person, be taken literally. The subsequent study of the bible has given us a new understanding of its context and objective. This, I would contend, is to take the bible seriously. That is not to say that it is removed from being central to Christian faith. However, it should be read by the community of faith so that it can be properly understood. That is the role of preaching and an educated clergy. The bible is the Church's book. The problem is that Protestantism has overemphasised the piety of the individual. Taking the bible as it reads leads to all kinds of problems that bring it into disrepute in our time and does not serve the modern world.

I think Genesis 3:1 sums up Sells. Did God really say? Sells obviously thinks not leading to many other denials of God's Word.

To Peter.

I get that reasoning, and for a while I accepted it as my own understanding for some scriptures as well. However I think the issue for me is "where do you draw the line?" When Jesus says one thing do we interpret His words to mean something other then what He's said, like we've done with Genesis? Do we rob the possibility of God's power by explaining miracles in the Old Testament to being exaggerations or something else? After all Christians all believe in Jesus dying and coming back to life, healing a few who have passed on, and other healings. Can anything be impossible for God?

The other element at least with the Genesis accounts are context within the bible that reference those accounts. Often they are used as a means to further teach something, but never do they say it in a way to suggest they didn't happen as recorded, or that they have been corrupted over time. I would thing if they weren't accurate a later prophet would say that they were not real events but still for our understanding. Something of that nature that our modern approaches are tempted to say.

Therefore even the Genesis accounts I'm revisiting with a newer outlook then my old one, to wonder on God's power rather then explain it as something else. I would rather my foundation of faith be rooted in scripture to keep me steady, instead of root scripture in the foundation of my interpretations and wavering understandings. I am not that steady of a foundation, neither are hundreds of years of scholar criticisms more sturdy then God's own inspired words. Just my opinions and conclusions.