Jay Currie

As I await the swift kick to the goolies promised by the admirable, if tardy, Edward Michael George I cannot help but throw in a quick head butt from the mat on this rather delightful Ignoratio elenchi Mr. George attempts to foist on his adoring public.

Take this business of “the simplest invocation of love” overriding the Church’s doctrinal position on divorce.** Unfortunately, and rather glaringly, Jesus the Nitpicker stands in direct contradiction to this. (Which, of course, is why the Church does too.) He says: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Mt 5:32).

Erm … Sorry, but are we supposed to believe that Christ was speaking figuratively here? Seems a little weak to me. EMG

Jesus certainly said this if, as I do, you accept the veracity of the Gospels. However it really does Mr. George’s argument very little good.

A careful reader will note that implicit in the words of Jesus is the notion that only a husband is capable of a) putting away his wife, b) marrying a divorced woman. Which, given the place and time in which He spoke was almost certainly the case.

Now, the more traditional Anglican churches have “read in” the “and vice versa” to Jesus’ words so as to make it as difficult for a woman to “put away” her husband. However, strictly speaking, that is not what Christ said and it is mere presumption on the part of the Churches to imply otherwise.

Yet they do.

Why?

Well, as Pope Benedict is quoted with reference to Islam as saying:

Well, the thesis that was proposed by this scholar was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there’s a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it’s an eternal word. It’s not Mohammed’s word. It’s there for eternity the way it is. There’s no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism’s completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it’s the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He’s used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there’s an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. I was…I mean, Hugh, I wish I could say it as clearly and as beautifully as he did, but that’s why he’s Pope and I’m not, okay? That’s one of the reasons. One of others, but his seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning. LGF

Benedict may not be playing on my team but he certainly is playing my game.

My point being that the way is open to the Christian faith at large, and my Church in particular, to, carefully, revise even the words of Jesus so as to allow them to apply beyond the cultural conditions of 1st century Jerusalem. And the precedent for doing this is what I have referred to as Jesus’ own teleological imperative.