Questions about being 'bible based' : the Diocese of the Southern Cross

If one is required to be fully 'bible-based', presumably that means that one is to maintain the 'bible- based' almost complete silence in regard to the ongoing practice of domestic violence against women. Does that explain why the silence has been broken at Australian synods only very recently, from the late twentieth century onwards into this century?

A third example of the gap between the first and the twenty-first century explanations of phenomena can be found in the explanations given for epilepsy. If one is to be "bible-based", then presumably parents of children who experience epileptic seizures are to be told by such Christians that their child is possessed of an "unclean spirit".

Three of the biblical gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke - tell the story of a child experiencing an epileptic seizure in the presence of Jesus. The account in Mark 9:14-29 is generally regarded as the main source for the other two accounts. In the story in Matthew 17:14-21 the first century medical term for epileptic seizure is used (17:14) but the account undergirds the Markan source's reference to demonic possession (17:18).

So if one employs a 'black letter' interpretation of the scripture, in Mark's rendering no recourse is to be made to any medical response to the condition because, to quote scripture, "This kind can only come out through prayer". So much for employing modern medical knowledge or encouraging a child's parents to seek medical care.

No one aware of the varied content of the Bible, and its historical contexts, would publicly endorse biblical injunctions that enjoin violence, or tacitly (silently) condone violence. I have refrained from referring to biblical texts that enjoin violence in contexts other than those noted very generally above. And the middle eastern honour-shame context that indelibly shapes these and other injunctions is not the socio-religious context that shapes the theological understandings of contemporary Australian interpreters. All theologies are contextual, not inerrant.

There are instances both in the past and in the present of Christians basing their lives on clearly expressed biblical injunctions. I refer to the members of religious orders in the Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches. Nuns and monks in those traditions have taken to heart the injunctions encountered in passages such as Luke 14:33 and 12:33 ("So therefore none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions".)In the field of economic discipleship, the members of religious orders are undeniably "bible-based".

But in the Australian Anglican context, those religious sisters and brothers who have made such a biblical commitment have not been made welcome in "bible-based" dioceses. Strange that!

Will such "bible-based" economic practice be welcomed (and practised) by the leaders of the new Canberra religious entity?

The glib slogan quoted at the beginning of this piece cannot stand close scrutiny. This article has simply scratched the surface as regards whether that slogan is verified by the history, or the current practice, of "bible-based" churches.

I suggest that self-designated 'bible-based' priests or pastors should be encouraged to rethink their slogan (and thus their theology). Unless they consider themselves infallible, would that not be a Christian thing to do?