A comment by Richard (not Kew as far as I can tell) on the post: Preview of a speech for General Convention gives a blockbuster analysis of the points likely to be made at GC by advocates of same-sex blessings.
The argument by Susan Russell cited Scripture as a “living word” (a biblical quote) and experience as a crucial authenticating factor for change. Richard analyzes this as follows:
She seems to appeal to a concept of doctrinal development grounded in the scripture as a “living word.” What is not adequately dealt with is how we discern between true and false development. Arguably, the fundamentalism of the Southern Baptist Church is a development of biblical Christianity. But I am relatively certain that she would not accept this as an authentic development of the Christian tradition.
I might assume that the authenticity of such development is to be tested by her first point, “[her] lived experience” of homosexuality and that of others. But is individual experience an adequate arbiter of true development? If a Mormon Fundamentalist in a polygamous relationship experiences the same “spiritual fruits” as does Ms. Russell+ in her sexual life experience does that affirm that polygamy is an authentic development of the tradition?
Ultimately, an epistemological appeal to experience will deconstruct. What we call “truth” in this matter is merely the aggregate of discrete individual experiences. Thus there can be no overarching appeal to truth outside of the exercise of power.
While I’d like to debate with Richard on the conclusion that followed these words, I think he got into a crucial point here.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Verna Dozier is still alive, though with Alzheimers (I think).
So, she can't be a saint, can she?