Take the first one about the use of the Bible and its interpretation. We are all aware of the ongoing debate in the Anglican Communion about the interpretation of certain passages about homosexuality in the Bible. Only the week before last at Evening Prayer time I invited a young man who was present in the Chapel to join me for prayer. He did so but then in the middle of the office launched into a major condemnation of the Episcopal Church and its erroneous views on homosexuality and the Bible. He called on me to repent! I suggested he was spiritually arrogant and what about the command of Jesus “Judge not and you will not be judged”. In any case my modest protest bore no fruit and it was clear that I was destined for Hell along with most other unrepentant Episcopalians. Part of me wanted to debate the issue with him; to point out the problems with his stark views, let alone the fact that Jesus had nothing to say on the matter. But I thought I would not get much of a hearing and I was getting cross!

But more seriously the issue is deeper than that. In this country we are well aware and rather shy of those who interpret the scriptures literally. So called Fundamentalists scare us! The trouble is that those of us who see ourselves as rather more liberal can get nervous around the Biblical text! We are frightened of being too confident in our interpretation less God forbid we be accused of being literalist or fundamentalist!

As an example in the present controversy raging at Riverside Church where the highly qualified newly appointed minister has recently resigned the issue of the use of the Bible has surfaced (along it must be admitted with other more political and racial issues). One of the accusations made against Reverend Braxton was that his preaching was “too biblical”. I took that to mean “fundamentalist”. However Dr Braxton is himself a liberal and a well educated man, a Rhodes Scholar to boot, who is hardly likely to take such an extreme position. It just shows how difficult it is to be a faithful Christian preacher today! I have said over and over again that whatever we as Anglican Christians, high or low, liberal or conservative our church in all its formularies from the 39 Articles to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral stands firmly on the basis of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Holy Scripture is a given for us; it is normative in our worship, our preaching and in our life of witness. We are a biblical church. We take the Bible seriously.

The second and third issues I raised were both about Christian distinctiveness. Part of my concern arises from the so-called “open communion” movement in our own church: that is all are welcome to receive communion whether or not they are baptized. This is to be debated at our own General Convention in California meeting at present. It is argued by its proponents that to be a truly inclusive church, one welcoming all, we must erect no barriers to receiving communion. It is sufficient they say that you are on a spiritual journey whether or not that journey be a Christian one. While respecting the desire to being welcoming and inclusive I find it confusing when that is translated into open communion. For me to be truly welcoming and to take people's spiritual journeys seriously is to offer proper preparation for baptism; to teach the Christian faith: its history; its scriptures; its beliefs and way of living; so that the reception of communion is the outcome of a process related to baptism, what we call the catechetical process. Holy Communion is not a reward for attendance but its a sign of the fullness of the baptismal life.

The other related issue concerning Christian distinctiveness arises out of inter-faith sensitivities. Some argue in a way that seems to say we all worship the one God so we really have nothing distinctive to offer as Christians. Let's all be together and not offend anyone by our differences. For instance in the commentaries on the current debate at Riverside as reported in the Times someone said Buddhists in the congregation were offended by Dr Braxton's preaching. All I can say I am glad they recognized that Christianity and Buddhism have some major differences as Fr McPherson recently pointed out. I have heard others (sadly Episcopalians) say that we ought not to use the traditional creeds lest some be offended by them. Give me a break! Sadly this sort of nonsense does go on.

That is not to say inter-faith matters are not important. I of all people am deeply committed to inter-faith dialog and co-operation. For years I was involved in Christian-Jewish relations. There are many levels in which different faiths can work together for common goals like peace and justice, for community harmony or whatever. Dialog requires respectful listening and an openness to truth. It does not involve compromising one's integrity of belief. When I speak to a Muslim or a Jew I do so as a Christian and not as a half-baked believer. And I expect the same of the other. We bring to the table the truth as we know it in Jesus Christ and offer that. At the same time we listen reverently and respectively to the other person from a different faith background knowing ultimately that Truth is far greater than any one person's take on it.

So with that rather rambling and diffuse and long introduction what do today's reading say to us? What new insights can we learn? What help can we gain in these dilemmas I have raised?

In the Amos lesson we are presented with the powerful metaphor of God's plumbline by which God judges the righteousness of the community. We all know how important it is for a wall to be upright! It was because the Actors' Guild wall was out of plumb that we had to rebuild it lest it fall down. Amos, the unlikely prophet, was given the dangerous task of pronouncing God's judgment to a nation unwilling to hear. The church at its best continues to proclaim the message of social and economic justice whether or not it be popular or listened to. Only this past week Pope Benedict issued an encyclical about economic and social justice which was far more radical in its implications than anything that has come out of Obama's Washington or the G8. At our General Convention the Presiding Bishop's strong commitment to the Millenium Development Goals is being supported yet again. Just as an aside thinking of the Riverside debate it is a great pity when a commitment to social justice which has been a hallmark of Riverside's distinguished ministry is seen as being in opposition to biblically based preaching. Our only basis for taking a stand on social and economic justice as Christians is its strong and uncompromising biblical foundations.

The reading from Ephesians and indeed the Gospel make it abundantly clear that the Christian church (thinking not simply denominationally) is not simply a human institution (although it most certainly is that going by its divisions and its checkered history) but one called into being by God. Jesus called the Twelve, that first group representative of the whole, into the ministry of evangelism and action. In Ephesians the writer in that famous passage reiterates again and again God's initiative with his church. “Blessed be the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ...who chose us in Christ; who destined us for adoption as his children; in whom we have redemption through his blood; who has made known to us the mystery of his will; in whom we have obtained an inheritance; in whom we have heard the word of truth; who have been marked with the seal of the Holy Spirit.” Talking about distinctive! It is because of all this that we are described in the Nicene Creed as belonging to the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church”. For all our falling short as a church, as a faith community or as individuals, we need to be reminded of and challenged by our calling to be a royal priesthood, God's own people.