I'm very grateful to have been raised Fundamentalist Baptist and Mennonite, it taught me to believe firmly in the innerant Word of God. But as I was reading 1 Corinthians tonight it amazed me how few Christian bodies actually believe in the relevance and truth of God's word for today.
I apologize to Continuing/Traditional Anglicans for my centering ot of your church in this post.
N.T. Wright says in his book "Surprised by Hope" that the bodily resurrection of Christ in the Church of England is "a take it, or leave it" doctrine. St. Paul on the contrary states:
"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins...if for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied" - 1 Corinthians 15:17,19
I'm always amazed at how many "Christian" scholars and clergy reject the dogma of the bodily resurrection. I guess it's just the spirit of the times.
But then I realized another doctrine right before St. Paul mentions the resurrection and things started to make sense:
"...As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or did the word of God originate with you?..." - 1 Corinthians 14:33-36
I love that St. Paul/Holy Spirit adds the question "or did the word of God originate with you?" as if to further announce the point that they are to be subject to it. I'd always heard from my egalitarian evangelical professors that this was applicable only in the 1st century. But what magesterial interpretation led you to this? If Scripture's condemnation of women speaking in Church is only for the 1st century, why not limit the Resurrection as a belief only for "unscientific" ancients, like those who St. Paul was teaching.
This is why I've recently gone back to Creationism rather than Theistic Evolution, to me, Scripture is first and foremost above Reason in authority and I can't add such an anti-biblical view as the idea that death occurred before sin.
Finally, another Anglican issue (sorry guys, most protestants follow in your footsteps here)
Philip Yancey in his book "What's So Amazing About Grace" writes hopefully that the Christian condemnation of homosexuality will one day fade away much like - to use his own words - 'the clear teaching of Christ on divorce' has.
"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." - Jesus (in Mark 10:11-12)
Now I will add that in another passage this is reiterated but with the exception being 'porneia' (greek) which most translations render as "adultery". I've had debates on this word when I was a sola scripturist because it can also be used to denote incest or prostitution. In any case, many churches today have left the traditional Christian teaching on divorce and openly allow and bless remarriages after divorces that weren't because of adultery.
3 issues to think about and review what your church/Tradition teaches on them. I hope and pray orthodox Christianity has been preserved better than it seems it has these days....