It's very sad that society, and many people in the church like Carrie, have now absorbed the liberal propaganda technique of conflating truth and love (but only when it suits them).  

So, it is completely unloving to differentiate between men and women's ministries or to differentiate between male-female and male-male or female-female sexual attraction - whatever the basis of that differentiation or, indeed, the facts of the matter.  On the other hand it is not unloving to be viscous in your criticism of people who do differentiate, and to blithely accuse them of being unloving without bothering to listen to their reasons, or notice how they actually relate to people!  And yet it is still ok to disapprove of sexual attractions that society agrees are wrong (and worries because they seem to be immutable) without being "unloving"!

Was Jesus unloving when, after stopping her execution, he told the woman caught in adultery to "leave your life of sin"?  I don't think so!  It is perfectly possible in Christ to love someone even if you disapprove of what they want, think or do... (in fact we'd all be lost if God were not like that!).....

Let's wake up to the irrational and unreasonable propaganda that our society unculcates into us and THINk!  Unlike modern liberals we do not have to "hate the sin, hate the sinner"!

Richard W,

I disagree. It is an easy knee-jerk reaction to acuse people of just repeating an old mantra, or just jumping to the same old conclusions, or just ignoring the counterviews.  It suggests to me that you may not really want to engage throughly with their work... 

If you care to look at the extensive work that Andrew and the EA have done in recent decades, which can be found in various recent publications as well as online, you will see that he has engaged in dialogue, completely reviewed all the Biblical and moral arguments, and considered the counter arguments put forward by liberal scholars and by evangelicals who are now arguing that same-sex sex is not a sin.  

The trouble is not that the alternative arguments haven't been considered, but that they have been tested and found to be wrong.  

"I'm afraid I disagree with you on almost every point you make :) - despite the fact that we seem to agree on the conclusion"

Hi Jody,

Yes, your biblical theology is all wrong!  Most of the points I made were merely recounting what Jesus and Paul did and said!!!

Where in the New Testament have you found any *example* of your interpretations of the ideas of liberation, or that sin is "nebulous"?!!

Jody, although I share your conclusion regarding the consecration of [godly] women as bishops, I do think that some of the assumptions you are making are far from God's priorities.  

Firstly, "liberation" in the Kingdom of God is primarily liberation from sin - liberation from human powers and politics is at most incidental (hence Paul does not demand that Christians release their slaves, though he obviously doesn't approve).  Similarly, we *are* equal in Christ Jesus - lay, priest or bishop.  But "equality" of power is not something to be grasped at (at least of you accept the implications of Philippians 2).  And Jesus obviously didn't think he should appoint women as well as men as His [official] apostles.  Finally it is knowing, loving and obeying Jesus that is the most important missional issue for the Church, not whether we conform to the shifting patterns of this dying world..  

Whether or not we have female leaders is hardly the thing that stops most sinners from coming to the Lord (sin, sex and 'freedom'), or what attracts converts to join a church (community, worship and discipling) - as can be seen from a comparison of the characteristics of UK churches that are growing (many of which are rather conservative) and those that are rapidly dying out.

Women bishops yes!  But not at the price of selling out to the priorities of this sinful world.  

Andrew is suggesting a worrying degree of dissimilation by the HoB if, as he suggests, their statement that the policy was not to change in fact changed the policy.  Are you suggesting that they may be openning the door to creating a "fact on the ground" because the Chilcot report looks like it will not open the door to "gay bishops"?  Are you thinking that the HoB may have wobbled under pressure from HMG?

Hopefully the HoB will issue a clarification that "nothing has changed" by way of the additional restraint for Bishops, before we get caught up in yet another frenzy of speculation and anger!

Matthew's pastoral wrestling with the issue of what he, and the Church generally, should do about same-sex relationships echoes my own, but goes in to opposite direction.  Having started off "liberal" and having been close to several gay people, some partnered, I have over the years moved to a very sympathetic but not approving position.  

The problems in his paper begin with the idea that sexual ethics is among the "secondary issues which have more room for interpretation" ... because they "flow[s] out of our core understanding of God".  This is a false - ethics is not a secondary issue in the mind of God, at least not as it is expressed in the Scriptures..  Matthew would have Karl Barth (not to mention St Paul) turning in his grave: Heteropraxy IS heterodoxy - wrong ethics is wrong belief.  Indeed, wrong ethics/morality is a very dangerous issue for church leaders - Jesus warned us very severely about leading his people into sin.. (something about millstones and oceans?)  If we are having difficulty with some younger church members not agreeing with the biblical teachings on sexual morality then we need to teach them correctly - Jesus commanded is to make followers, not just believers.  His command is to teach them "to obey everything I have commanded you."

Secondly Matthew is wrong to suggest that, because the NT authors such as John and Paul teach that agape "love" is a property of God, love always justifies sexual relationship.  Neither John nor Paul, nor indeed Jesus would have agreed.  And Matthew probably wouldn't either if he though of love in other contexts that are prohibited by Scripture.

Even on covenant relationship Matthew falls into the trap of suggesting that one virtue justifies something that is clearly sin in God's eyes(!).  The he makes the unsubstantiated suggestion that the "... cultural background is one of [sufficient]dispute and unclear historical sociological patterns." to justify rejecting the teaching of the apostles.  Quite the opposite is clearly true - it is noteworthy that it is only when the church moves out of the Jewish world that the Apostles begin to explicitly teach against same-sex sex (something that every Jew would have not needed teaching).

And that brings us to his suggestion that "an absolute prohibition on same sex relationships alienates many in our current society, and undermines mission.  Mission, which is of course centred on the core issue of Jesus Christ and his invitations and work."  Changing moral and ethical teaching on sex to accommodate to the surrounding culture was not considered to be an appropriate missional response by the Early Church.  Indeed, the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:29) instructed the Gentile Christians: "You are to abstain from ... sexual immorality."   We cannot presume to know the mind of Christ better than them.

Finally, my journey brought me to see that it is *not* God's mission if we do not teach people to believe in Him and to obey His moral/ethical teaching, however difficult and counter-cultural.  

"Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person." (1 John 2:4).

“If you love me, keep my commands." (John 14:15)  

Dear Jody, I was saddened to see that, despite the huge victory of women's ordination in the CofE, all three reflections so far do not focus on the huge step forward but on the splinter in the eye of the bishops' clarifications.  

This inability to be generous towards traditionalists, reflects our nation's current culture of hostility towards those who are "wrong", rather than the Christian teaching of mutual respect and accommodation.  

IF we really want to show generosity towards traditionalists, as you protest, THEN we should have no problem with tolerating this minor irritation in the light of the huge victory.

E.

ps  I, and many traditionalists I expect, worry that some of the shrieks of "imposition" on the majority, at what is actually just "protection" for the traditionalist minority, are in some cases expressions of anger - rather than hurt - from (nasty) liberals who were hoping to use arguments and obfusion over what is adequate in order to goad the intolerably sexist traditionalists to conform or leave.

pps  Anyone who has listened to traditionalists knows that this is a huge issue for them - just look at the effort that the Anglo-Catholic movement went to in the last 100+ years-or-so to ensure that Bishops were definitely consecrated into the apostolic succession. 

Hi Jody

Sorry I took a while to get back to your reply.. 

You evaded my question -  which was why Jesus didn't appoint any women to a position of OFFICIAL authority. We both agree that He engaged with men and women as fully human, not treating women as second rate humans, and that He gave women responsibilities in various ways...  But DESPITE THAT He obviously saw it as good to not appoint women to the official positions of power!!  

So I think that your argument that, denying.places of power to someone based on their particular humanity is to proclaim 'you are not quite as human as me’ falls at the first hurdle of Christian ethics : What did Jesus do?

You seem to be basing your reasoning too much on current philosophies.  Why not use the classical arguments about appropriate appointments for particular cultures, rather than trying to bring identity argumentation into it?   There is a huge amount of theological construction going on out there - to provide support for "liberal" attitudes towards gender roles and sexuality, but much of it is utter rubbish - classical eisegesis, proof texting, and marcionism -  overlooking of huge swathes of the Christian canon .

But Jesus told us to teach people to obey everything He has commanded us - not to construct theologies to suit ourselves by circumventing, or even go directly against, what He said and did.  As He didn't appoint women to official position, then you need to change your thinking regading the argument you used to condemn people who don't appoint women to official positions.  

Hi Jody,

Although I support ordination of women, I do think we need to be careful with the arguments we deploy.  You argue that "To proclaim ‘you are not quite as human as me’, as happens when places of power are denied to someone based on their particular humanity, does damage both to the person declared a lesser human, and to the person who declares it."  BUT how can you reconcile it with the fact that Jesus (and the Apostles) only appointed men to positions of official authority?  Was it a mistake, or was He unaware that he was harming women, or was He deliberately harming women?

Mark, even if the bible-writers were alluding to a sexual relationship between David and Jonathan this would not  contradict the Romans 1 (and other NT and OT) condemnation of same-sex sex - even if you, erroneously, limited it to condemnation of same-sex sex by people who are naturally attracted to the opposite sex.  After all,  David's affair with, and subsequent marriage to, Bathsheba doesn't negate Jesus' condemnation of lust, adultery and divorce for remarriage!

However, I very much doubt that David's feelings for Jonathan were meant to be understood as sexual.  David is repeatedly portrayed as strongly attracted to many women but never again portrayed as so emotionally close to a man.  You "interpretation" is just wistful eisegesis - like those attempts to suggest that John mentioning "the disciple that Jesus loved" meant that Jesus had a homosexual relationship; which looks pretty silly when one notes that John also mentions that Jesus loved Mary, and Martha, and their brother Lazarus!

Less eisegesis, and more submission to the whole canon of Scripture, please. 

Thirty years ago I was in a small church that was very conservative - yet there were at least two members who were homosexual in orientation (but abstinent, mostly).  Furthermore we are assured by Inclusive Church that about 12 out of the CofE's 120 Bishops are (mostly abstinent) gay.  And there have always been many (mostly abstinent) gay people in the church..... as well as many other single people, and many people who have stayed committed to life-long marriage for better for worse, in sickness and in health etc .  

The big problem for many gay people in the church, as well as for many other single people and for many people who are struggling in their marriage, is in my opinion that tere is a huge tension between the biblical view of sexual relationships and current society's attitude: that you have a right to feel happy and fulfilled in this life (even when that entails a lot of behaviour that God calls sin and condemns throughout Scripture).

What is more, the church is being carried along with this sort of "heaven - right here, right now" approach (or, to be nicer about it, an overemphasis on realised escatology).  

This influence of current (amoral) values is clearly illustrated by the recent additional comments of the original author: "The invocation of the judgement of God in order to persuade the reader to agree with one’s argument (“Agree with me or risk God’s wrath”) is very dangerous. It undermines the gospel of grace and is essentially a form of spiritual bullying."  How is it possible that someone who has, presumably, studied the Scriptures and Christian theology can make that statement?  St Paul would turn in his grave!  

Every condemnation of same-sex sex (and many other sins) in the New Testament, and most in the Old Testament, is linked with God's wrath!!  Romans 1:24-27, 1 Tim 1:10, Jude 7 and 1 Cor 6:9-10: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There is no contradiction between the Gospel of Grace and arguing for moral behaviour on the basis that people who are immoral will have to face God's wrath. 1 Cor 6 goes on: "And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

He has shown a serious misunderstanding of what it means that we have a Gospel of Grace.

ps I would suggest that folk reread (the whole of) the Sermon on the Mount before telling me that I am being unChristian.  Jesus too spent a lot of time telling people what was right and what was sin - and, apparently, didn't seem to think that that constituted judging people. Matt 7:1, in context, obviously doesn't negate biblical moral teaching..

ps Phil Townsend's long posting is again making the same error.  He would not take that line of argument were we discussing a form of sexual behaviour that he sees as wrong (marriage of adult siblings, for instance, or polygamy).  

pps Furthermore, Phil is just arguing Situation Ethics - hardly a reasonable approach for an evangelical Christian. This approach, based on misinterpreting a few sayings of Jesus and Paul - about disagreements over foods, the primacy of love, and not being judgemental, is contradicted by Jesus's and Paul's own moral teachings!!  For instance, Matthew give us 3 chapters of Jesus' moral and ethical teaching, some extremely strict, at the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

Much as we might all like to feel that we are ok, the truth is that following Jesus involves taking up our own crosses; nothing about us is sacrosanct (so to speak): “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."