To L Roberts,

Your post of to me of Thursday 10 December 2009 - 08:56pm

makes no reference to the argument and discussion. Indeed you have acknowledged the focus on sin I refered to, but not the focus on Christ I referred to.

As you can see from what I wrote, based on the testimony, thiis an example and a lesson for all of us. When we focus on Christ, and seek Him to do what He teaches, we see fellowship, avoidance of sin, (1 Cor 6:18,) forgiveness and support when falling short (Gal 6) and joy.  When we focus on the sin or decide to compromise and accept it we indulge in the sinful nature. This applies to any sin.  

So in response to your question no the opposite, I love it when we focus on Christ and His purposes rather than sin and our selfish desires. This is the gospel, the truth sets us free to live a life to the full purposes God has created us for. Halleluiah 

You love sin, temptation and fallings and failings  (in others) don't you bms?

- whether imagined or real. 

The first of the Roy Clement articles which David H linked to show well the challenges all Christians face apart from it seems homosexuals. We are all challenged and tempted. In the first testimony when the person was focussed on mission he found a loving fellowship, when he fell short he was loved and forgiven and helped. When he focussed on his same sex desires and was mislead he decided they were alright and sanctified when the word of God says they are not. 

All Christians face challenges to resist temptation.   

To David H

The first testimony in the Roy Clements link you made is very interesting indeed.

The person knew he had same sex desires but stuck with God’s word and launched himself into mission. During mission when he was focussed on serving he didn’t focus on the sexual desires. Sure he did feel some desires but put the friendship and mission first. He said it was a struggle and a blessing. Note that he says he had desires for men, as if the other men and women didn’t have desires for each other. Did any of the other men and woman have sexual relations, which also would have been falling short?

When he met another person who also had same sex desires which they discussed, they had sexual relations. As soon as the focus was on the same sex desires the temptation was not resisted.  Note that when he had fallen short he wasn’t condemned by the leadership on the mission.

Note that whilst on mission he testified to having a ‘loving family with brothers and sisters’ but afterwards ‘just as I am’ he then refers to finding love which would involve sex with another man.

But I think the key to this testimony is that he admits other Christians ‘have similar struggles with their desires’ and then merely contradicts that by saying he isn’t like heterosexual Christians. Here is the problem he is already thinking himself as different when he isn’t. In the NT the Pharisees reaction to Jesus teaching was that it was better not to marry at all if it meant having to be faithful, and Jesus offers celibacy as the alternative. Matt 19. In the case of the rich young man who wanted to justify himself, Jesus told him to give up all his possessions to which he went away sad. So homosexuals, those with same sex desires are not any different to any other Christian, at the point they decide they are they succumb to the lie. This is why the false teaching promoted in the church is so damaging. He acknowledges he might have gone out and had a sexual encounter, this is called falling short, he did have one on the mission and was forgiven by the fellowship and helped to restore, (as in Galatians 6) however once associated with the gay groups he then falls for the lie that sinful same sex relationships can be sanctified.

So my conclusion of the problem is simply gay affirming ‘Christian’ groups which seduce people with the lie. Firstly Jesus Christ has bought us all at a price, whatever our sexual attractions and whatever our desires in any respect, our hearts and minds are being renewed to conform to Christ. 1 Cor 6:20, 1 Cor 7:23, 2 Corinthians 10:5. ‘gay christians’ is misleading people into a lie, falling short and committing a same sex act is no worse than falling short and stealing something, lying, or committing adultery. It is knowing the truth that sets us free and part of that truth is that same sex relations are error. The ‘gay christian’ line then claims the sin is not compromising the faith in Christ and proceeds like the rich young man in Matt 19 and Mark 10 to try and justify itself by everything else it does which is in line with the truth.

Sorry Matt for the late reply, but I'm sort of in agreement with your Sunday post.

Nicea confirmed the divinity of Christ, but I don't think the AC have confirmed anything. We seem to be getting lost in the thickets of our own verbiage (to paraphrase Melanie Phillips in her comments on Rowan's sharia lecture).

I also believe marriage is the proper context for marriage, but it should be available to all on 21st century expectations of personal integrity. Of course, youngsters should be allowed to experiment before tying the knot (and no minister would deny couples the sacraments on that basis) - but then our views of marriage have totally changed in recent years - as Elaine Storkey has so brilliantly explained. Women are no longer chattels / sex-slaves of men.

As for the stool analogy - I wasn't coming from a position of attack. I merely wanted to point out that stools require AT LEAST THREE legs to be stable.

MattS,

If you want to investigate Roy Clements views there is a collection of articles at http://www.courage.org.uk/articles/articles.asp?CID=4 He certainly understands the evangelical argument. He gives three reasons for thinking carefully about these issues. I hope the latter two will not tempt us to fudge the first issue.

Stuart,

I am aware of Rowan Williams conclusions. It is unfortunate that he does not give us the exegesis behind them. He seems to imply that the RC position is more consistent. I think it is safe to say "abstract fundamentalist deployment" is not something he approves of.

L Roberts

Your hypothetical young people are welcomed by the Church, offered communion if confirmed and eligible for the electoral role if baptized. It is to be hoped they will have by now developed their own understanding of scripture and been exposed to both sides of this argument.

On the other matters you list, the beginning of most answers is in the 39 articles. I would be surprised if Rowan Williams would say any different. If you are looking for differences you will find them but how important are they?

David

Using stuart's quotations with thanks. 

So Rowan's views changed over an 18 year period.

What of those young people who took his guidance in 1989,  and followed his lead in 1989 ? Are they now to separate for him and for (some ) of you in 2007 onwards, because he has CHANGED HIS MIND ? Get real ...  I am so glad to be a protestant and to be reading and praying-in the Bible for myself.

"In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures." ('The Body's Grace' 1989)

"..by the end of the 80s I had definitely come to the conclusion that scripture was not dealing with the predicament of persons whom we should recognise as homosexual by nature." (Letter, 2000, http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/rowan.pdf)

"I still think that the points I made there [in 'The Body's Grace'] and the questions I raised were worth making as part of the ongoing discussion. I'm not recanting. But those were ideas put forward as part of a theological discussion. I'm now in a position where I'm bound to say the teaching of the Church is this, the consensus is this. We have not changed our minds corporately. It's not for me to exploit my position to push a change." ('Time' 2007).

Now Rowan please tell us 'the teaching of the Church' (sic) on

the nature and content of Revelation

the Atonement

the nature of salvation

the nature of the ordained ministry

the eucharistic presence and the eucharistic sacrifce

Our Lady and the Saints

etc ..............

I've looked at the article from Roy Clements (here) and he does say a lot which I have some sympathy for on first reading. He does not, however, look specifically at the issue of marriage and also the issue of the impact on evangelical ethics the "accepting" line would have on our view of other non-married relationships. 

I'm going to investigate further and post further thoughts at due course. I appreciate reading the thoughts of others too.

David H,

Briefly, a couple of quotes would attest to his views:

"In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures." ('The Body's Grace' 1989)

"..by the end of the 80s I had definitely come to the conclusion that scripture was not dealing with the predicament of persons whom we should recognise as homosexual by nature." (Letter, 2000, http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/rowan.pdf)

"I still think that the points I made there [in 'The Body's Grace'] and the questions I raised were worth making as part of the ongoing discussion. I'm not recanting. But those were ideas put forward as part of a theological discussion. I'm now in a position where I'm bound to say the teaching of the Church is this, the consensus is this. We have not changed our minds corporately. It's not for me to exploit my position to push a change." ('Time' 2007)

^Stuart

Stuart,

Where has Rowan Williams told us how he reads scripture on this point. The Body's Grace is hardly the exposition of scripture and the Torento lecture is somewhat tangential to the main issue.

David

Tony,

I'd encourage you not to be so hasty! I'm grateful for your tips on reading and intend to look at them, but I won't have time to follow everything up so quickly. I have a job and family life, (I've got my wife nagging over my shoulder now!) plus church responsibilities.

My post to Hugh (which I think you were referring to) was setting out my starting point. If we can work from there, we still might not reach agreement, but maybe better quality disagreement.  

BMS,

I am not sure why you have employed a hermeneutic of suspicion into what I have written.

But thank you for your thoughts. I will mull my undoubted errors over.

Grace,

Kevin