LOL  djr,

Not quite! but well the windows of the soul dont need to go through a third party to open the door.

Undercover mission Quite possibly, again think of the Isaeralites being led through the darkness, it requires much faith, BUT they were in the darkness, they did not hold up a plaque and say here we are under a spotlight. They followed the command and God kept them safe.

I see the first testing of faith in this case study specifically as the are the couple trusting enough to do what is right for their child, that is again specifically their child, this is very specific. Then we have the question do they have the faith to wait on God, it can be a long wait sometimes, and during that wait sometimes things change direction, is part of this call to this young couple of christians. They could of course just walk away , and that in some instances may be right, there may be somewhere else better but if it is just about fighting the leaders and trying to jostle the keys out of them is it worth it? Let the leaders have the keys, a key to a heavy door which closes people out of a place where people make a fellowship is not much use. I am thinking now of the "faith in action" series of books, whats the point in an inactive faith thats what the keys do they lock the faith out, BUT more importantly what do they lock in, they lock in leaders with no  one to lead.

I have managed to type all of this without having to wear a balaclava and shin down a drainpipe to deliver it, amazing dont you think?

If a congregation is hostile ,intolerant or how ever it is described that is thier problem the role of the mentor surely would be to befriend and stand alongside and pray with until the day that change by whatever means it comes happens. The first prayer in this instance would need to be to soften the hearts of the hard of hearted people, and pray that the child would not get sick and die in the meantime.

Angeal

Angela

Ahhh.  You have in mind some sort of undercover guerilla mission to create facts on the ground - or, in this case, inside the building?  Unfortunately, at least in our church, the people (and particularly the leaders) have the keys to the front door.

Daniel

DJR

You are of course right, I have replied to most of these questions in Richard post, I was not viewing it as" a getting away with" but more as a declaration of faith carried out in a possible hostile situation, and as has been proven to be the case in many instances that declaration often turns out to be justification in faith and a real growth point for all concerned..I was also trying to explain that "the gathering of people" can be often confined by the building. So my description of "st pauls" as only a building is true "the church is the gathering" the building is where the gathering meet.

Of course the most important thing is that the spirit   "in" the building is the spirit of those who are no longer in the building as well as those that are, these are the people whom god inspires to do great things.

Being accepted is not dependant on an individual building.

in Peace Angela

DJR

You are of course right, I have replied to most of these questions in Richard post, I was not viewing it as" a getting away with" but more as a declaration of faith carried out in a possible hostile situation, and as has been proven to be the case in many instances that declaration often turns out to be justification in faith and a real growth point for all concerned..I was also trying to explain that "the gathering of people" can be often confined by the building. So my description of "st pauls" as only a building is true "the church is the gathering" the building is where the gathering meet.

Of course the most important thing is that the spirit   "in" the building is the spirit of those who are no longer in the building as well as those that are, these are the people whom god inspires to do great things.

Being accepted is not dependant on an individual building.

in Peace Angela

Richard W hi

You are quite right in your last paragaph i completely agree with you. You are also right when you say that new Christian will not wish to be confrontative about baptism, you are also right , that new families of whatever orientation should be welcomed and given equal status in human terms so that the approach to God can be "without hinderance".

I sort of think that by the time people are ready to accept Christ blessing through the public declaration of faith that there will be the understanding that the church is a human institution, which is why i referred to the "st Pauls as a building" I appreciate that the church is a gathering of people, the building is the means of confinement of the spirit often, canon laws planning laws the health and safety laws, are all aspects  sometimes of confinement of both church and corporate and individual spirit.

Where as a portable font and a bottle of blessed holy water can be used to break free from such constraint, so new christians of course need mentors which understand and can fulfil the spiritual needs of the couple concerned, this though leaves potential gaps in terms of church legislation, if the humans have different ideas about needs and wants etc In terms of Christian blessing i would say it is both a need and want for all who have heard Jesus , same sex couples hear the call in much the same way as anyone else, so pastorally would Jesus say  come back when you are healed or would he say God made you and created you and loves you as you are? That is why i would say that all churches who are made of all kinds of people who gather together in the name of Jesus Christ have a spiritual obligation to find a way of enabling all to have access to worship on equal terms, remember it says those of you who think you are great will be humbled and those who are humble will be raised up.

There is just one little grumbling doubt in my mind, i am not saying it is right but i have thought about it, when is the need for public declaration, a need for public adulation, I am still thinking about that one. I know what it is like to be "on the edge" and the words "set apart for you lord" are there for a reason, people who live alternative lifestyles by choice or not by choice may take comfort in that. I know I have been comforted by that in the past in my own isolation in the church. It can make you stronger to think of it as not odd but unique.

But the very serious aspects of this particular case study is that this child is severely disabled and that might be life threatening, time may be of the essence, when people are facing death the last thing they need is obstruction from the clergy in the giving and receiving of blessings. I have experienced that very thing and i know how crucial it is. On those grounds the clergy need to get a grip and not leave the sick and dying without prayer.

We get back to the living with difference, the institution does not recognize difference.

Angela

 "well if you want a public declaration you can simply go as a visitor with a member of clergy who is tolerant and give the blessing if you are not allowed to use the St Pauls font take your own. Say your prayers thank God and leave. Simple!!"

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, Angela, but the example is of very young (in faith) Christians with a child who are going to "cause difficulty" by wanting a baptism. I can see how a seasoned adventurer in the high seas of Anglicanism might take a robust approach, but we're talking about how to deal with people that the church encounters in a loving way, and how to use that to make policy for how to deal with particular individuals and families in particular instances.

In my view a policy that drives away a family where one member has only recently converted, or potentially causes a rift destabilising family life and the well-being of children, is just plain wrong.

Hi WaterAngel (Angela?)

I'm a bit confused by your response to Gerry.  I would say St Pauls is first and foremost a community, not a building (the word we translate as chuch means, I think, a gathering of people, or some such thing).  Faith is not merely personal, it is public, and it is acted out within a community.

So, the question of whether you are welcome in St Pauls is, first and foremost, whether you are welcome in that community, not whether you can get away with a little ceremony in the building.

Gerry

What you write is so sadly true, but it is not true in totality. There are many people who attend "St Pauls" now remember "St Pauls" as an entity is a church building first and foremost it is a brick building, that building receives visitors many over the years. What turns that building into a house of God is built upon the "spirit of the people" now the people are not "static" in the same way as the "spirit" is not static. So although a severely disabled child may find that some in "the building" will not be bless purely on the logistical problems, there will be others who will bless and they will bless in that building. What is required for this? well if you want a public declaration you can simply go as a visitor with a member of clergy who is tolerant and give the blessing if you are not allowed to use the St Pauls font take your own. Say your prayers thank God and leave. Simple!! These issues are only as complicated as you make them, One Archbishop is one Archbishop and another is another. This way of resolving the issue could be transferred to all churches, remember "faith" is personal "God is universal" The building is simply local as precious as the memories of it are. if i take flour eggs sugar marge and milk on their own they can be used, if i blend them i create a cake so all the ingrediants are the same but presented in a blended form. I like cakes.

We are not as human beings created to think the same, look the same or act the same the secret is in the blending. Blended situations have a diversity yet wholeness about them.

Angela

I've read the document in detail. Let’s explore the sort of experience that the people in one of the fictional case studies, Oliver and William, whose story is briefly detailed, might experience in a fictional Evangelical Anglican parish, which I’ll call St. Paul’s, acting in compliance with the guidance contained in the document. All I have done here is follow one of the case studies through the guidance contained in the document – all quotes below come directly from it.

Oliver and William start attending St. Paul’s regularly after attending a course for enquirers. They are a couple in a civil partnership and they have adopted a severely handicapped child. Oliver has made a profession of faith; William hasn’t done so yet, in part because he’s picked up at St. Paul’s that being a Christian and being in a sexually active same-sex relationship are absolutely incompatible.

Oliver has made a public declaration of faith which presumably means that his ‘accountability partners’ at St. Paul’s will be encouraging him to stop having sex with his civil partner. After all, “It is important to make clear the ‘cost of discipleship’ and it would appear that this is part of what William is wrestling with as he considers his response to Christ’s call.”

At first, this done with ‘gentleness’ and ‘patience’ – although even that sounds rather rather creepy. But after a year or two, perhaps it becomes clear that not only has William not made a profession of faith, but Oliver is still having sex with him. At that point, “Sometimes it may be right that this is done in a stark, almost confrontational manner (as with Jesus and the rich young ruler).”

What might that involve? “In such situations some would call for separation and the ending of the civil partnership”. Although this should involve ‘as little damage to the child as possible’, the possibility of damage to the child seems to be accepted as a price worth paying. Until this point in the discussion, the needs of the child have been curiously absent. What sort of welcome might the child expect at St. Paul’s?

As if severely handicapped children aren’t excluded enough, because this child’s adoptive daddies are in a civil partnership, he or she may not be eligible for baptism. But that’s OK because “Other services, however, such as a service of thanksgiving and prayer for the child and for those acting as his or her parents, should be much less difficult.” (Much less difficult for whom, one wonders…) And if you or your congregation is uncomfortable with that happening in public “there is also the practical possibility of offering a private service of blessing for the child (for example in the parental home) rather than a public one before the whole congregation.”

So it seems here that a ‘welcome’ to same-sex couples involves deliberate attempts to wreck previously stable and happy partnerships, followed by marginalising any children they may have and making it clear to them that their parents are inferior to other parents in the congregation.

One’s only hope for Oliver and William is that at some point before either their relationship or any possibility of them accepting the Christian faith is destroyed, they find their way to the gay-affirming parish of St. Crispin’s down the road.

Peter

[I tried posting this yesterday, but I think something must have gone wrong somewhere]

I realised, with a sinking feeling, that your request requires me to go back through the 144 pages and sift for specific examples...  But, you must recognise the difficulty here - one person's "reasonable welcome" is a shun to others. Some examples below, but these are by no means exhaustive.

Affirmations 8-10 erect a second wall, not now around scripture, but around the inner courts of church. Everyone, apparently, is welcome in the outer courts, but at some point they are going to meet the guards at the gate, and there will be trouble. For example, in affirmation 9, "While processes of membership and discipline differ from one church context to another, we believe that either of these behaviours warrants consideration for church discipline".  

The document leaves it up to churches where they erect their particular wall. In section 5.3.8 we have: "Some will understand it to mean “incompatible with church membership” and thus entail removal or barring from church membership. Others will see it as preventing admission to church membership but not necessarily and always requiring removal...."

So, I can see there will be trouble ahead for Karen (and Ruth, page 106) who will always be tainted by association, and have their ability to lead called into question, even if their relationship is not a sexual one (see especially page 113).  I even wonder whether I would be barred from church membership, since I am developing an honestly held opinion that the traditional reading of scripture may be wrong. If I start telling others this, it seems this is a matter for discipline too (again, affirmation 9).

The document doesn't allow for honestly held differences of opinion, in the long run. So, page 117, "There are those who disagree with traditional teaching but are committed to obeying Scripture. They still need correction from Scripture...." . Oh, and won't that be fun? If you want to be welcoming, why not have a commitment towards giving space to explore the scriptural issues for themselves, but agreeing to stand by them in their conclusions?

[A brief aside on a commitment to scripture... if people really want to be committed to what scripture says, and only what scripture says, I really think there needs to be some distinction drawn in these documents between what is explicitly there in scripture, and what is interpretation, interpolation and extrapolation based on some external theological scheme. For example, marriage is used in scripture as convenient metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church, but we must consider as extrapolation any attempt to go beyond this and imbue marriage with special symbolic significance on the basis of this is extrapolation, however beautiful that may be].

In the end, for me, it goes back to a simple observation:

Girl meets boy in church. Girl likes boy, boy likes girl, one thing leads to another, wedding bells ensue, and the whole church celebrates. Leadership positions and dinner invitations follow...

Boy meets boy in church. Boy likes boy, and the feeling is reciprocated. What then? A change in orientation is required (works for some...). Or chastity, and pain, and regret, and temptation. I have heard some say that it is better to run away from each other, and from the church, than to go through this, and I can fully understand that sentiment. But, whatever the outcome, at what point, in the story of these two boys, does the whole church celebrate?  

So, I guess Gordon (page 87) will be OK, until Peter joins the church too, and they discover they like the same films.

Hello all,

Peter, thank you for the compliment. There could be a risk of turning this into a conversation just between us, so I’ll try to be brief.

I don’t see how Jude’s “sarkos heteras” can refer to “same-sex behaviour per se”, since as I said below, there is no such category in Hebrew Scripture. I have no idea where else the phrase might have been used in contemporaneous Greek literature, and don’t know where to look to find out, but I'd question if there is any need to. According to biblos.com the Greek of Jude 7 also has “ekporneusasai”, which some translations render “fornication” or “sexual immorality” – so the sexual element of Sodom’s evil is clearly mentioned. I would have thought then that the “sarkos heteras” might well refer to “humans having sex with angelic beings” given the context of Gen 19. But as I say I’m not sure it’s that important to pursue this (even though I went on at some length before…) – for one thing it seems odd to elevate Jude 7’s view of Sodom over that of Jesus (see Matthew 10:15).

For another, it still seems to me that the story of Sodom simply is not relevant to the question at hand. Leviticus, as it’s perhaps echoed in 1 Cor and 1 Tim, and Romans 1, are more important, surely? I may post more on the EA document’s reading of them tomorrow….

In friendship, Blair