|
Fulcrum Response to Lambeth and GAFCON
The opinions expressed are the authors, and not necessarily those of the Fulcrum leadership team. Messages are subject to approval before they appear online.
You are not logged on and so have only read access to the forum.
Please Login, or Sign up for a free account so you can post replies and start new threads.
|
Messages (newest first):
|
[Sort by Oldest first]
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1/5 |
First Page |
Previous Page |
Next Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
Posted by: DavidW |
Friday 26 March 2010 - 07:52am |
To Beryl the Peril,
Well my question was whether you accept that there are people who have diseases but that in the beginning God didn’t create that way? I am still uncertain from your reply. As one can see God didn’t originally create us for disease, one can be sure its no point in thanking God for it. Jesus not only healed people but taught His disciples to pray for healing as well. God looks at the heart and mind.
It should be fairly obvious then that God's purposes are not perfectly reflected in a sin corrupted and degenerated world.
That the donkey spoke doesn’t mean all animals speak, but it does mean the donkey spoke; no idea what your point was. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Pamela |
Thursday 25 March 2010 - 12:21pm |
DavidW,
I certainly accept that "in the beginning God created male and female".
That is not to say that I accept that every successive creation is a result of God's will and design. Just as one would not expect a child with muscular dystrophy to be grateful to God for the way they have been created, neither would I expect those who are physically or hormonally orientated to be neither male or female to be grateful to God either.
And, bearing that in mind, do God's purposes dictate that we must be male OR female? Just because it was God's purpose to use the ass/donkey to speak to Balaam in the OT does not mean that it was God's purpose for all animals to speak in that way for all time.
Just because God can does not mean that He will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: DavidW |
Thursday 25 March 2010 - 07:46am |
To Beryl the Peril,
Of course there are such people today, and no God didn’t create them that way, as the word of God that I cited says ‘in the beginning God created them male and female’
Is it possible for you to accept that there are people who have diseases but that in the beginning God didn’t create that way? And indeed one day there will again be no more tears.
Is it also possible for you to accept the word of God and His purposes? |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Pamela |
Wednesday 24 March 2010 - 05:01pm |
DavidW,
You said in your penultimate post: "the human species has two sexes in the species created to reproduce sexually, homosexual orientation is therefore a human construct and error both functionally and logically, God created male and female for a reason."
Is it possible for you to accept that there is a minority of people in the world who are neither male nor female - and therefore not capable of reproduction ? Did God create them that way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: DavidW |
Wednesday 24 March 2010 - 09:54am |
The church can not tolerate doublemindedness on the homosexual issue. There is as clear NT teaching to show that the church is not to judge the world but to expel wilful promotion of sexual immorality (1 Cor 5) as there is clear NT teaching to show same sex relationships are sexual immorality, against God's creation purposes and error. (Matt 19, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6-7, Romans 1)
Reading secular commentary from the world however, it is obvious they recognise a difference of opinion within the church, and are thus confident that the church can therefore adopt the world's position and view on this. This is why there is even a potential for civil partnerships in religious establishments and why Lord Carey has just recently given the warnings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: DavidW |
Tuesday 23 March 2010 - 08:08am |
I think this statement is the crux of the matter..
“His point is that if a certain class of people are not to repent of what the Bible declares they should repent, because they were born with an orientation to this, then here is a group of people who need affirmation, not salvation, from God in matters of sexuality. “
The key word being ‘if’ There is no class of people identified anywhere in the Biblical testimony that shouldn’t repent of any of the sins described in the Bible, so there is no ‘if’ The human species has two sexes in the species created to reproduce sexually, ‘homosexual orientation’ is therefore a human construct and an error both functionally and logically, God created male and female for a reason.
Until this issue is grasped all subsequent arguments based on homosexual orientation are faulty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: CliffordSwartz |
Thursday 18 March 2010 - 08:03pm |
| Dear Roger,
Through an accidental click, I came across your postings, and read your call for statements about whether gay marriage (as an instance of issues of human sexual morality) is primary. And "primary" is taken to mean an issue over which one would break fellowship. Some scattered items in reply:
1. Scriptural Authority
In a similar vein to your discussion with Ian, the general reply has been that, since the issue is clear in the Bible, then biblical authority itself is at stake. So the Kuala Lampur Statement seems to indicate in point ten...
We are deeply concerned that the setting aside of vital teaching in such actions as the ordination of practicing homosexuals and the blessing of same-sex unions, calls into question the authority of the Holy Scriptures. This is totally unacceptable to us.
Your reply to Ian indicates, I think, that you believe this begs the question -- might the authority of scripture be maintained (by Evangelicals) but a different conclusion reached by interpretation. I have found the arguments about the relevant scriptures supporting monogamous homosexual relationships (but not promiscuous homosexual relationships) to be unconvincing. They seem to be based on the notion that, because in the New Testament era the modern notions/awareness of sexual orientation or committed same sex relationships were unknown, then the language must only refer to things such as cultic sexual practices. My reading as a first year student of Platos Symposium would seem to indicate otherwise.
2. Security of Salvation
I am unclear from your post whether you support the idea that Jesus did not speak about homosexuality so this cannot be a matter of primary importance (you could be citing the opinion of others). In any case, this point has been answered by others -- that when Jesus spoke about sexual immorality (e.g., Mark 7.20,22), the content of his statements would be informed by the Old Testament teaching on the matter, including prohibition of same sex intercourse. The same would be true of the apostles. In this, they were going against the culture of the day as much as the church does today when addressing such matters -- people were being saved in the midst of their involvement in a sexually troubled culture (as is indicated by 1 Cor 6.11).
As far as why Evangelicals view this as a matter of primary importance, they do so because it is described as a matter of salvation by Jesus and the apostles. Jesus speaks of sexual immorality defiling the heart (again in Mark 7). He also says that pride, deceit and envy likewise defile the heart. I am guilty of the items of this list and others in the New Testament, and yet I have the assurance of salvation trusting in the work of Christ on the Cross -- to present me to God undefiled, declared holy. We repent of the things Jesus lists, asking God to strip them from, not wrap them up into, our personal identity. If something He calls sin, I decide to exempt from repentance because I file it under the heading of love, then I have denied his lordship, exercised by the Spirit through the Word. The apostles, writing in cities across the Roman Empire,
make the same point -- that sexual immorality is to be repented of, and if we hold fast to it, we deny the lordship of Christ (I think this is why the use of kingdom and inheritance is used by the apostles, eg, 1 Cor 6.9, Eph 5.5).
3. An uncorrupted portion of humanity?
Paul Zahl, then an Episcopal cathedral dean, pointed out that the theological basis of the arguments in favor of homosexual relations being accepted undermines the Gospel. His address (http://www.adventbirmingham.org/articles.asp?ID=1625) is not a treatment of the scriptural texts, but would relate more to the lawful use of the law in 1 Tim 1.10 as it relates to these matters. His point is that if a certain class of people are not to repent of what the Bible declares they should repent, because they were born with an orientation to this, then here is a group of people who need affirmation, not salvation, from God in matters of sexuality.
4. Clarity of the issue as primary among non-Fulcrum Evangelicals
I see on the Reform website that there are eleven papers detailing the importance of issues of human sexuality (http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/bb/issueshsex.php), and so the stance among Evangelicals who see this as primary (ie, an issue that jeopardizes fellowship) is well stated.
5. Your view that Fulcrum avoids debate on the issue
I do not know why Fulcrum would shy away from debating the point, and perhaps the letter you refer to from the chair of the time makes this clear. I can see that there could be a concern to hold people together by having a clear line from the top, but not acting on the implications of the principle in practice, knowing this will irritate some of the constituency. That happens often enough in the Church of England. Pretty soon, however, the error becomes a tradition and is perceived to be deserving of respect because of venerability instead of veracity.
I was glad Andrew Goddard made a weighty reply to the Bishop of Liverpool recently. I was surprised to see the reference to Issues in Human Sexuality ((2.13) that there are clear rules for conduct...there is also...is a conscious focusing, in Paul especially but not exclusively, on breach of the sexual rules as one of the sins most likely to endanger the security of salvation for Christians ) in Goddards recent article. My surprise was that if he accepted this statement, then his criticism of the Bishop of Liverpools address must take on greater strength -- because the bishop endangers the salvation of his flock by false teaching.
Well, I learned at Ridley that to communicate briefly takes much more time, and so do apologize for the length of this post. Hopefully there are some points that pick up on the questions you wish to address.
In Christs service,
Clifford Swartz (ordained in York, serving in New York!)
www.christchurchnyc.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Roger Harper |
Saturday 7 February 2009 - 09:35pm |
Dear Ian,
Many thanks for replying to my latest post about gay marriage as primary or not. Like you, it seems, I am not always able to reply soon. Partly because of the way the Forum works, posting here is not now a primary concern of mine!
I understand you arguing that because Scripture is clear about homosexuality, gay marriage is a primary issue, ie one over which it is right to break fellowship.
Some people argue that women not leading churches is also clear in Scripture. Others argue that our equality in Christ is also clear and takes precedence, particularly because Jesus went as far as his cultural conventions allowed in including women, and our all being one in Christ is a weightier matter. In Scripture there are weightier matters and matters such as tithing dill and cumin. Jesus even treated the command to obey the Sabbath, as interpreted by contemporaries, as a less than weighty matter. The weightier ones are the outworking of the principles of love.
Scripture is clear that slavery is part of the way the world is. We should treat slaves well, but Scripture does not suggest abolishing slavery. However, the weightier matter of loving your neighbour as yourself eventually takes precedence.
For some people, loving faithfulness to one person is weightier than the gender of the person. And Jesus said nothing about homosexuality… If we are guided by the weightier matters of Scripture and we base all our doctrine on what Jesus said (listening to him primarily rather than equally to Moses, Elijah, Paul, and Jesus), we can believe, Scripturally, that the Holy Spirit could be leading us to support gay marriage. Even if we don’t go that far, as I don’t, we can see this as an issue which is less than primary.
You write, Ian, that you do not find these parallels compelling. Other people do. Surely there should be more good debate about this?
Lack of space constrains me from developing this further, but I hope I have shown you how an Evangelical might deem gay marriage not primary, even when, as I do, they believe it not to be of the Holy Spirit.
The importance of this matter is that if gay marriage is primary it makes sense to break fellowship over it – as Mainstream etc argue. If it is not primary, we have to instead continue to make every effort to maintain our unity.
I mentioned before that Jody said that, for her, gay marriage is not primary. It is clear that we Evangelicals disagree about this. Why not make this the subject of a Fulcrum conference?
I have been calling, on and off, for such debate since NEAC4. After Blackpool I wrote a paper criticising the Conference and calling for something better, a paper which I sent to Graham Kings. When Fulcrum announced a Day Conference on Christ and other faiths I wrote that it would be better to address the gay marriage issue in front of us rather than risk being accused of ‘theological fiddling while Anglicanism burns.’ This post was not allowed on the Forum and Francis Bridger, as Chair, wrote to me personally taking me to task. Since then I have, from time to time, continued my call for proper exploration of the adiaphora issue, to no avail. (Following one such post of mine someone replied that he agreed with me and had joined Fulcrum just to say that.) But there is only so much banging one’s head against a brick wall one can do. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Deleted user 974 |
Saturday 27 December 2008 - 12:33am |
Who and where and when is the Church of the Settled postion ? Souns nice and comfy and of course, must keep out any who would disturb its cc * too much.
If you went to art school you'd find no settled postions but room for lots of mark making, lots of contributions of free* *selves.
** not coerced
cc = cozy consensus.
Never forget that Rabbi Nachman advised talking out to God from the heart as to a friend. --- no settled postions there.
Try having a settled postion on your face at the burning bush !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Ian Paul |
Tuesday 23 December 2008 - 10:59pm |
 Kevin
You question is an important one. The most immediate measure of what the constituency thinks is to read responses on these discussions.
But it is worth noting that our website says 'renewing the evangelical centre' not 'the authentic voice of evangelicals in the C of E.' We are aiming to provide resources to strengthen evangelical reflection, and perspectives and a voice with which evangelicals can identify, not a line that evangelicals must follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Ian Paul |
Tuesday 23 December 2008 - 10:48pm |
| David
1. I wasn't 'attempting to judge' anything. My post was in response to a question about whether I saw the issue of homosexuality as 'primary' or 'secondary' in Roger's categories. I am not sure I have answered his question in the terms he sets it.
2. I was quoting my own comment from another discussion, which was primarily about doctrine, but in the first line I mention 'any position, whether a doctrine of Scripture or a position on homosexual practice' so I am clearly not stating that there is a 'doctrine' on homosexuality.
3. The main point of that quotation is that a particular position cannot be, in and of itself, a shibboleth for orthodoxy, without the hermeneutical discussion.
I am intrigued that you are worried about my position, since it can close down discussion, though in my case does not. One of the key problems in the discussion (which I have encountered personally) is that I am not allowed to have a settled position coming into the discussion, but must allow that all positions are equally valid, regardless of how well they stand up to scrutiny. The reality is that the church does have a position, and is officially always open to discussion about this, but that does not mean surrendering the position prior to any discussion of it.
The question of how the hermeneutical process differs in relation to divorce, slavery and women's ordination has been well rehearsed in the literature, but does not for me provide a compelling case on homosexuality.
I would be interested to hear which arguments have changed your mind, and how these engage with the cases put forward by, for example, Richard Hays or 'True Union in the Body'. My last conversation with Giles Fraser on this was to ask him for a compelling case built on the overarching biblical narrative, similar to True Union, but for the revisionist position. His comment was that there isn't one. But are in danger of getting off topic for this thread... |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Kevin Ellis |
Tuesday 23 December 2008 - 10:12pm |
I am not sure whether this is the best thread to raise the issue, but the reply by Ian to Roger prompts the following question, when Fulcrum speaks for whom is it speaking, and how would the Fulcrum leadership team know they were speaking on behalf of the Fulcrum constituency? This is not expressing disatisfaction at all, I appreciate the work of Graham, Ian, Simon et al and would broadly be in agreement with them; but when Fulcrum responds to GAFCON or CEEC, do Fulcrum envisage they are speaking for me, and what measures do Fulcrum have in place to ensure that they know what the constituency might be thinking?
Thanks very much for all you do. Happy Christmas when it comes.
Kevin |
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1/5 |
First Page |
Previous Page |
Next Page |
Last Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE brutal murder of a soldier in Woolwich on Wednesday, in a suspected terrorist attack, has shocked and saddened people in the area, the Bishop of Woolwich, the Rt Revd Michael Ipgrave, has said.
Ed Thornton. Church Times 24 MAY 2013
24 May 2013
The Bishop of Woolwich has said he is "deeply saddened and distressed" to hear of a fatal machete attack on a man in south-east London.
Christian Today. 22 May 2013
22 May 2013
Iran has launched a public crackdown on dissent before next month's presidential election, executing two men charged with espionage and waging war against God, arresting a group of activists, including Christians, and summoning campaigners for questioning. Political prisoners in some of the country's most notorious jails have had their parole or visiting rights withdrawn and some transferred to solitary confinement.
Saeed Kamali Deghan Guardian 21 May 2013
22 May 2013
Thanks, Bowman. And does this - the pleasantness of compliance to God's order and commands - not apply not only to aspects of the law given to Israel, which we are not obliged to keep, but also to the traditions of the apostles, which we are instructed to hold on to, and pass on to the next g...
I quite like Bowman's point that there is potential danger in bringing the women bishops issue into Ephesians 5 (if I can put it like that), which is about marriage. If we want to know 'how we should conduct [ourselves] in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pilla...
Bowman, you say that the only distinguishing quality of the relationships: Christ:man, man:woman, God:Christ, and Christ:church, husband:wife (I have added one there), is coinherence. Surely, there is a hierarchy of authority visible here. Jesus submits to the Father, the church submits to the Lo...
Michael Bourdeaux gives us a new insight into Margaret Thatcher
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
|
