|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/677
Fulcrum Subjects: Sexuality / Anglicanism, Windsor Process / Anglicanism, Evangelical / Pastoral Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 453 comments on this article Evangelical and GayFulcrum has always supported the church’s traditional stance on homosexual relationships and our position on this has not changed. However, as on other subjects, we want to encourage careful listening to other perspectives in order to make a more thoughtful response to homosexuality. The article below, which has been submitted to us, presents a thoughtful challenge to the traditional view and Fulcrum is happy to publish it in the spirit of careful listening and dialogue. The picture accompanying the article is a representation of Jacob wrestling with God. It is intended to represent the wrestling that we all do, with God and with Scripture, in our walk with God. It is by Chris Cook and the image is used with permission.
Ironically, given how hard it is to live in both tribes, many evangelicals question the evangelicalism of people like me. That is partly because our friendships are often with liberals and catholics rather than with fellow-evangelicals: Jody Stowell, in her weblog The Radical Disciple, explains why evangelical women clergy often find themselves in liberal and catholic friendships for their support network, and the reasons are not dissimilar. Another reason for the suspicion is that sexuality has become a ‘test issue’: whereas we used to regard biblicism and crucicentrism as the markers of evangelical identity, now rejection of homosexuality has also become a marker. Most conservative evangelicals are quick to point out that this is simply a result of ‘the Bible’s clear teaching’. It is, in fact, nothing of the sort. It is simply that evangelicals used not to know many gay people, if any. Now that is changing, but honour seems to demand that the boundary marker remains. As anyone who is involved in evangelism will know, this is becoming a source of embarrassment for the Church, and a distraction from our mission. Because I am an evangelical – and therefore committed to the supreme authority of the Bible – it is important to me that the Bible forms my opinions about what it is to be gay. But I cannot pretend to be straight when I read the Bible, and that means I read the text through a lens which is subtly different to the lens through which a straight man, or a woman, will read the Bible. That diversity is not a problem: it is a gift to the Church, and it helps us to see what the author is really saying. An example might help. In 1 Corinthians 7, the apostle Paul is concerned about ‘cases of sexual immorality’, and, therefore, recommends that if unmarried people ‘are not practising self-control, they should marry.’ His explanation is that ‘it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion’. The teaching here is very practical: the apostle sees a problem, and recommends, ‘by way of concession’, a solution. Paul’s concern throughout 1 Corinthians is for the mission of the whole body of Christ, and it is no different here. I find it impossible to imagine Paul saying ‘It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion, unless you are gay, in which case it is better to be aflame with passion and, therefore, not a very effective participant in God’s mission to his world.’ That would undermine Paul’s whole argument. But it is the implication of traditional evangelical readings of 1 Corinthians 7. The traditional evangelical advice to the gay person is that you must ‘not give in to the rhetoric of the gay lobby as it urges you to “come out” and accept who you are’ (Vaughan Roberts, Distinctives, p. 81). The implicit demonization of an imaginary ‘lobby’ is unfortunate. But what is more unfortunate is the idea that gay evangelicals are supposed to tell lies to other people, to themselves and to God. Roberts is right when he writes that ‘Our identity as Christians is in Christ, not in our sexuality’, but he fails to see that our new identity in Christ is what enables us to be open and honest with one another. Heterosexual people do not see their sexuality as ‘in competition’ with their Christian identity, and there is no reason why gay people should either. Indeed, to suggest that they should is extremely cruel. It leads to anxiety among gay evangelicals, and makes it difficult for them to witness to Christ. The cynic might suggest that this is the traditional evangelical aim, because heterosexual evangelical men do not want to be represented by gay people. I think it more likely – and hope – that it is actually the result of thoughtlessness. I have deliberately avoided mentioning same-sex genital acts. The reason is that when we talk about married people, we do not suddenly imagine them having sex and then rush to affirm it as a good thing. Instead, we naturally think in terms of relationships, families and communities. There is no reason why we should think differently about gay relationships. It is tragic that so many evangelicals collude with the world in sexualizing gay people. If we could talk about love instead of about sex, we might well find that we have distinctively Christian things to say to gay people. The pastoral and missional implications would be enormously beneficial. Living in the evangelical world and in the gay world is uncomfortable. There is no reason why it should be. There are, of course, things about both worlds which are unpleasant: bigotry in one, and promiscuity in the other. I approve of neither. What I long for is to be seen as a gift to the Church, and not one of its problems. Only then will evangelicals be able to take a proper part in the listening process, and argue for whichever position they decide is more biblical. Because it is that concern for the truth of the Bible which should drive us – not our concern for outward respectability. The author is an Anglican priest. He trained at an evangelical college and has served in a number of settings, but now finds himself firmly in suburbia. He is single. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 2 May 2012 - 07:21pm Dave- sorry, my reply to you hasn't shown up below. I've read the AE stuff.... Like the attempts of great brains like Roy Clements to justify sexual practiceLambeth 1.10, not I, says is incompatible with scripture, it is disappointing from an evangelical point of view..... I cannot respect arguments from silence eg 'Jesus didn't mention it'..... He didn't mention dodgy Internet sites but I hope AE aren't confused about those..... I'm happy to agree if anyone shows Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re scripture.... But even my old Cambridge hero Roy (who worked really hard and brilliantly for the gospel) couldn't show Lambeth 1.10 is wrong and even he couldn't show the sexual practice it mentions is ever blessed in any circumstances in scripture..... If anyone did, evangelicals might be persuaded..... From scripture Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Wednesday 2 May 2012 - 04:20am Bowman - a note on 2b - most of the people I know gay and straight have identities that are based on self-perceptions that are created by a huge number of things - family, education, upbringing, nationality, temperament, employment, and religion. Oh yes, and sexual orientation. But not usually sexual behaviour. To construct your identity around any one sexual behaviour is what we tend to call fetishism - and I think it is important to draw a very clear distinction between that and gay people in general. Fetishism is something found in the straight and the gay population (Charles Kingsley the great Victorian moralist and Christian was a keen spanker, as was C S Lewis (certainly as young man)- both were fervently heterosexual). The Bible has no discussion of fetishism at all - so it is not clear whether this is a good or a bad thing - perhaps we can only say that it can be very limiting to people whose fetishes are ireplaceable - it can inhibit the capacity for normal sexual life - as without the presence of the fetish object or behaviour in extreme cases there can be no sexual satisfaction. Most people are not fetishistic. And it is important not to focus discussion of the life of gay people on any one sexual behaviour (unnaked) as if they were as a class of fetishists! They are not. Nersen has a tendency to do this, despite my telling him on a number of occasions that there is no standard sexual behaviour among the gay population. Gay identity is about a great deal more than what you do or don't do in the bedroom. Of course a particular orientation to one's sexual attraction is involved, but it is lot more than that. Gayness per se does not make me like all other gay people, and I can no more tell anything about the sexual life of another gay person simply by virtue of knowing that they are gay than I can about any straight person. All I know, if I know their orientation, is that I know their orientation. And then again, I don't know if that is exclusively to the opposite gender, or the same, or a mix, or if they have had fleeting attractions in the other direction or whatever. So harping on about any behaviour is not a lot of help in all this . Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 1 May 2012 - 10:32pm Thx Bowman- you're right, I'm assuming we are all the same and all can only be saved by grace.....in Mark 7, Christ says we all have inclinations which are sinful....in our hearts/identities. But it is how we respond which matters.....to our inclinations and to God's grace. Christ makes no excuses for sin even when He shows amazing grace, eg to the woman caught in adultery in john 8..... His message is not 'fulfil your inclinations' but is it not, 'Neither do I condemn you.....go and sin no more'? Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Monday 30 April 2012 - 09:28pm The Bishop of Liverpool's Presidential Address to Diocesan Synod, 2010 is really quite interesting. And I think sums up a lot of evangelical thinking. Which, being executively summarised, seems to be: "we have lived with different opinions on other moral questions for centuries, so we can live with different opinions on this one" [My paraphrase] Its not worth splitting over. quote: ...we do already as a Diocese accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality in the same way that the church has always allowed a diversity of ethical opinion on taking human life. Within our own fellowship we are brothers and sisters in Christ holding a variety of views on a number of major theological and moral issues and we are members of a church that characteristically allows a large space for a variety of nuances, interpretations, applications and disagreement. I know that sometimes it stretches us, but never to breaking point, for it seems to me that there is a generosity of grace that holds us all together. If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be? That in a world of such little love two people sought to express a love that no other relationship could offer them? And if those advocating the acceptance of gay relationship are right and the traditionalists are wrong what will their sin be? That in a church that has forever wrestled with interpreting and applying Scripture they missed the principle in the application of the literal text? Posted by: Bowman Monday 30 April 2012 - 08:42pm Nersen-- You are too kind; as the term ends, I've been a slow poster. I think you might agree that you have been raising two "new" sorts of questions of late, and that they may have escaped the notice of some villagers. Restating them in my own admittedly quite different way, they concern self-regulation and personal identity-- (1) How is the self-regulation required for a homosexual to remain celibate different in principle from all the other sorts of self-regulation that a Christian life requires? (2a) What is it that a gay identity supplies for life or faith that an evangelical Christian identity does not? Or-- (2b) How is it better to take on the cognitive dissonance of disbelieving the face meaning of the scriptures and constructing a personal identity around a sexual practice than to accept that one has an inclination to sin, and work out one's repentence as an evangelical Christian? Perhaps we could add to Nersen's questions-- (3) Given that a person has homosexual inclinations, is it easier to maintain a Christian identity in the Church of England as a catholic or as an evangelical, and why? It is worth noting that identity-making is happening rather a lot in our world, and the bishops stress in 1.10 that Christ is the ground of a Christian's identity. Taking the long view, we could well see similar pastoral issues arise with other groups as yet unknown. Posted by: Bowman Sunday 29 April 2012 - 04:28pm Ambrose-- Thanks for a useful link. Posted by: Dave Sunday 29 April 2012 - 03:42pm Nersen and David W Since we have come to the Accepting evangelicals site, perhaps you can comment on their exposition in the series Bible Focus http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/resources/ Dave Posted by: DavidR Sunday 29 April 2012 - 02:52pm Nersen, I doubt I am alone in finding your comments to Pluralist, his views and his faith, unacceptably rude. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 29 April 2012 - 01:47pm pluralism, unitarianism....totally irrelevant to a thread re evangelical views..... mere trolling to repeat ad nauseam, totally unsurprising non-evangelical views on this thread.... the unitarians get around 0.01% of the UK population attending..... tragic and irrelevant to more than just evangelicals in this country today? All can read the thread title to test whether contributions are engaging with this thread or just boring trolling.... Ambrose - thanks for the link but the trouble with the link you have given, and even with what great brains like Roy Clements have written post changes in his circumstances, is that while claiming to be evangelical and perhaps being true to scripture on many issues, those trying to justify a revisionist view on this one issue make no positive case from from scripture to show that the sexual practice Lambeth 1.10 says is incompatible with scripture is in any circumstances blessed in scripture. Why not, if they are pushing an evangelcal position? And if there is such a strong case from scripture against Lambeth 1.10, why was there no vote to repeal at Lambeth 08 to get rid of it? Most of the AC's evangelicals were not even there....easy to get Lambeth 1.10 removed then if it is wrong re scripture...... the case from scripture to justify the sexual practice in any circumstances which Lambeth 1.10 says is incompatible with scripture is never forthcoming - or what verses would you refer us to? Bowman - thanks for your reply - I think it is quite important not to make any sin special, whether to condemn it or justify it...... some make greed special and materialism even becomes blessing in their eyes (and sermons)....regardless of what scripture says re storing up treasure on earth and the poor....... I don't buy that as it is selective re scripture and ignores many verses which are inconvenient to our greed. Same goes for other sins....what does scripture say is what matters..... nobody can show (below or anywhere else) that the NT overturns the OT laws re sexual practice, especially as it reinforces it. But, we learn more about God's grace in Christ - so we see Christ in John 8 not stoning someone caught in sin (grace) but offering her a new life (grace)......with the words 'go and sin no more'.......... no excuses for sin, no arguments from silence, no licence to sin.....but God showing his gracious response to us sinners - by offering us the chance of repentance and a new life......... same attitude with little Zac....... is that not Christ's message to us all - '....neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 28 April 2012 - 08:21pm When people come through Unitarian doors for the first time, and that they do is why the denomination continues along, they often say something like, 'Well I've actually been Unitarian all the time.' In other words, the views of a small denomination are far more widespread than the group itself. And let's be clear, the reason the Anglican Covenant failed wasn't because there was a solid churchgoing majority of evangelicals but because the broad Church in the C of E is much stronger than others often think. The difference between my contributions here than those of Nersen Pillay's is that I actually engage in the arguments of what others say. He just repeats. I don't, like him, make the rule of debate and then say no one else meets the rule. If you turn biblical scriptures into a rule book - which they are not - and then invent a Communion with an authority system - which it does not possess - then you find your repetition secure. Everyone else becomes a 'revisionist'. We keep hearing an argument here from apparent numbers, but by far the biggest number is the 95% that do not attend any church with loyal frequency, and it is in that somewhat secular, dare say, unitarian-like, society where attitudes to gay blessings and recognition have changed and changed to the good. Posted by: Bowman Saturday 28 April 2012 - 07:20pm The NT texts that we have seem to be directed at the pagan society around the first Christians rather than against any nascent movement of 1st C homosexuals with Resurrection faith. That makes them harder to apply to the present circumstance without resort to the NT's other injunctions to "try the spirits," "hold fast what is good," etc. to get clear what in lived situations today actually glorifies God in Christ. The intent of the texts is fairly clear. In the post-Resurrection messianism of Jesus's disciples, God's grace in support of marriage was and is a sign that he has begun to repair the damage done in the Fall. It seems obvious that, as the faith moved into the gentile world, the apostles were concerned to draw a stark contrast between the values of the old pagan society and the values of a new society rooted in confidence that the reign of God had begun. They did so in other aspects of life beyond sexuality. Yet, clearly, any such contrast would have to specify sexual practises that compromise personal integrity, participate in idolatry, glorify domination and cruelty, and alienate women and men from each other. Such practises directly oppose the Way of those who believe that God in Christ had begun to set the original created order aright, and that relations between women and men are a part of that order. However, it is not obvious that a practise that is not doing any of those destructive things in other contexts would have been important to condemn for its own sake. And that is the question today. As Nersen has pointed out, often, there is no hearty approval of homosexual practises or orientations in these texts, although it is not clear what would have motivated random endorsements of behaviours in texts that tend to have a virtue ethic, rather than the legal ethic characteristic of Judaism. And, curiously, though I have often asked below for some argument that contemporary homosexuality is a manifestation of God's creative intention for humanity, I am still waiting for one. So facing today's question, we have as yet no case to consider. We also have very imperfect knowledge of homosexualty itself, which is part of the reason why it is difficult to make the argument for which I have been asking. Despite some interesting clues from genetics and epigenetics, we are not close to an enduring neurobiological explanation for the inclination itself. In the 21st C, that gap in our knowledge preempts most discussion of the psychology of homosexuality, which leaves us unable to tell from evidence whether it is a natural kind or a disorder. But this gap may not go unfilled long. What in that situation is a pastor to do in any of the myriad situations that arise in relation to a homosexual inclination? She or he will certainly affirm the apostolic values mentioned above in helping all persons, for they were from the beginning implicit in the appearances of the Lord after his Resurrection. We cannot imagine an orthodox Christianity that is indifferent to the embodiment of persons, hence we cannot imagine an orthodox Christianity without a sexual ethic. However, is there anything further to say to homosexuals as assuredly from God? I have posted on the "...Understand..." thread the position of a pastor who believes that the texts often mentioned prove that homosexual acts per se are sinful. What is striking to me in reading the transcript of his talk is that his actual approach is not notably different from what a pastor might try in relation to, say, a Christian tempted to sin because of a neurobehavioural disorder. He does not offer cures; he offers Jesus, or as he says, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus." If the gospel is true, then God has the power to enable the obedience that he desires. That obedience may be celibacy, as many homosexuals who have been exemplars to all Christians have discerned, and in that case, a pastor will be concerned to support that calling. But all obedience in all of us will always depend on prevenient grace, and all the glory for it goes to Him. Postscript-- Getting at God's truth is more important than figuring out which group can best claim to own it, but there is one caution worth mentioning that should affect the way we assess the several theological traditions. No matter how one reads the much-discussed texts, one cannot read other texts that bear on discernment out of the scriptures. Among these one would count, not just the few mentioned above, but also the whole system of St Paul's virtues ethic. One reason why one cannot, apart from their canonicity, is that discernment is an activity made necessary by the very claim that, amid the flux of life experience, there are evidences of the work of God that began in Christ that believers can see. Where a theological position cannot accommodate situational discernment at all, perhaps in the pursuit of an angelic objectivity not given to us, it falls under inevitable suspicion. Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Saturday 28 April 2012 - 07:17pm http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/ Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 28 April 2012 - 01:51pm >445 posts and still nobody shows that an evangelical (that is someone with a high view of scripture, not a revisionist who goes against scripture when they do not agree with it) can condone, in any cirucmstances, or engage in the sexual practice what Lambeth 1.10 says is 'incompatible with scripture......... why not? What unitarians think is totally irrelevant for this thread (and this country as their near extinction shows)...... but we get endless posts stating irrelevant views to this and other threads .....not persuasive or even interesting, just trolling? Open Revisionists have a position with intellectual integrity - they reject scripture where it doesn't fit with their world view and are honest about it. That is not a challenge to an evangelical position as it makes no case from scripture. What is not persuasive is the assertion that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re scripture but no clear, strong evidence below to show that is the case...... a single verse which is not negative on the sexual practice in question from anyone? A single verse which blesses it in any cirucmstances whatsoever? I see below and other threads that some are very keen to take what the bible says re money, the poor and greed - but then merely reject what the bible says re what sexual practice is not acceptable to God in scripture (given they never show Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re scripture but just assert that)...... that is not an evangelical position... closeted revisionism? Posted by: DavidW Friday 27 April 2012 - 08:15pm Pluralist, I appreciate you are unlikely to be interested in Romans 1, but I think you ought to as it is a Christian forum and crucial to the Christian belief in God’s revelation to us that same sex relations are error. Do you think that is fair or perhaps we might reject your unbelief as the broad path that leads to destruction (as the Bible says) or just plain blind to the anatomical and biological reality. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Friday 27 April 2012 - 06:08am Just for clarity's sake, DavidW, I'm not interested in Romans 1. I regard the possibility of transcendence as far wider and broader than that description, and I reject it. I reject completely what you stand for. If there is transcendence then gay love, like all love, and sex involved as its expression, will be part of that transcendence. I reject Romans 1 in precisely the same way as I reject Leviticus and many a number of biblical texts. Posted by: Dave Thursday 26 April 2012 - 06:19pm Jody, We ALL bring our own assumptions to the Bible. The only escape is the renewing of our mind. That is why Grant Osborne speaks of a Hermeneutical Spiral Dave Posted by: Dave Thursday 26 April 2012 - 04:20pm Ambrose. You refer us to an interesting article which asserts: The Bible’s clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written. And bases this on a quote from the OCD “No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term ‘homosexuality,’ and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. … The application of ‘homosexuality’ (and ‘heterosexuality’) in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.” This is quite illogical. If Paul is not aware of a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual people, his reference must be to all people. Thus Romans 1 cannot be limited to heterosexuals but as equably relevant to all people. For an example of a close reading of the text based on compassion, which does not rely on the man of straw arguments of this article I would refer you to Richard Hayes article Homosexuality : Rebellion Against God Dave 
Posted by: Jody
Thursday 26 April 2012 - 12:02pm
Hi DavidW Can't you see that you are bringing your own assumption to the Bible yourself?! You bring 'Homosexuality is condemned' to the Biblical witness and thus you find it there! So in fact it's not treating the Bible very well at all, is it? Of course we all bring our own 'lenses' to Scripture and we might be inclined one way or the other on the issue of sexuality, but you seem to be saying that yours is the Biblical interpretation, when actually you've already made up your mind before you even go to Scripture..... It's just not very biblical. Jody Posted by: DavidW Thursday 26 April 2012 - 10:48am Ambrose, Here is a short critique of the first part of the linked article by Origen Adam. The problem with these articles and is the Bible is being approached from a point assuming the very thing being looked for, isn’t already condemned, when it is! So actually there is no point in reviewing it all as it is all based on a clear false assumption. Christians are increasingly divided over the issue of the acceptance and inclusion of gay persons into the church. The answer is no, Christians are not divided at all. What does he mean by ‘gay persons’? As far as the Anglican Communion is concerned, Lambeth 1.10 makes it quite clear people who experience same-sex orientation are accepted in the church, loved by God, and as baptised believers, full members of the Body of Christ; while rejecting homosexual practice, which according to the Biblical testimony and the faith, is sin, error and a barrier to the Kingdom. So Ambrose, are ‘gay persons’ not people who experience same sex orientation? After all there are already some people who experience same-sex orientation in the church who order their lives and reject homosexual practice. Or are the ‘gay persons’ being referred to unbelievers who endorse sinful same sex relations? So no, Christians are not divided, Christians welcome any believers into the fellowship of believers as fellow believers regardless of sexual orientation, what they don’t welcome is unbelief and same sex practice. So yes ‘gay persons’ must be accepted in the church if they are believers, but no ‘gay persons’ cannot be accepted in the church if they are intent on being unbelievers. This isn’t an issue of sexual orientation at all, this is an issue of faith or unbelief. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Wednesday 25 April 2012 - 10:53pm @DavidW:“Firstly I find it incredible that even an atheist would cite the views of an atheist as to the nature of Christianity as you have done regarding the fairies and Richard Dawkins.” I'm glad you like it! I think Dawkins was superb when he spoke the truth about the pope at last years anti-pope march. He's another of his quotes for you. Its about your God, and I dare-say Phil Almond's God too! DavidW's God is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. "but there are many who also think anatomically dysfunctional same sex relation is disordered thinking" Just like there are many who think that black people are stupid! Its people like you who wish to return to the days of 'No Blacks & No Irish' notices on B&B's. And ask why shouldn't people choose who they like to stay in their own 'home.' Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 25 April 2012 - 06:44pm I agree with Kevin Ellis, that we should be careful about what we say not least because Christ teaches we will be accountable for what we say. However, is that any use when people are saying things contrary to what Christ taught and thinking Christ is going to approve? Sorry, DavidW, but I can't follow your thought here. You probably do not mean to say-- When people are acting as though they are confused about what Christ approves, we do not need to be "careful about what we say." But if not, then it is unclear what you do mean. This is worth figuring out. All of us do see such inconsistencies on many moral issues, and in fact all of us are inconsistent with what Christ approves in some ways that we do not see. Both as speakers and as hearers, it would be helpful to be clear about what is actually useful in motivating persons, including ourselves, to rethink what is thus mindlessly done, or in a word, to repent. So-- what works? Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 25 April 2012 - 01:10pm Pluralist, The problem I have with the point you are making is that Romans 1 describes what is wicked, if one doesn’t recognise such things as wicked then how would one see them as wicked in others? Indeed many call same sex relations loving, but when God hates same sex relations it isn’t loving to God. If one encourages others in what God sees as wicked then its slandering and malice towards God is it not? Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 25 April 2012 - 01:09pm Ambrose, The link you gave is gobblegook. Just another false teacher giving his false teaching which the Bible describes as wicked suppression of the truth. Why is he looking for evidence in the Bible for gay people when the Bible tells us there is no such identity in Christ? God created male and female; it was for this reason a man shall ... be united with his wife. What he is doing is creating a human reasoning that is contrary to what the Bible says, and trying to deceive people into accepting it because it isnt directly mentioned. 2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." Origen Adam, Sorry but we have not been given any answers from God’s word, only the ideas of those who disbelieve God’s word. And Lambeth 1.10 is the Anglican churches position in line with scripture, we can read what the Bible says. Posted by: Dave Tuesday 24 April 2012 - 12:04pm DavidW You wrote: "Who apart from God haters cares about what the similarities are?" This was in the context of a list of questions raised by Jody. The implication of this was seen by Jody and several other villagers. It is was not your intention perhaps you should make this clear. The progression in Romans 1 starts with pride v22, leading to idolatry v23. After discussing homosexuality in 24-27, the outworking of unrighteousness are listed in 30 &31. Here God haters are mentioned. This is a type of unrighteousness rather than a characteristic of homosexuality. Dave Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Tuesday 24 April 2012 - 03:48am As a matter of interest, I have met and been friendly with gay folk in active relationships and have not found them to be filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, nor are they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, or ruthless. I've found them to be rather pleasant, friendly, loving, interesting people, and rather like everyone else really. So the fact that someone enjoys certain forms of sex doesn't make them be one, some or any of these biblical descriptions; just because someone enjoys such sex with a partner cannot imply that they are God haters or wicked or inventors of evil or anything else. Regarding Jody, DavidW says: Not sure that anyone has actually called you a God hater, I think it is you have identified yourself as one on the basis of what the word of God says. I don't think she did, and really the Bible has got this wrong, but even then she was only expressing an opinion (not joining in) and wasn't identifying herself as anything. Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Monday 23 April 2012 - 08:57pm More of the word for today ! http://johnshore.com/2012/04/02/the-best-case-for-the-bible-not-condemning-homosexuality/ Posted by: Kevin Ellis Monday 23 April 2012 - 08:45pm You may indeed have a point Peter, in the way I have conflated two separate issues. I still think we should be careful with language even with regard to orthodoxy when we are communicating virtually. I also believe some of the questions Jody asked were unknown to some of our predecessors. As to a confessional statement, I am not opposed to such an idea; but I am not part of the Fulcrum leadership team; I am just an ordinary punter like you. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Monday 23 April 2012 - 04:53pm @Nersen:"Origen, you quote scripture sometimes but still never show where in scripture the sexual 'practice' which Lambeth 1.10 says is 'incompatible with scripture' is in any circumstances blessed by God..... Why not? " Because you have been given all the answers several times by several different people and you remain unconvinced just like others remain unconvinced by the arguments for women's ordination. Is it possible for you to give up mentioning Lambeth 1.10 for a whole week? Just wondering! Posted by: DavidW Monday 23 April 2012 - 03:26pm Origen Adam, Firstly I find it incredible that even an atheist would cite the views of an atheist as to the nature of Christianity as you have done regarding the fairies and Richard Dawkins. Sure they may think it is ‘like’ that but there are many who also think anatomically dysfunctional same sex relation is disordered thinking. As to Matthew 25:41- 46, but on the issue of same sex relations: If one reads it in context of the rest of the Bible, how can one imagine that encouraging what is error and leads to death, be giving anyone anything to drink or eat? John 14-17 says that those who do what He teaches love Him and those who don’t are branches that are cut off. Jesus was very patient and forgiving to those who sought Him, but gave short dismissal to those who argued with what He taught. Can I suggest you take Matthew 25 into account with the rest of Christ’s teaching, not least Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 5-7, Romans 1. Before you start asking others to believe other bits Posted by: Another David Monday 23 April 2012 - 01:47pm DavidW, What Rom 1 says is that for people who reject God, and worship idols, God "gives them over" to certain practices (so these seem to be a consequence, not the rebellion itself). However, it is a logical inconsistency to say that those who do those practices must be those who who have rejected God and worship idols. Those who reject God and worship idols I suspect also engage in heterosexual sex. Does that mean that all those who engage in heterosexual sex are idolaters? One does need to read Rom 1 in context. That context is the conclusion all have sinned. I have read that one way of viewing the relationship between Rom 1 and Rom 2 is that in the former Paul is setting up his Jewish readers for the impact of the latter. "Look", he says of the pagan worshippers, "see how their idolatory leads to [what a Jew would see as] vile and shameful." But then Rom 2 comes and this points out with equal force that they are just as sinful. Their practices, not regarded as vile and shameful, were equally far short of God's standard. The measure I give will be the measure I get. That gives me pause whenever I find myself passing judgement on others (other drivers on the road, in particular, in my case!) Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Monday 23 April 2012 - 12:53pm @Peter:"To describe a person as homophobic is to accuse them of personal malice towards other people. " I don't think this defines homophobia at all. If you look at the BNP's website their racism isn't one of "malice towards other people." Homophobia is thinking that LGBT people are not the same as you, and therefore shouldn't have the same rights in society as you enjoy and should be discriminated against. I don't think it necessarily has to include hatred or malice although obviously it can do. As I have previously quoted, Martin Luther Kings wife says "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." "However, it is a fantasy to imagine that the people who participate on this thread have a shared confessional basis to an orthodox christian faith." And presumably it's you who's orthodox! And I guess to qualify as orthodox you are also anti-women's ordination, pro-slavery, anti divorce & remarriage etc. Posted by: Phil Almond Monday 23 April 2012 - 12:07pm Peter You make a good point. But, as I have said on another thread "We are faced with a situation in the Church on earth where those who believe that Christianity is in some sense true and consider themselves to be Christians disagree at the deepest level about what the truths of Christianity are; foremost among them who God and Christ are, what they are like, what they have said and done, are saying and doing, will say and do; and what is the most important need of every person alive today and how that need can be met." The disagreements on Fulcrum are about what the truths of Christianity are. Phil Almond Posted by: Iconoclast Monday 23 April 2012 - 11:02am "Unless I am mistaken, in which case I would appreciate being corrected, can you point to where I referred to Jody as a God-Hater" Delighted to do so DavidW. If you read my post carefully you will see that I wrote was that you cannot infer (not "refer to" ) Jody as a God Hater. What you wrote about Jody was: "Not sure that anyone has actually called you a God hater, I think it is you have identified yourself as one on the basis of what the word of God says.r" So what you have done is made an inference that Jody is a God Hater by judging her to be at variance with the Word of God based on what you assume she thinks about homosexuality where all she has done is indicate that we may need to show some pastoral sensitivity to them. She has nowhere stated that she approves of homosexuality and that it is right and normal for christians. I think Jody recognises, perhaps in a way that you don't, that ministering grace to homosexuals requires more than just telling them that God hates what they do and they are going to hell. Posted by: DavidW Monday 23 April 2012 - 08:54am I agree with Kevin Ellis, that we should be careful about what we say not least because Christ teaches we will be accountable for what we say. However, is that any use when people are saying things contrary to what Christ taught and thinking Christ is going to approve? I heard George Galloway say that because he will have stand before God one day he will vote for equality and gay marriage seemingly oblivious to the fact that God according to His Biblical testimony says it is detestable to God. Furthermore, are we treating opinions which aren’t in the Bible, equally with what is? We should be looking to what the scripture says rather than people’s opinions about others who believe it means what it says. Posted by: DavidW Monday 23 April 2012 - 08:20am Iconoclast, Unless I am mistaken, in which case I would appreciate being corrected, can you point to where I referred to Jody as a God-Hater. I am not sure I referred to anyone by name, but highlighted what Romans 1 says about those who turn from God and practice the things described, including men abandoning natural relations with women and committing indecent acts with men. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 22 April 2012 - 01:20pm Origen, you quote scripture sometimes but still never show where in scripture the sexual 'practice' which Lambeth 1.10 says is 'incompatible with scripture' is in any circumstances blessed by God..... Why not? Posted by: Kevin Ellis Sunday 22 April 2012 - 11:58am I have no problems with robust debate. I think some of the strident language involved poses a problem in a virtual setting like this Forum. As we do not know each other, nor the journey each one of us is on; a critique of a position can read like criticism of a person. Thus, I cannot accept for a moment that Jody is being "unorthodox" or DaveW is "homophobic". Words can point us to particular conclusions; but are not the whole truth about a person. As an Evangelical minister, I would urge each of us to be careful about not only what we say; but how we say it. This does not rule out strong statements. The scriptures are full of such examples; but many of those examples were done in the context of relationships, which were not restrictd to the virtual world. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Sunday 22 April 2012 - 12:51am @DavidW:"Orgin Adam and others. Are you now prepared to acknowldge that the Christian faith inclusively includes communion with the fairies who live at the bottom of Peter's gardne? Are you prepared to speak it publically?" I refer you to my reply to Peter below. But also I suggest you read Matthew 25. I'm sure you have dotted all the i's, tithed all your spices, and kept all the reformed theology but if that's all you do then you're gonna burn. 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Sunday 22 April 2012 - 12:44am @Peter:"I guess my question to you would be if I decide this evening that my evangelicalism is about a deep communion with the fairies who live at the bottom of my garden" Maybe! Some people have entertained angels unaware. And other people like prof Dawkins think talking to God is akin to talking to the fairies too - or a sign of mental illness. Each so his own I suggest. What's important to me, and I would suggest God too, is not what you believe but what you are doing. Are you feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the orphan, looking after the widow? If you're doing these things I don't care whether you talk to the fairies or not! Posted by: Iconoclast Saturday 21 April 2012 - 10:50pm David W, In what she has written I do not sse that Jody has explicilty said anywhere that she approves of 'those who practice such things as men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with men'. She certainly feels that the church has a pastoral responsibilty to them. I do not think you can infer that she is a 'God hater' at all. Posted by: DavidW Saturday 21 April 2012 - 09:34pm I would like to thank Peter for his post, but would go futher. Orgin Adam and others. Are you now prepared to acknowldge that the Christian faith inclusively includes communion with the fairies who live at the bottom of Peter's gardne? Are you prepared to speak it publically? Posted by: DavidW Saturday 21 April 2012 - 09:30pm Jody, You wrote "I guess I'm not willing, for this forum at least, to be in discussion with people who call me a God hater" Well that is what Romans 1 calls those who turn from God and approve of those who practice such things as men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with men. Not sure that anyone has actually called you a God hater, I think it is you have identified yourself as one on the basis of what the word of God says. What I am noticing is people are happy to debate until they are too offended by the word that the have to silence those citing what the Bible says. All very well for people like myself to be called homophobic but not ok to say what God’s word says about same sex relations. It is indeed loving and gracious to teach the truth (2 Tim 3:16) to fellow believers. Posted by: Kevin Ellis Saturday 21 April 2012 - 07:42pm The questions that Jody asks are deeply pastoral and consonant with a gospel that is fundamentally inclusive. Moreover, they are questions that parish priests like me are increasingly having to ask. They are not the only ones of course. We do not live in a world where everything is clear-cut. Nothing has changed there. The followers of Jesus after the resurrection struggled with whether a Gentile could be a follower of Jesus as a Gentile - and there were good people on both sides of that debate; even though I believe that the side which "won" were being faithful to the God revealed in the Hebrew Bible. There were good people on both sides of the Reformation battles too. I am an Evangelical. I do my best to submit to the Lordship of Jesus. I love the Scriptures, and believe that they are divinely inspired and authoritative for belief and praxis. The Scriptures need to be carefully interpreted within the community of believers. I am not a member of the Fulcrum Team, nor do I personally know anyone on it; although I have exchanged tweets with both Jody and + Graham. My point is simple: our rhetoric at times turns people off. It is rude. It is sometimes offensive. I find myself having to apologise to Gay men and women when my Evangelical friends are so strident that they appear to forget that there are human beings at the centre of this debate; and the gospel demands that we show courtesy and respect. May each one of you know God's rich blessing at this time. Perhaps we can agree to be truthful, but loving; filled with grace - for grace has no limits.
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 21 April 2012 - 07:25pm
I don't believe that *questions* are in themselves orthodox or unorthodox. And I think that a community that stops questions being asked is at best incredibly unhealthy. Posted by: Iconoclast Saturday 21 April 2012 - 06:33pm Thank you Jody, that is very helpful. The question you raise about intersex conditions is an interesting one I would like to see discussed here as it does not fit neatly on either side of the gay debate. I have yet to read a considered theological and pastoral response to this area of sexuality. What do conservatives have to say to christians with intersex conditions? What should the pastoral response be? To say they are few and far between ( which is one response I have seen), does not really deal with the issue. They do exist. So what would you say to them? For those unfamilar with intersex and the issues involved see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 21 April 2012 - 04:56pm
Iconoclast there is a navigation bar which pops out on the right hand side if you scan your mouse over it. This gives you an index of labels, which you can click on and it shows the posts linked to that label. There is also an archive where you can search in terms of date. In general the images are in date order as you see them, just like when it's linear, but this is in a grid formation, and when you move your mouse over them they will tell you the title of the post. Jody Posted by: Iconoclast Saturday 21 April 2012 - 04:45pm Jody, I am not concerned as to whether your unwarranted and disparaging response to my question makes me feel better or not. I am simply interested to know how you see yourself in the evangelical spectrum and how it informs your activities on Fulcrum. It is not my intention to judge you in any way. Your blog contains many interesting comments on a number of issues facing the church that deserves wider dissemination but I confess I found its 'scrapbook' layout somewhat difficult to navigate. Is there some kind of index? Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Saturday 21 April 2012 - 04:32pm @Peter:"If you are now censoring out orthodoxy, you need to accept that you are no longer entitled to describe yourself as evangelical" Says who? Who has the right to define what evangelical means? Evangelicalism has been changing its definition for years as you will have noticed over the last few decades. Women in leadership is accepted, so is divorce and remarriage, and even homosexuality is accepted in some evangelical churches I know. Perhaps you need to define yourself as a religious fundamentalist!
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 21 April 2012 - 04:10pm
*sigh* Why? Would that make you feel better? For a response to your question read 'One of Those', a post on my blog, click on the picture of coloured labels. Jody Posted by: Iconoclast Saturday 21 April 2012 - 04:04pm Jody, I notice that your own blog the 'Radical Disciple' which I read was originally called the 'Radical Evangelical' . It seems that you have now dropped the evangelical moniker. Is this because you no longer identify with what passes for evangelical mainstream orthodoxy as Peter suggests below? Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 21 April 2012 - 02:31pm Davidr - you don't quote the NT where Christ and his apostles are really not very gracious at all to false teachers? Those who presume to teach were treated quite differently to those in pastoral situations (eg the woman caught in adultery who was caled to repentance and new life).....and we are explicitly taught in the NT to respond in quite clear ways to false teachers...... graciously and lovingly not to accomodate them in the church (2 Tim, Titus, Matt 5).....
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 21 April 2012 - 02:07pm
Hi there are times for the proclamation of 'right and wrong' - I'm not sure we're there yet with this, the conversation has not even been allowed to happen. I remain convinced that there are more in the middle area than at the extremes and so I am willing (against my norm) to censor the comments for my recent blogpost on discussing sexuality, 'The Sixth Thought', so that it doesn't get overwhelmed by the positional arguments. If you are up for exploring the middle ground, please do swing on by..... Jody Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 21 April 2012 - 01:40pm Hi Jody - a loving and gracious pastoral response to the examples you give, if that response is to be Christian, must be compatible with scripture revealed by the Holy Spirit of God.... if it is to be based in God's love in those pastoral situations. Christ with the woman caught in adultery.....He did not condone her adultery because her life was tough (or that we cannot define words like adultery a la Mark B etc etc) but Christ gave her the chance of a new start with the words: 'Go and sin no more' - that is a Christian pastoral response - lovingly offering them the hope that Christ gives of new life and repentance....... JeremyP - I am not parroting anything ..... Lambeth 1.10 stands even if you wish it did not .............. if you are an evangelical, it matters that you have never been able to show anywhere in scripture which condones the sexual 'practice' which the ABC says 'the mind of the Communion' says is incompatible with scripture' but which you condone (even if in only very rare circumstances). If you are not an evangelical (ie quite happy to go against scripture where it doesn't fit with your ideas) then I can understand your position (but this thread is about evangelicals, not revisionists) Posted by: DavidR Saturday 21 April 2012 - 01:19pm Nersen, when we ask for graciousness on these threads it is not an attempt to avoid honest debate or telling other people that we think they may be wrong. I don't know why you think that. Open discussion needs truthfulness. It may include quite frank and honest exchanges. But being gracious is the spirit in which we do that; the tone and words we use; the care we take to listen to the other side, to check out so as not to jump to conclusions that are actually misunderstandings; the willingness to respectfully disagree with a fellow scripture-believing Christian overdeeply held beliefs; a cautiousness that comes of remembering how little we actually know about those who are debating with us - their faith and story and the possibility that this discussion might matter very deeply to them and leave them open to being very easily bruised or wounded. There is so much we just do not see on these threads about each other. I suspect I may have hurt you at times with my words and I truly regret that. In all honesty there are many times I have walk away from my lap top feeling bruised and misunderstood by your words to me too. This graciousness in the face of those who oppose us was a very clear NT strategy and it was based on the example of Jesus. 'Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. Always be ready to make your defence to anyone who demands from you an account of the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. 1Peter 3 There is also Paul's pastoral guidance for responding to behaviour (and beliefs presumably) within the body of Christ where we believe someone to be wrong or led astray. 'My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.' Gal 6. John Stott in his commentary here notes that this gentleness even in the face of serious sin comes of a humble awareness that we ourselves are vulnerable and prone to failing in action and understanding too. For what it is worth I am going to have a break from this topic on these threads. I am very grateful for what I take with me and for those who have informed and challenged me in a spirit of gracious Christian love and have thereby helped me to deeper and more mature underdetanding.
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 21 April 2012 - 12:46pm
Hi everyone I guess I'm not willing, for this forum at least, to be in discussion with people who call me a God hater, or who won't countenance any discussion on what it means to be in a same-sex relationship as distinctively different from heterosexual relationships. These are the extremes and have had enough air for now. Fulcrum does not censor as a rule, although occasionally we ask people to re-write posts or to stop repeating themselves ad infinitum. So anyone can still post, but I'm disinclined to respond to those extremes at the moment. I believe that there are more people in the 'grey' than there are at the extremes. You are the people that I want to encourage to converse with each other, I think you would have a lot of questions to ask, wisdom to impart and in the midst of this...who knows, God may just show up. Jody Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 21 April 2012 - 11:20am Jody, not sure we are taught to be gracious to false teachers in scripture.... by Christ or his apostles. A gracious pastoral response must include telling people the truth about what God has revealed by his Spirit in scripture ..... It is by no means 'gracious' or loving to teach anyone that they can indulge in any behaviour 'incompatible with scripture'....... Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Saturday 21 April 2012 - 11:08am @Jody "What are the things that are the same between same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships? What is different?" There is no difference other than heterosexuals are attracted to the opposiute sex rather than the same. "If, as parish priest, I have a same-sex couple in a CP, what is my response to them?" The same as it would be to a straight couple surely?! "If they have a child?" What if a straight couple have a child? "What does the sharing of each other in relationships between men and women say about God? What about between people of the same gender?" In both cases it reflects the love between the Father and the Son, except a gay male relationship expresses this better as the Father and Son are traditionally seen as masculine. In both cases the relationship also reflects that of Christ and the church. I don’t see why the ‘church’ should be seen as ‘female’ or ‘male’ especially as it consists of both and those in between! "Have we anything distinctive to say to people who are intergender?" Firstly we need to apologise to them for centuries of discrimination due to our faulty teaching that there are only two sexes. Secondly, like with any trans person, we need to affirm their choice of identifying with a binary gender or a third gender. Anything else is against the gospel of Jesus, and even Paul who might say that in Christ there is neither male nor female! Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 21 April 2012 - 10:29am Jody - I have expended a great deal of ink and effort to try and open up different ways of looking at issues. I have been labelled revisionist, godhating, one who dishonours authority. I have, I confess, poked a bit of mild fun at Nersen for his inability to do other than parrot the same unargued responses time after time. But that apart I have not made ad hominem comments. I would LOVE to discuss the grey areas - but for some who rather dominate proceedings on here, any attempt to open up discussion on the kinds of points you raise get immediately shouted down by those who know the answer, and who fear that any deviation from the answers they tellus are the Biblical ones represent some sort of apostasy. And this evidence of deviation apparently exempts them from normal rules of human politeness. You tell me how Fulcrum plans to make the Fora open spaces where people don't get abused and worn and shouted down, and I, and many others, will be profoundly thankful. Posted by: Dave Saturday 21 April 2012 - 10:27am Man "is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, ... is not subject to the Law of God." Article 10 The harsh language of the church has historical not been confined to homosexuals but applied to all, both believers and unbelievers. This is the conclusion which Romans 1 works to and 1 Corinthians 6 works from. If we realized that "all have sinned" we will be hesitant both to demonize one type of sinner and whitewash others. Jody, We cannot deal with your further questions until the basics have been settled. Dave Posted by: DavidW Saturday 21 April 2012 - 10:25am Well do we need to be gracious to others? Is it not the same NT teaching that says we should be gracious to others that condemns same sex relations? Are some who choose to ignore the condemnation of same sex relations taking advantage of other’s belief of all scripture, to lecture them. You wrote 'What are the things that are the same between same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships?' God detests same sex relations and ordained man/woman in His creation . Who apart from God haters cares about what the similarities are? Our response as believers, disciples of Christ is to love all people either as brothers or as pagans. Can I ask you, what middle ground are you seeking contrary to God's Biblical testimony?
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 21 April 2012 - 09:48am
We should treat each other graciously regardless of our position on sexuality - when on earth did it become evil even to begin to discuss this?! At the moment all I can see is two 'sides' entirely entrenched. If we're actually going to have some fruitful conversation about this, we need to recognise that we need to be allowed to talk through some of our questions which are not necessarily 'is this 100% right or wrong?'. Given that there is a spectrum of opinion on same-sex relationships in the Christian Church, I want to talk with those who actually want to talk through some of the 'grey' areas.....I want to discuss things like: 'What are the things that are the same between same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships?' 'What is different?' 'If, as parish priest, I have a same-sex couple in a CP, what is my response to them?' 'If they have a child?' 'What does the sharing of each other in relationships between men and women say about God?' 'What about between people of the same gender?' 'Have we anything distinctive to say to people who are intergender? and who may find themselves in a different physical body to their predominant gene configuration, for example in Klinefelter's Syndrome, where the genes are XXY (the Y means the foetus develops a penis, but the dominant genes are XX, which means the person feels female)' There questions are my starter for ten - I have many more, and I'm sure there are Fulcrum villagers who do too. Please can I encourage you to inhabit this 'middle' space for a little while, where the questions are allowed and perhaps even encouraged. thanks, Jody Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 21 April 2012 - 09:07am JermeyP, check with scripture if it guides your behaviour .........2 Timothy 3:1-5, 1 Cor 5-7.... This response to those who reject God's word, even if 'ordained', ain't too 'inclusive': John 8:44-45.......consistent with Matthew 5:17-20. Got any verses waccommodated the accommodation of teaching incompatible with scripture in the church? Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Friday 20 April 2012 - 08:15pm Nersen - can I just check? You say, And, remember that Jody and Fulcrum are not revisionists calling for anything 'incompatible with scripture' to be accepted...we can challenge each other graciously, I think. Does that mean that you don't need to be gracious to people who are, as you put it "revisionist"? Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 19 April 2012 - 06:20pm Davidw, perhaps judging whether someone knows Christ is not our job...... And, remember that Jody and Fulcrum are not revisionists calling for anything 'incompatible with scripture' to be accepted...we can challenge each other graciously, I think. Posted by: DavidW Thursday 19 April 2012 - 09:48am Jody, As I have based all I have written on what the scripture says, that you find it un –Christ like suggests you don’t know Christ. I suggest you read Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, 20, 1 Cor 6, and Romans 1 again, which are relevant to the subject before I read Philippians 4. I suggest you also read 2 Tim 3, that all scripture is useful for teaching to equip the believers for all good work. To say because the scripture says is therefore not what God says is contrary to what the scripture says. (2 Corinthians 11, Hebrews 4, 2 Tim 2 etc) Happy to engage in debate, my views on the issue that is offending you are what the scripture says, so are you are open to debate? NB, Christ was inclusive to all who came to Him in faith, He was exclusive to those who argued with what He taught or the people who tried to justify themselves. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 19 April 2012 - 09:44am Ecclesiastes 5:2.
Posted by: Jody
Thursday 19 April 2012 - 08:53am
DavidW I don't normally get involved with these forums, for a number of reasons, often when leadership team of Fulcrum get involved it can stifle or be seen as a dictat from the whole team, this is neither of those things....... I find your tone unkind, ungenerous and far from Christ-like, I think you should have a look at a large chunk of Proverbs and certainly Philippians 4:8 before you comment on this thread again. To say that 'Scripture says...' (therefore 'God says') is simply disengenuous to what is going on when you (you, not Scripture) are openly being insulting and offensive. And to call JeremyP 'my friend' and the end of your insults leaves me quite speechless. Christ often spoke gently, kindly, inclusively to people who were ridiculed and judged and excluded by those who loved the words of Scripture more than God. Healing on the Sabbath, and being quite harsh with those who would close the door of heaven to others - he told them to 'beware'. Jody Posted by: Stuart Thursday 19 April 2012 - 08:51am Erm - aren't we supposed to have suspended this discussion? Posted by: DavidW Thursday 19 April 2012 - 08:42am JeremyP, The accusation of being God hating is scripture my friend, it is what engaging in and encouragement of same sex relations is referred to. If you find it insulting then that’s up to you, I don’t intend to abandon my faith in God’s word just because you might be offended by God’s word. Yes I understand you we disagree and take different views, but my view is that your view is major core denial of the gospel as reasoned with the gospel. You seem to be offended by what the Bible says. I am very sorry indeed that you find it hurtful but I cant understand how someone in ministry doesn’t acknowledge what the Biblical testimony says holistically and unequivocally. And it has been the scripture for nearly two thousand years before your ministry started. I suggest it is hurtful to you because you haven’t actually yet believed the truth. Faith in Christ is a sacrificial love. Be encouraged by 1 Peter 4 12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And, “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”[a] 19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good. Posted by: Simon Morden Thursday 19 April 2012 - 12:01am Jeremy - my heart bleeds for you. Has your intervention backfired? Yes, it probably has: anyone with an scintilla of empathy would recognise that. The attacks on you have been quite extraordinary by any measure, and as someone who makes all his mistakes in public, I'm glad I haven't had a review like that (yet - still plenty of time...) I'm far from perfect in my own behaviour, but Bowman's timely reminder that online debates train us for real world reactions is something I've been considering a lot lately. Literary spats are famously vitriolic, and don't even pretend to be moral - discussions like this one manage to be both hypocritical and offensive. A recent post on Ship of Fools pointed me to these pair of posts: http://reallivepreacher.com/homosexuality, and http://reallivepreacher.com/node/868. They're worth a read (in order). I'm pretty much on the page with this guy: he knows his Bible, he's done his homework, he's paid attention to the other gazillion verses that Scripture contains. I'm content with that, and when all is said and done, I'd rather be wrong with you and him, than right with nersen and DavidW: People like me have left the village to get away from the sound of clanging cymbals, and while visiting occasionally is nice, it doesn't take long to be reminded why I moved away and why I prefer living where I do. However, be assured: if I was looking for an exemplar of someone who exhibited the fruits of the Holy Spirit, to point other people at and say "Look! A Christian!" I'd be pointing them at you. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Wednesday 18 April 2012 - 10:44pm Thanks, Origen and Laurence C for support. I think I will say in this context that the accusation of being godhating, of worshipping "gay not God" and of seeking to "corrupt the church" are the very worst insults I have ever had flung at me in thirty-one years of ministry. And they were very distressing. Disagreements with those who take a different view from me I understand - but I don't understand why the whole basis of my life and ministry should be subjected to such vicious attack on the basis of no knowledge. So, while I don't think I really rate the quality of the argument of some people who have flung the insults about most freely, I think they should know that it has been a very personally hurtful interchange for me. It arose from my coming back on to this forum to try and recall us to the original purpose of the thread - which was to listen to the testimony of people whose personal experience of faith and of being gay is not shared by those who have strong views. It has rather backfired on me, I think. Posted by: Laurence C. Wednesday 18 April 2012 - 10:23pm "Surely you have heard of the King James Version? (KJV) 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman," "are you looking to trade personal remarks? So, you can quote that the bible employs the same unpleasant and demeaning verb in connection with women that you do. Doesn't make it any the less unpleasant and demeaning. And since you have described my partner on this thread as both 'god-hating' and 'corrupting' of the church, when you have never met him and know nothing of his ministry, I feel quite entitled to trade personal remarks with you. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 18 April 2012 - 09:39pm This evening the five threads heading the index page of the Fulcrum forum are all arguing the same thing - the same people, repeating the same things - the selective quoting of Lambeth 1:10, the fiction that the revisionists are not quoting scripture, the gracious mediation of Bowman - and only one of the five threads has stayed loyal to the topic it started with. It looks obssessive and frankly it is. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 18 April 2012 - 07:27pm Laurence C - you resort to distraction by focussing on Davidw but you cannot show anywhere in scripture which contradicts Lambeth 1.10 re sexual 'practice' which is 'incompatible with scripture'......? It is amazing how the issue of scripture and what it says is consistently avoided by those who assert that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re scripture - all sorts of responses come but nobody shows any circumstances in scripture when the bans in the OT and the NT are lifted...... scripture still matters to evangelicals (not revisionists who still like the label of their youth, but what Stott called 'bible people') Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 18 April 2012 - 08:40am Laurence, You wrote "'Use' !! You couldn't make this guy up. " Surely you have heard of the King James Version? (KJV) 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, Also (NKJV) 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman (Young’s Literal ) 27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female (Wycliffe) 27 Also the men [the males, or men,] forsook the natural use of woman, You wrote "I've said it before but - "he must be a devil with the ladies" As with your above remark, are you looking to trade personal remarks? Do you think that honours God as well? Posted by: Laurence C. Tuesday 17 April 2012 - 03:34pm "the natural use of women" DavidW 'Use' !! You couldn't make this guy up. I've said it before but - "he must be a devil with the ladies" Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 17 April 2012 - 03:13pm As a follow on to Bowman’s post of Monday 16 April 2012 - 07:38am I would add James 3:9-18 notably 9 With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. and 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. 17 But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. 18 Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness. Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 17 April 2012 - 12:00pm Jeremy P, “but then we have no surviving evidence that gay relationships of the kind we now have existed.” But do ‘gay relationships’ involve men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with men? If so then we know the kind of ‘gay relationships’ we have today are error. It depends where one starts as a benchmark of truth, with God’s purposes or human culture and reasoning. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 16 April 2012 - 08:36pm Thanks for your reply, JeremyP. If Lambeth 1.10 is not, as the ABC says, 'the mind of the Communion', let's have a vote to say so - even only in the CofE....even only in Southwark! Until then, I see no honour in merely ignoring it (and a bishop turning a blind eye or not keeping the position of the church is not anything good given the vows he has made). It is not convincing to assert that Lambeth 1.10 is not the mind of the Communion - why is it kept if it is not? Not because revisionists would still lose a vote on what scripture says re the sexual 'practice' in question being 'incompatible with scripture'? As for silence in scripture re women in leadership, Phoebe and Lydia might be examples of womend leaders. The apostle Paul treating the slave Onesimus as a brother might be quite radical teaching re slavery.... and the statement that there is no male nor femail, salve nor free in Christ is not silent re slaves or women. But even if you were right re women and slaves, it does not follow that when the bible only condemns a sexual 'practice' (OT and NT), we can say that God blesses or accepts it - unless you can come up with any circumstances in which scripture is not negative on the same practice? If you cannot, you are braver than I in claiming God's acceptance of the actions He has only every condemned in scripture. Now, open revisionsists are quite clear that it matters little to them what scripture says - they area law unto themselves, but if scripture matters to you on this issue, I ask the question for what authority you have from scripture to say that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re what it says is 'incompatible with scripture'? Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Monday 16 April 2012 - 07:46pm Regarding Bowman's point: In a world bursting with its one remaining human species, it may be closer to what you could call 'the will of God' for many fertile women simply to stop having children or have very few, to be achieved in part by raising education and making sure that bringing up children anywhere in the world is a financial liability rather than a work-asset. A culture of having fewer children should be applied across the board. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Monday 16 April 2012 - 06:11pm @Ambrose StJohn redivivus:"I'm impressed with the patience of some on here- which I just don't have. I have to say I feel it is a waste of breath engaging with DavidW- this is a real shame." Yes, I'm starting to agree with you here. Although I detest the phrase 'Don't feed the troll' that is often used against people with differing views I'm beginning to feel its appropriate in this case! Kudos to JeremyP for having the patience to continue. Posted by: DavidW Monday 16 April 2012 - 01:51pm JeremyP, You wrote "As for the Bible and verses, I don't think the clobber verses are the last word on the subject." How then can your remarks on ‘silence’ be relevant when the Bible isn’t silent but has by your own claim got what you call clobber passages on the subject? And, why do you see these verses as clobber passages? Why not all prohibitions? "because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death." – Romans 8 Those in Christ are not to use their freedom to indulge in the acts of the flesh and sinful nature, the acts of the flesh and sinful nature are obvious, sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery; idolatry, witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, orgies. Though believers do fall short in sin, they don’t feel clobbered when through Christ by repentance the slate is wiped clean. The only way one could feel clobbered is if one didn’t agree with God about what God pronounces sin. Posted by: Mark Bennet Monday 16 April 2012 - 08:20am DavidW What do you mean when you write "Lambeth I.10 is binding with the Church of England and its is certainly binding with God"? So far as the Church of England is concerned, precisely what is 'binding" about this - is it "binding" for members of the Church of England to be diligent in listenng, for example. How can any human resolution bind God? And note that Lambeth I.10 is not to be found in scripture. Mark Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Monday 16 April 2012 - 08:09am DavidW - I have responded to Nersen. See an answer to the last thing you ask there. Yes - I think that god-hater is not an appropriate term for me, and I object to being so characterised. Romans 1 describes people who don't have any relationship with God and who decide to pursue same-sex relationships AGAINST their natural inclination. Netiher of those features would apply to me. I have not put "the love of gay above the love of God". You know nothing at all about my nearly forty years of Christian service of God in many different places. You don't know about the people I have helped come to faith or have consoled or educated - you know nothing about the churches I have led, or how they grew. Nersen usually uses numbers as a measure of whether God is blessing you - I was blessed. You know nothing at all about me. So how you think that you can confidently say that I have put "the love of gay above the love of God" I don't know. It is the most offensive of all the highly personal and offensive things you continue to repeat. I explained to you why homophobe is a term used to describe those who stereotype and judge gay people without knowing anything about them (including whether they have same-sex relations or what those consist of) - in the same way that racist is the term we use to describe people who stereotype and judge people with different racial characteristics. It is in that sense a techinical term to describe those whose stereotyping and prejudicial cast of mind means that they cannot or will not treat gay people justly, equally and humanely. It is not simply a boo word. I would not think it is a term I would want to hug to myself proudly. As a matter of fact LGCM is not a church - it is a campaign organisation. I am happy as a priest of the Church of England, and love her worship and fellowship - I am lucky enough to belong to a church where I am welcomed and valued for who I am and what I contribute and not judged for my natural affections. Gay only churches are not very appealing to me - I like the world all jumbled up - the mixed bunch of disciples. After all the twelve had a tax collector and a freedom fighter. I think this is the place to stay. The notion that Lambeth 1:10 is binding on God is simply hilarious. And not true. How can human decisions bind the divine? Not even the bishops of Lambeth made such an hubristic claim for what they were doing. I can't force anyone to do anything - certainly not a church. But I will be open and continue to speak for the truth that God is showing this generation - that all his children including LGBT ones are loved equally, are equally gifted, and can be equally used - and that for the church to accept their capacity to love and be blessed in so loving is not a corruption of the faith but a proper development of it. To think and act like this is rather like the task that those who wanted to slavery abolished faced. There were lots of people who thought slavery was Biblical (lots of verses to support it) and the will of God and that abolitionists were corrupting the faith. I think that this change will come, and that the hostility and prejudice that some people are determined to cling to will fade away. And great will be the rejoicing on earth and in heaven. Posted by: Bowman Monday 16 April 2012 - 07:38am St Matthew v 22, St James i 20. Posted by: DavidW Monday 16 April 2012 - 07:25am JeremyP, Still no response from you to my post of Sunday 15 April 2012 - 09:07am or nersenpaul’s post of Sunday 15 April 2012 - 11:00am We are just seeing your own opinions and denial of scripture. This is typical of the debates. Not only have you denied the scripture but you are now discrediting the texts our church summarises them with. It would be fair to say you neither believe the word of God nor your churches position. Had you thought about a joining a gay ‘church’ such as LGCM? Lets be clear, Lambeth 1.10 is binding with the Church of England and its is certainly binding with God. You have put a love of gay above God. This is reflected in the idolatry in Romans 1, that men worship the created rather than the creator. Are you determined to corrupt the church and force it to accept same-sex sexual relationships, and no doubt get the unbelieving world to help you do it? Posted by: Bowman Sunday 15 April 2012 - 11:35pm Hi Jeremy. Thanks again for several incisive posts. Also for your chocolate teapot metaphor! Authority issues aside, how do gay Christians go about constructing a sense of gayness as God's creative intent? When two women in a parish I know well marry, and one later decides that, after all, she is not a lesbian because she wants to have a child with a man, is there a Christian reason to say that the choice she made the first time was so blessed by God that she should stick with it? Or if two (different) women are facing that issue upfront by pledging to use rather extensive biotechnology to have a child together, is that consistent with God's intent in creation? Or if, when that succeeds on the fourth try, but produces a child who is sadly deformed and unlikely to live long, can one argue that, nevertheless, the women did God's will in seeking to give life? Perhaps there are answers-- if so, what are they? My test for arguments on this thread is-- do they answer that question? The usual human rights arguments-- very proper in the civil sphere-- do not. Debates about the limitations of scripture are beside the point absent a biblical answer to the question. Christians are saved in Christ so that they can participate in God's work of restoring the creation. How does sexual diversity in the human species fit into that? And, as you can see from just a moment's reflection on these real cases, this is not a question that makes an adverse judgment on either homosexuality or same sex relationships. To the contrary, it will have to be answered for all Christians to support the gay Christians in their midst, not as mere rights-holders but as Christians. Indeed, you Father Jeremy, are likely to answer it several times in the only forum that really counts. It's a big challenge. You are quite right to have argued on another post that the bishops have been disappointingly slow to address it, even as they invite the media when they officiate at same-sex weddings in their cathedrals. You may not be able to reply right away, but I do hope that you will share what you can when you are able. A final note. One of my teachers, Michael Sandel, has written, thinking of Americans of course, that ours is a society in which we are so conditioned to assume increasing control over all aspects of our lives that we no longer have the shared sense of "openness to the unbidden" on which the exercise of the moral virtues depends. Even if one understands the human part of creation as something more dynamic and less regular than the stars in their courses, a really good life requires openness to surprise and to the grace that God sends with it. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Sunday 15 April 2012 - 09:07pm Nersen - Lambeth 1:10 was a jerrymandered "result". It is not binding on the Church of England. I can't give you verses from the Bible that say "Gay relationships and sexual ones at that are a lovely thing" because they don't exist - but then we have no surviving evidence that gay relationships of the kind we now have existed. Frankly, I think the Lambeth Fathers who squeaked through the vote on that wording for 1:10 are wrong. It worries me not a whit that they said it - what concerns me is the silly idea that you seem stuck with that just because they said it then that somehow seems to be the end of all rational thought and discussion. It is FAR from the last word on the subject - and the Church of England has not shaped is discipline around the strict enforcement of it. So why bother banging on about it - what you may want isn't going to happen. I am an Anglican priest. My bishop knows that I have a male partner who lives with me - he may surmise what he wishes about the nature of our relationship - he has not in fact asked any questions about the nature of our sleeping arrangements in the two bedroom house we occupy. And if he did I would tell him to mind his own business. He is far from being the only bishop in the Church of England who knows that I am partnered and gay and share a house with a man. Not one of them has thought to mention Lambeth 1:10. I infer from this that they think it is about as important as a practical tool of clerical discipline as a chocolate teapot. I am sure you would wish it to be otherwise - but as a matter of fact it isn't. In the words of the advert "get over it". As for the Bible and verses, I don't think the clobber verses are the last word on the subject. Nor should you rely on an argument from silence about an absence of positive verses to imagine that that demonstrates anything other than what it demonstrates - that there are no gay relationship positive verses in Scripture. So what? There are no ani-slavery verses in Scripture. There are no clear unequivocal women leader verses in Scripture. There is certainly not a single unequivocal clear pro-democracy verse in Scripture. Nor universal suffrage for that matter, or women's suffrage. So what are we to make of all this silence? That these things fall beyond the purview of the direct communication of clear messages in the sacred text. So Christians have had to make other, theological, inferential arguments to justify these kinds of social change and progress - and that is precisely what those of us who are going to see this change come about in the Church in the next thirty years are arguing for. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 15 April 2012 - 11:00am JeremyP - failed attempt at point scoring but no substance from you? You still fail to show anywhere in scripture which justifies the sexual 'practice' Lambeth 1.10 says is 'incompatible with scripture'........ trying the old revisionist tactic of labelling scriptural views you cannot refute as 'homophobic' merely exposes your lack of arguments from scripture given you cannot show any homophobia in anything I have said..... and your point-scoring tactic does not help those people who are really victims of homophobia..... but, looking at all your posts, as you never give a full answer from scripture, it seems you want to avoid the question re scripture in any circumstances condoning the sexual behaviour you want to justify? How is the behaviour you want to condone, given bans in the OT and the NT, ever (even in rare circumstances) compatible with scripture? A clear answer, please Jeremy - we do not need to imagine the NT lifts OT food laws, we don't have to rely on weak allusions or arguments from silence or to ignore bans in NT etc..... can you show any clear, strong case from scripture which shows what the OT and NT say is not acceptable to God in terms of sexual behaviour is sometimes just fine with Him? Quite happy to ditch Lambeth 1.10 if you or anyone else makes that case....... Posted by: DavidW Sunday 15 April 2012 - 09:07am Ambrose StJohn redivivus and Jeremy P, Again, no attempt from you to discuss the issue. If you consider that I am causing outrage by citing and quoting God’s word and the position of the Christian churches, then perhaps your hatred for God is very great indeed. Doesn’t Romans 1 mention God-haters as those who do these things also approve of those who practice them. ? Would you mind if people called you God-haters (Romans 1) as freely as you call people homophobes? I am happy to be called a homophobe, I have after all been to civil partnerships of friends, its the same sex sexual relations that I am against. But as nersenpaul points out, where is the direct scripture to support same-sex sexual relations, it isn’t there. Yours becomes your own religion based on your own group views. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 14 April 2012 - 11:23pm Nersen - if that is your own special way of starting to repent of your homophobic attitudes I am delighted! Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 14 April 2012 - 07:04pm I agree with JeremyP and Origen re generalising about one group as we are all essentially the same ......... we are all broken sinners (Romans 3:23), no group more than any other. The question arises, for this thread, is how do we respond to God's grace in Christ..... by justifying our sins or not (Romans 6:1-4). We all struggle with sin (Romans 7) but how are we to respond? Some below assert that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re the sexual activity it calls 'incompatible with scripture' (ie a sin)..... but they do not show anywhere in scripture which accepts / blesses the activity they want to justify in any circumstances whatsoever. I am quite happy to agree with those who say Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re scripture if they can show that it is wrong.... from scripture .... Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Saturday 14 April 2012 - 01:26pm I'm impressed with the patience of some on here- which I just don't have. I have to say I feel it is a waste of breath engaging with DavidW- this is a real shame. I imagine he loves all the outrage he is causing. Meanwhile : Well this oh so loving ! http://www.oakhill.ac.uk/people/wes_hill.html Posted by: DavidW Saturday 14 April 2012 - 08:51am Jeremy P, That you think the Biblical testimony that the church holds to, is hateful, merely proves what the article says is the case. You think the article is homophobic it is because your thinking in this respect is based on ignorance or denial of God’s word. God didn’t create homosexuals, that is your idea. God’s word which says God created men and women to be in union. God’s view doesn’t stereotype anyone, all men and women are created in His image and for His purposes. God’s word says that ‘In Christ’ there is no male or female, rich or poor. But in that is ‘in Christ’ In Christ is obeying what He teaches. It is your thinking contrary to God’s that stereotypes people. I see men and women just the same as me; people of different races, with different beliefs and lifestyles, with different physical and mental imperfections, but still men and women whom are just like me, are created and loved by God. The stereotyping comes from your thinking, and I think its divisive and unhealthy and not something I want to buy into. Posted by: DavidW Saturday 14 April 2012 - 08:31am Origen Adam, Rather than rephrase the question it I will clarify it. When the scripture says men abandoned the natural use of women and committed indecent acts with men, it means men who abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with men. In your terms, men who abandon the natural use of women are homosexuals are they not? In your terms, men who commit indecent acts with other men are homosexuals are they not? By dictionary definition they aren’t heterosexuals. As to your question I would first need to know whether you think Deuteronomy 22:28-29 means what it says. If it does mean what it says the how come you don’t believe Romans 1:27 means what it says? I would need to know whether we are dealing with what the Bible actually says, which one can interpret in context, or your ideas which only you can. Whilst I take on board your opinion that the scripture, God’s word, that has been provided is evil bigotry, I would say the same about your blatant denial of what God’s word. Only in your view are you gay, according to God’s word that is a falsehood. So you are blaming God for not accepting your ideas and thinking and your failure to acknowledge God’s word. I respect your right to have those opinions, I hold no malice towards you, but having exchanged our opinions again, could we continue with the debate? When you say "so-called religious people, and "self confessed religious people" you realise that is the overwhelming majority of Christendom holds as the Biblcial truth. Isnt this a attitude that the church needs to be aware of; when the likes of Jeffrey John and Gene Robinson make threats that the majority of the church must change and side with them and the world in their thinking. Hardly a fellowship of believers. As to the Wikipedia article, whilst it does say that biological sex not clearly male or female, it also says, as I cited, "biological characteristics of both the male and the female sexes" My point was there are only two sexes in the species, male and female, and that is all the Wiki article mentions. Do you accept that now? NB A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest – Paul Simon Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 14 April 2012 - 08:02am David W writes: Lifesite news has carried an article about the Roman Catholic church noting that it doesn’t matter how gently, lovingly and respectfully one puts it to certain people, that same-sex relationships are wrong, they only see it as hate. Not only do they see the criticism of the relationships as somehow hating them, but they want to punish anyone who does. This from the article..Persons with SSA are themselves filled with anger and hate and they project that on anyone who opposes their demands... We must constantly remind ourselves that under their anger and their hate, persons with SSA are wounded men and women. As small children they accepted the lie that they were different. They were unable to embrace their true identities as sons and daughters of God. In spite of their anger and false accusations, we must continue to speak the truth. Only by this means can we help them find their way out of the lies in which have been trapped. And most of all we need to pray for them. Frankly, David, I think it is hateful to make an ideological assumption about a whole class of people and to stereotype them in the way this article does. I don't really care whether the ideological basis of that comes from the Bible or any other source - it is still stereotyping, demeaning and unjust. Rather like saying, as Belgium did in relation to its stewardship of the Congo up to 1960, that "the Bantu" could not manage their own affairs, because they were incapable of the development necessary. That was racist - that is the word we use to describe this kind of discriminatory attitude to people based on their race. We all recognise that this is not an attitude that we want to see govern the affairs of this or any country - and in our own land have quite strict laws on how we can talk publicly about people on the basis of racial characteristics, as we don't want that stereotyping encouraged or racially-based discrimination stirred up. This article is homophobic and so is your quoting of it - which is the word we use to describe this kind of discriminatory attitude when applied to people whose sexuality is not heterosexual. Stereotyping gay people and telling them that a priori they are "wounded" and their relationships are "wrong" is, frankly, not something that can be done "gently, lovingly and respectfully" - it is a hateful way of treating other human beings precisely because it is stereotyping. You have no idea whether I am a "wounded person" or not - but you have decided I am. Gay Christians don't know perfectly well that they are far from perfect and sinners like everyone else, but that is not what this stereotyping is claiming - it presumes a special category of "woundedness" that others don't have. That is rubbish. Like Origen Adam and others I am deeply offended and outraged that you should presume to make such a judgement about me when you don't know me. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Friday 13 April 2012 - 07:17pm @DavidW:"I said there are only two sexes in the species and I don’t see any other sexes than male and female in the dictionary definition of intersex." You obviously haven't read the Wikipedia article then! "Intersexuality as a term was adopted by medicine during the 20th century, and applied to human beings whose biological sex cannot be classified as clearly male or female. Intersex was initially adopted by intersex activists who criticize traditional medical approaches to sex assignment and seek to be heard in the construction of new approaches." People who don't fit into the gender binary norm often identify as Gender-queer or Intersex. Trying to force people into binary norms is extremely harmful and ungodly. Please consider changing your immoral views! Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Friday 13 April 2012 - 07:10pm @DavidW:"persons with SSA are wounded men and women" I strongly object to being classed as "wounded" just because I'm gay! I am only wounded by evil bigotry from so-called religious people. I am angry though. Angry that these self confessed religious people can spend so much time and energy trying to stop people like me from enjoying the same human rights as they enjoy. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Friday 13 April 2012 - 06:57pm @DavidW:"I asked you a question. The question to you is still, if you don’t believe that men with men instead of women is not all men, then surely you would apply the same approach to love your neighbour and accept it excludes some? I dont obviously, but do you?" I think you're confusing me with Fern! And I'm afraid I just don't understand your question :( Could you rephrase it maybe? In the meantime maybe you could answer my question. Do you think that a woman who has been raped should be forced to marry her rapist? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Posted by: DavidW Friday 13 April 2012 - 02:58pm Lifesite news has carried an article about the Roman Catholic church noting that it doesn’t matter how gently, lovingly and respectfully one puts it to certain people, that same-sex relationships are wrong, they only see it as hate. Not only do they see the criticism of the relationships as somehow hating them, but they want to punish anyone who does. This from the article..Persons with SSA are themselves filled with anger and hate and they project that on anyone who opposes their demands... We must constantly remind ourselves that under their anger and their hate, persons with SSA are wounded men and women. As small children they accepted the lie that they were different. They were unable to embrace their true identities as sons and daughters of God. In spite of their anger and false accusations, we must continue to speak the truth. Only by this means can we help them find their way out of the lies in which have been trapped. And most of all we need to pray for them. Posted by: DavidW Friday 13 April 2012 - 08:42am Origen Adam, I asked you a question. The question to you is still, if you don’t believe that men with men instead of women is not all men, then surely you would apply the same approach to love your neighbour and accept it excludes some? I dont obviously, but do you? Now I look forward to answering your question when you have answered mine, but provide some scripture if you think it is something of God. Now you might like to realise that your view that these attitudes keep people in chains is actually reality. Your view has lost touch with reality. An intersex individual may have biological characteristics of both the male and the female sexes. I said there are only two sexes in the species and I don’t see any other sexes than male and female in the dictionary definition of intersex. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Thursday 12 April 2012 - 08:59pm @DavidW "There are no other sexes apart from man and woman." It is attitudes and statements like these which have kept people in chains for centuries. Have you never heard of intersex? Real and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Thursday 12 April 2012 - 08:55pm @DavidW "Under your thinking let em ask you, does love your neighbour mean all neighbours and people? You can’t be sure can you. Those who believe can." Under your thinking a woman who has been raped must marry her rapist. Are you really so sure about this? Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 11 April 2012 - 11:00am Fern, I am happy to discuss the issue of the thread, perhaps you could? Owning and being slaves is not something the NT advocates, all it does it speak to slave owners and slaves to treat each other well. The community of believers is based on loving each other, not buying or selling each other. Slave trading is not condoned 1 Timothy 1:10 "for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine" So your post won’t do. You wrote "You seem to assume that scripture is crystal-clear on all issues but that just isn’t true" I can see the Bible is clear that same sex relations are error. I can see you want to misrepresent me. The NT says there are disputable matters, but "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. You wrote "is whether the proof texts, which I won’t quote since that’s already been done ad nauseum apply to all same-sex relationships in all circumstances." Men with men instead of the natural use of women is and either/or. Men shall not lie with a man as with a woman is an either/or. There are no other sexes apart from man and woman. Of course it is all men. 1 Corinthians 7 says to believers, because of so much sexual immorality each man should have his own wife. Under your thinking let em ask you, does love your neighbour mean all neighbours and people? You can’t be sure can you. Those who believe can. Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 11 April 2012 - 10:45am Hi Ravi Holy, But I am pointing you to God’s word which has it right, not our opinions 2: I absolutely agree for hermeneutics, but hermeneutics is the is the study of the interpretation of what is written. One cannot say that all that is endorsed for man and woman and all that is condemned for man and man is all wrong. The scripture doesn’t allow that. From Genesis to Leviticus to Corinthians to Romans same sex relations are condemned and described as against God and what pagans do. It says its what pagans do what people who have turned from God do. We know that the Jews knew it was sin from the law, we know that the Greek and Roman cultures had such things and why believers were addressed about it. This is hermenutics and exegesis. There is no mention of gay people in the Bible, God created woman for man, such a statement is eisegesis in itself. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 11 April 2012 - 10:35am When scripture says don't do some actions, to do them, an evangelical might want to be sure there are circumstances in which scripture does permit the same actions.....this ain't controversial. Re slavery, Fern - the abolitionists might have gone to one saying 'Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' or scripture saying there is 'no slave nor free in Christ'..... The slave trade was obviously incompatible with scripture in its greed and violence etc....even if some Anglicans tried to justify their behaviour by ignoring clear challenges to it ....from scripture Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Wednesday 11 April 2012 - 12:32am Scripture never speaks for itself. That's why its study grew in university departments. Posted by: Fern Tuesday 10 April 2012 - 11:32pm DavidW, a few posts further down the board, you chastise another poster thus “it seems to me you want to discuss slavery to avoid discussing ‘gay’, yet thread is entitled evangelical and gay.” Well, the reason why there is a focus on slavery is that it has come to be seen as a great evil and yet is not condemned in the Bible and, indeed, it appears to be condoned in both the old and new testaments. Wilberforce and all those who helped end the slave trade are celebrated as heroes and we are rightly proud of the role Christians played. Which is strange given that there is no biblical proof text that can be quoted to evidence that abolition is God’s will. It is no answer to say as you do that “Yes the Bible supports slavery in that we are all slaves to either righteousness or unrighteousness”. Your attempt to seamlessly elide a spiritual state – we are all in thrall to something - with the capture, enslavement and buying and selling of actual human beings just won’t do. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no biblical proof text the abolitionists could quote whereas there are the proof texts which either support the taking and holding of slaves or are, at least, indifferent to it. So, the thinking of the pro-slavery lobby would appear to be in line with scripture and it was the thinking of the abolitionists’ that was contrary to scripture. The abolitionists, however, really understood the radical message of a handful of words in Genesis. Imago Dei. If man is the image bearer of God, how can it be right to trade human beings as though they were cattle? You seem to assume that scripture is crystal-clear on all issues but that just isn’t true. Slavery is one area where the ‘right’ course of action came without the requisite proof text. Another area, touched on in the mention of Lot and his offer of his daughters to the sexual predators of S&G, is rape. Most people (I would hope) agree that rape is a serious crime. You wouldn’t, however, really be able to deduce that from the Bible. There is no prohibition against rape in the Commandments. Moses, in Numbers, instructs the Israelites to seize virgins and keep them for themselves. A raped woman, in certain circumstances, could be put to death. Even when she was deemed blameless and her assailant executed, it is clear that there is no concern for the well-being of the victim. The offence that has been committed is not one against the person but rather a crime against property. A woman belonged either to her father or her husband; raping her damaged the property of another man and that had to be punished. Do I think this is the voice of God? No, I think it’s the inevitable consequences of a patriarchal society where women had very little intrinsic value and where the nature of rape – about power and not lust – was not well understood. It took centuries for the law (and the church) to accept that Imago Dei applied to women too. The application of all of this to what I’ll call the ‘gay debate’ for shorthand purposes is whether the proof texts, which I won’t quote since that’s already been done ad nauseum apply to all same-sex relationships in all circumstances. I don’t really think it’s an answer to say that, well, of course they apply since nowhere does scripture speak positively about same-sex relationships because scripture doesn’t speak particularly negatively about slavery but we have come to believe that enslaving our brothers and sisters is an evil act and scripture doesn’t find rape to be a particularly big deal and yet most people now think it is. Posted by: Ravi Holy Tuesday 10 April 2012 - 08:29pm 2 things, DavidW: 1: clearly I'm as guilty as everyone else of thinking that I alone have got it right : I am 'revisionist' with regard to the gay issue as well as more core doctrines such as hell and penal substitution and think that makes me more Christian not less (let's not get into that!) But I'm keen to defend the exclusivity of Christ/literality of the resurrection as non-negotiables and feel that those who abandon these have gone too far... 2: My point was basically that it's all very well to talk about 'What The Bible Says' but clearly spirit-filled, hermeneutically-sophisticated evangelicals of sound mind and good will disagree on what it 'clearly' says! Or would you dispute that? If not, then it becomes impossible to say what the Bible actually does say and we are forced to bring in other guides which includes listening to the experience of gay people, surely? Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 10 April 2012 - 07:58pm Ravi - your parody doesn't fit the thread below .... evangelicals are supposed to have a high view of scripture ...... The question remains for an anyone claiming to be evangelical but also saying the sexual 'practice' (actions) Lambeth 1.10 calls 'incompatible with scripture' is just fine.....where in scripture says so .....in any circumstances?? No answers below to that simple question..... Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 10 April 2012 - 10:47am Thanks for your post Ravi Holy, In your example dialogue the response to the scriptural condemnation is that some people think the same about women priests. That doesnt actually address the issue in question, it just questions a potential inconsistency in approach. But more importantly It is also offering up people’s opinion as a response to what the scripture says. What people think is either in line with scripture or contrary to it. The evidence presented shows scripture is indeed less clear on women in leadership, the scripture speaks for itself. If it cant speak for itself then his guess is as good as yours... but its not faith in the Biblical testimony of God. So I would say the statement “HIM: Well, they're just wrong.” is correct if one is using the Biblical testimony of God as the benchmark and test of truth. It is the word of God that divides and judges the thought and attitudes of the heart (2 Tim 3) not the thoughts and attitudes of the heart that judge God. So the response to “ME: Right, so everyone to the theological right of you is a mindless fundamentalist and everyone to the left of you is a Godless liberal and only clever old you has managed to find the happy medium?” could be if its about people's opinions, but if the benchmark is what scripture says then everyone to the theological left and the theological right is indeed be straying from the truth of what God’s word says. But I am curious how the relativism you propose, namely different people’s opinions, actually works. If it is a matter of opinion then what is your problem with other people's opinions? How could you judge whether theirs is right or yours? Posted by: Simon Morden Tuesday 10 April 2012 - 10:33am Arggh! Ravi has stumbled on the truth. What ever will we talk about now? Posted by: Ravi Holy Monday 9 April 2012 - 12:49pm The debate between Origen and Nersen and the 2 Davids reminded me of a conversation I had with one of my traditionalist friends: HIM: Gay sex is clearly condemned by Scripture. ME: But many evangelicals think the same about women priests and you don't let that bother you... HIM: Well, Scripture is less clear on that point... ME: Not as far as they're concerned... HIM: Well, they're just wrong. ME: Hmm. Well, those of us who have changed our views on the gay issue feel the same about that as you do about women: that in spite of a few verses that 'unequically condemn' [insert issue here] at face value, that may not be the whole story HIM: Well, you're clearly wrong too! ME: Right, so everyone to the theological right of you is a mindless fundamentalist and everyone to the left of you is a Godless liberal and only clever old you has managed to find the happy medium? HIM: That's about the size of it... But why are you bringing women into this? That's a whole other subject. Focus on the issue... Posted by: DavidW Saturday 7 April 2012 - 04:24pm User3664, You wrote "YOUR treatment of lgbt is a shameful rejection of the gospel and all that is holy. Some people are gay - get over it... " Here is what God says about your remark. 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ..but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. There are millions of Bible believing followers of Christ even in this country. Get used to it. Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Thursday 5 April 2012 - 05:21pm 'but the lgbt is another level of disbelief and rejection of the gospel altogether.' YOUR treatment of lgbt is a shameful rejection of the gospel and all that is holy. Some people are gay - get over it... Posted by: DavidW Thursday 5 April 2012 - 08:01am DavidR, It seems to me you want to discuss slavery to avoid discussing ‘gay’, yet thread is entitled evangelical and gay. That much of the church supported the 18th century slave trade is an indication of how badly wrong the church can go, but the lgbt is another level of disbelief and rejection of the gospel altogether. Yes the Bible supports slavery in that we are all slaves to either righteousness or unrighteousness. Trying to justify a sin such as same sex relations is slavery to unrighteousness. With greed and wealth, something that most of us in the western world struggle with all the time as well, Jesus sent away the man who tried to justify himself, to rid himself completely of the idol. (Matthew 19) Would you like to start a thread about slavery? You have to interpret what the Bible literally says in context and holistically. Yes we are all slaves to what masters us. But as all are one and equal in Christ, and as the NT teaching is to give and help the poor, don’t you think where it refers to owners and slaves who are believers, it is addressing how they should operate in the worldly circumstances they found themselves in? I do. Otherwise how can both and slave and free be one in Christ? (Galatians 3) I look forward to discussing this with you on another thread. Where does it say 'gay' in the Bible? It says evangelise, but it doesn’t say ‘gay’ Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 4 April 2012 - 10:09pm DavidW I thought I had responded to yours so I am feeling puzzled. But Col 4.1 plainly does support slavery. It is laying down employment guidelines for Christian slave owners! Or have I misunderstood you? Since the NT church supported slavery within it own communities how did we reach the point we have, where we unquestionably believe slavery is not Christian, is a social evil and should be abolished on Christian grounds? The significance of this discussion lies precisely here. The abolition of slavery in the C19 is an example of how the Christian church can and does come to deeply Christian convictions about certain economic, moral and social behaviour without being able to produce specific bible verses to back it up. It is also an example of how significant Christian beliefs and practices may change over time. Anyway - that's my pennyworth. Easter greetings. Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 4 April 2012 - 07:04pm DavidR, Would you first like to address what I have written? Then if you do not have any scripture that The Biblical testimony of God says we are either slaves to righteousness or to unrighteousness (Romans 6) I don’t think Colossians 4:1 for example does much to support slavery. "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." – Colossians 4:1 And it is quite possible that Dr Luke who wrote the gospel and acts chose to remain a slave so as to keep his employment. can you guide me to references where scripture countenances men with men instead of women, or ’gay’ ? Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 4 April 2012 - 11:49am DavidW Just ahead of the Easter recess .. can you guide me to references where that scripture teaches that the slavery is wrong and should be abolished? Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 3 April 2012 - 07:33pm Stuart, I agree with you, the texts you provided together with some of the ones I provided, taken plainly for what they say, definitely do support slavery, not least, we are slaves to either righteousness or unrighteousness, but they don’t support the nature of the 18th century slave trade. But at least those who supported the slave trade then, had some scripture to try and argue their case, more so than the lgbt lobbies which have no scriptural support whatsoever. It just goes to show the level of denial and unbelief we have on this issue. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 3 April 2012 - 06:32pm Origen... WO wasn't brought about by the church deciding to go against scripture.....! Now, if you, or anyone, shows the acts you want condoned are anywhere in scripture accepted in any circumstances, then you might change 'the mind of the Communion'......& it wouldn't have to turn a blind eye or go against scripture..... So, where in scripture would you point us to? Posted by: Stuart Tuesday 3 April 2012 - 06:13pm Nersen, You elegantly make the point: Wilberforce was not going against Scripture, even though his "revisionist" position went against what others at the time would have considered the plain reading and settled understanding of the texts. You mention the context at the time that Paul was writing and the relevance of analagous rather than literal application of the texts to our current circumstances. That makes sense - and it's also worth considering the relevance of context and analogy to other texts as well. None of what I've written here is an argument by itself for one or other side in this never ending debate. But I would wish to suggest that we need to reflect on how we approach Scripture - and that we all of us tend to take a "revisionist" approach when the plain reading is one we understand to be plainly not the Gospel. Posted by: Roger Hurding Tuesday 3 April 2012 - 04:58pm Thank you for your recent posts Stuart. They are most helpful in our continuing discussion in offering a wise hermeneutic that seeks to be faithful to the scriptures as a whole. Happy Easter to you and all other contributors. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Tuesday 3 April 2012 - 12:33am @Angela: Unlike Phil Almond, I'm not against women priests at all. See Nersen's response that I've copied below. @Nersen:”Origen, so your argument is now that you think the church is ignoring scripture on other issues, so it should ignore it to justify the behaviour you want condoned? Not a strong argument at all.” I think it is a very good argument! The church has found its way around divorce and remarriage, slavery, usury, and women priests. Not getting around the verses condemning homosexuality is just plain prejudice. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 2 April 2012 - 08:43pm Stuart.... You think Wilberforce was going against scripture? Seriously? Do you realise even doctors were sometimes slaves when St Paul was writing? Us employees are more like NT slaves than we might like to think....... Think on about Why slaves were not told to rebel and take their freedom.... Definitely not worldly principles in what the bibles teaches slaves...like us Posted by: Stuart Monday 2 April 2012 - 05:00pm DavidW, I'd suggest that on the famed "plain reading of Scripture" those texts would be taken as supportive of slavery. Certainly, that's what those who sought to oppose the revisionist innovation of abolitionism argued: "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation" Jefferson Davies "the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example" Richard Fulman, President of the South Carolina Baptist Convention What I'm trying to bring out here is the question of how we approach Scripture, and hence how we use it to inform us on questions of sexuality. I'd suggest that the "plain reading" approach has at times been use to take individual verses and use them to justify racism, anti-semitism, slavery and many other practices which we would now consider inimical to the Gospel. This has especially been the case when those have been historically present in society and traditionally supported by the church. An alternative approach is to look to Scripture as a whole, to look to its overall message - as I believe we all do to refute, for example slavery and as the post of mine you cite below attempts to do with regard to sexuality. I would suggest that this approach may be both more fruitful and more respectful of Scripture than seeking out individual verses to justify a particular position. Posted by: DavidW Monday 2 April 2012 - 01:46pm Stuart, You have presented an argument by scripture for slavery, do you see any scripture that can be presented against it? As to what you have presented, 1 Peter 2 also says live as God’s slaves. 2 Peter 2:19 says "people are slaves to whatever has mastered them." Whether righteousness or wickedness. I don’t think the instruction of masters to treat well their slaves was being followed in the slave trade of the 18th century. Does reference to what slaves and masters should do mean slavery in that sense is being countenanced ? Does the Bible say anywhere that slavery is detestable to God, like it says same sex relations are? And it is possible that Dr Luke who wrote a gospel and Acts was a slave of sorts, some preferred to be slaves rather free agents because it was more secure employment. Its an interesting post, but it doesnt help against the Biblical condemnation of same-sex sexual relations. And your post of Monday 2 April 2012 - 08:41am doesnt show scripture from both sides, it merely describes how the scriptures from one side which condemn same sex relations are disputed and denied by those who dont believe what they say. Posted by: DavidR Monday 2 April 2012 - 09:41am DavidW You write 'Have you any contribution to the issue as opposed to your critique of me? Still no supporting scriptures I see.' David, I pointed out in my post to you that I (and a significant number of others) have been fairly regularly discussing this topic at length for several years now on Fulcrum (greetings Stuart and anotherDavid). It is easy to look us all up and read what we say. You could do a lot worse than to look up Roger Hurding's posts which are models of gracious scriptural clarity on this topic in the midst of a debate that has a way easily overheating. You will see if you do that we quote a lot of scripture actually. We do this because we are as concerned as you are to base our understanding and living on scripture. I do not expect you to agree with my conclusions. But please stop accusing me and others of not engaging with scripture at all. It simply isn't true. Posted by: Stuart Monday 2 April 2012 - 09:14am Perhaps an historical analogy might provide illumination. Were this estimable forum in operation in the late 18th century, one could imagine the arguments that could be put against those proposing the abolition of slavery. 1) The Bible clearly supports slavery: Ex21:3-4, 9-11; Lev:25:40-54; Eph 6:5-8; Col 3:22-25; 1 Tim 6:1; 1Pet 2:18; Titus 2:9-10 - to take just the last, "Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect." 2) The revisionists who are arguing for this innovation are going against the mind of the church - throughout Christian history slavery has been accepted as compatible with scripture. 3) Leading evangelical thinkers support this interpretation: George Whitefield campaigned relentlessly and successfully for slavery to be legalised in Georgia, where it had previously been banned. Returning to the present day: of course, we all on this forum understand that slavery is wrong, that taking individual verses in support of it does not justify a practice which is clearly incompatible with the overall message of the Gospel, that Paul and Peter wrote within the context of 1st century life. Given this, surely we must be cautious about using the same reliance on individual verses rather than the Gospel overall, the same refusal to consider context, the same insistence that the church's historic moral positions may not change, to decline to explore what the totality of Scripture might tell us our correct response to same gender relationships might be today. Posted by: Stuart Monday 2 April 2012 - 08:41am To the point that the case has been made from scripture, I've just gone back and dug out this post I made three years ago, others I'm sure have expressed this better than I did, but it at least demonstrates that there has been engagement with scripture from both sides.... I'm happy to have a go at summarising the "with scripture, accepting of same gender relations" position, but with the major caveat that I'm no expert on this and so may not cover all aspects. I'll also try to do this discursively rather than lobbing references back and to. Firstly, I think it's important to start with the need to take scripture as a whole. Selective quoting of the Bible has long been used to justify everything from Gnosticism to Arianism, racism, slavery, far left or far right politics. I'd like to posit that part of how we prevent misreading of scripture based on selective quoting is to look at the whole of scripture and start with its overall message. What does that give us? We are all wretched sinners. Here in this life we will not avoid that. If we think we are not, if we think we've worked out what we're doing wrong, repented of it and sorted ourselves out so we're saved through our own merits, we're wrong. We all of us sin without even realising it. We are saved by Christ alone. So, for a moment, assume that same gender relations are a sin, and that those who are in such relations and believe they're not sinning by being so are mistaken. Well if that's the case, that makes them no different from the rest of us. We're all sinners, both in ways we recognise and repent of and in that we are not even able to see all the ways in which we're sinning. If we're looking at the selection of ministers to lead Christ's church, of course we always know there'll be sinners leading us - because we're all sinners - but there is then a second hurdle, ministers must model their lives after a pattern that does not lead others into sin. Not: people who are not sinning. People who are not (or not egregiously) leading people into sin. Here, those of us who know settled gay couples observe that they can fit the Biblical model for leadership and that even if same gendered relations are sinful, we can observe that having a minister in a same gendered relationship doesn't lead other people into doing the same (homosexuality isn't something you catch). So even if these relationships are sinful, they would not be a bar on ministry, any more than other sins which we all commit. Next, we need to examine whether same gendered relations actually are sinful. Incredibly briefly, Old Testament passages are viewed in the context of Christ bringing us a new covenant. The Old Testament is scripture, it is the Word of God, it teaches us faith. The covenant described within it, however, has been fulfilled and surpassed by the new covenant and (outside Sabbatarian churches) we do not use it as a directory of specific ordinances. [As an aside here, I think there is real frustration on this side of the debate when someone quotes a single verse from Leviticus, whilst having absolutely no intention of following the rest of the book - that does not seem an honest or respectful way to read scripture.] Turning to St Paul, he uses words which can be translated as referring to all same gendered relations or solely to pederasty and male rape. He does not, on the three occasions he makes some form of reference to the subject, write in terms that clearly establish a bar on monogamous, life-long same gendered relations. Secondly on Paul, and further to my aside above, most churches do not treat literally his injunctions that women must wear head-covering when praying and remain silent at all times in church. If we allow women into church without hats, and even let them read lessons and take prayers, then we are accepting that Paul is sometimes giving injunctions for first century churches and would write differently if addressing twenty-first century ones. So, this suggests there is no direct Biblical edict establishing all same gendered relations to be sinful. Without that, we must assess their place, and now that we have the opportunity to observe stable, consensual, mongamous, life-long same gendered relations we can see that they harm no one and to the contrary bring benefit to the communities and churches in which they exist. Finally, What Would Jesus Do? His ministry was amongst the marginalised and excluded, those whom the religious authorities of the day looked down upon and sneered at - tax-collectors, prostitutes, the poor, foreigners and immigrants. It's often pointed out that to the women taken in adultery He said "go, and sin no more". But adultery is harming another a person, it's betrayal. A better model might be Zacchaeus: Jesus inspired him to put right what he had done wrong, but did not change what he was - he remained a tax-collector. Posted by: DavidW Monday 2 April 2012 - 08:40am Hi DavidR, Have you any contribution to the issue as opposed to your critique of me? Still no supporting scriptures I see. The scriptures cited and quoted say what they say, if you want to ‘interpret’ them all in holistic context to mean the opposite of what they say then I, and all the hundreds of Christians I know, from many different churches in different churches,call that unbelief. Lambeth 1.10 says what it says, GAFCON represents potentially up to 75% of Anglicans worldwide so no, its not just my ‘interpretation’ and understanding, though it is perhaps yours. So when you write "and any who disagree with you." they would be the false teachers who disagree with what the Biblical testimony of God says, who don’t believe what their church position (Lambeth 1:10) btw I am often enriched by learning from God through other believers on forums, its wonderful, and also learning things from non-believers, it is of great benefit. Posted by: DavidW Monday 2 April 2012 - 08:10am Origen Adam. 1Tim2:12 again describes men and women, how has that got anything to do with ‘gay’ or same sex relations? But it does show why the debate about women bishops, and women in leadership is credible. Contrast 1 Tim 2:12 with for example Galatians 3:21, in Christ there is neither male nor female, or Romans 16 where there seem to be women in leadership. Whereas of course there isnt any countenance for same-sex sexual relations. But it does show the mentality of looking for other faults in the church to try and justify the unjustifiable. I read another dubious piece from a bishop over the weekend, that gay people would be fully welcomed into the church. All believers are already welcomed, doesn’t Lambeth 1.10 say that? Fully included, full members of the body of Christ and loved by God. Did he mean gay people or same-sex sexual relations? Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Sunday 1 April 2012 - 10:21pm an angel turned up amid the pandemonium and recriminations and said, "Come on, play together " Posted by: Another David Sunday 1 April 2012 - 03:29pm DavidR (would it be simpler if everyone on this list were called David or Dave - shades of Monty Python!) Thank you for you response. As someone in the middle of this debate, undecided, I would say that I have been generally more impressed with the coherence of the arguments of the 'revisionists' than the 'stickists'. However, this applies mainly to the discussion of how the 'proof' texts against same-sex sexual relationship might not apply to all such relationships. What I have not seen is a good exposition from Scripture in favour of certain kinds of such relationship (assumed to be commited and exclusive, I presume). There seems to me that there is an assumption in some quarters that such relationships are either condemned or 'blessed'. While the quoted scriptures on same-sex activities are few and not entirely clear, they are all negative. (This is a contrast with the "women in ministry" debate, where there are definitely positive things to say from Scripture in this area). Another factor is the idea raised in Oliver O'Donovan's book "A Conversation Waiting to Happen", that we need to listen and reflect on the whole area of same-sex attraction and the experience of it. It might be as much of a mistake to assume it should take the same pattern as opposite sex attraction as to condemn it outright. Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 1 April 2012 - 07:45am Oregen There are some points about your post 1. The first judge was a woman 2, God used many women to teach and the bible is full of women chosen by God to teach lessons, not all of the lessons were oral. 3. These lessons were most certainly scriptural. 4. The most important thing about scripture, is the way that we use it, do we use it to opress and suppress a particular part of any given community, or do we use it to give "freedom in christ". Did Christ ever listen to women? How did Christ treat women? Of course most importantly who gave birth to Christ? Who fed him and kept him safe untill he went on his mission? Did Christ ever tell a woman not to preach? read the question Did CHRIST ever tell a woman not to preach? Did the 12 disciples always get it right first time or were they taught by Christ? Did Jesus only save Men? This comes over as i am fed up with arguing about homosexuality, so I will see if i get a reaction by attacking women which is a bit sad really. It is also scriptural to love one another look after one another and put others before yourself, why not argue for freedom from oppression rather than how to maintain an oppressive one?? Just a thought. Angela The cross is heavy if you carry it The weight of Sin Upon the shoulders The grieving the dying the theives and the lying Can you not see The bloodied tears Of the Soldier for Christ Fighting for freedom That every Man Woman and Child Can live in Peace No distinction, no condition That ALL may hear That ALL may Speak That ALL may worship At the foot of the cross Leaving it there, In Jesus Care "Do not deal with issues to great for you" For this is the work of the Saving Grace For Jesus to do. Angela. Posted by: Bowman Sunday 1 April 2012 - 07:00am Are there texts in the scriptures that we have missed? Below, villagers and visitors will find the scriptural passages known or alleged, in the first three centuries of this thread, to directly concern homosexual acts. All comments have been in the context of wider understandings of the Word, of course, and nobody would base conclusions only on these. Still, to keep ourselves honest, it seems useful to have a list of the unavoidable texts. Deo volente, those curious about the discussion can click either the page or the name of the villager who first mentioned it in that part of the thread. Links mentioned are collected at the end of this post. Is there any other passage in the canonical scriptures that should considered to be about homosexuality per se? Texts Mentioned On the first page of this thread at Thursday 24 November 2011 - 07:38pm, Phil Townsend posted an essay mentioning Genesis i-iii, Romans i 21-32, 1 Corinthians vi 9, 1Timothy i 8 (and other passages)in the wider context of Pauline ethics. On the fourth page, at Tuesday 6 December 2011 - 05:12pm, Roger Hurding mentions 2 Samuel i 26. On the fourth page, at Wednesday 7 December 2011 - 07:23pm, Mark Bennet mentions Ruth iii 9. On the seventh page at Tuesday 13 December 2011 - 11:38 pm, Vicki discussed crime of Gibeah in Judges xviii and xx 3-5. On the eighth page at Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 08:11pm, George Day discussed Genesis i,ii, xix; Leviticus xviii 22, xx 13, xix19; Romans i; 1 Corinthians vi; 1 Timothy i 10. On the ninth page at Friday 16 December 2011 - 11:10pm, Vicki commented on Romans i. On the sixteenth page at Friday 3 February 2012 - 09:23pm, Phil Almond replied to Vicki's post on Romans i, and refers the interested villager to Robert Gagnon's posts on the Fulcrum forum thread ‘Homosexuality, Scripture and Church’ in the summer of 2008. On the eighteenth page at Saturday 25 February 2012 - 10:17pm Bowman links and discusses Resolution 1.10 from Lambeth XIII in 1998. On the twenty-first page at Sunday 11 March 2012 - 05:25am, Bowman briefly discussed the three gospel accounts of the healing of the Centurion's "boy" or "servant"-- St Matthew viii 5-13, St Luke vii1-10, St John iv 46-53. On the twenty-third page at Friday 23 March 2012 - 09:42pm, DavidW mentions Revelations xxii, Leviticus xviii, 1 Corinthians vi. On the twenty-sixth page at Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:10am, Dave links the Church of England website here. And here, for completeness, I note that passages in the apocryphal or deuterocanonical book of Wisdom xiii-xiv (especially xiv 11), and xv 1-19 are often seen as the OT precursor to Romans 1:18-32, extensively discussed on the ninth and sixteenth pages. Robert Gagnon mentions some subapostolic writers in his posts to the thread linked below. Links Mentioned Resolution 1.10 from Lambeth XIII in 1998. Robert Gagnon left many posts on the Fulcrum forum thread ‘Homosexuality, Scripture and Church’ in the summer of 2008. The Church of England website on Homosexuality. An anonymous visitor left a link to resources on the scriptures at the Human Rights Campaign. Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:21pm Origen Adam Re your 31 March 2012 4.18 pm post on this thread. Sorry, I don't think I am understanding your point. I agree with you when you say "So its not a cultural thing that women shouldn't be in authority, rather its to do with the created order". As I see it this means that Anglicans should not have ordained women as priests and should not consecrate women as bishops. Phil Almond Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:19pm Origen, so your argument is now that you think the church is ignoring scripture on other issues, so it should ignore it to justify the behaviour you want condoned? Not a strong argument at all. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Saturday 31 March 2012 - 04:18pm I don't think its true that people haven't argued a case from scripture! Here goes with scripture 1: 1Tim2 “12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. So its not a cultural thing that women shouldn't be in authority, rather its to do with the created order. Yet Anglicans see fit to ordain women as priests and possibly even bishops! Posted by: DavidR Saturday 31 March 2012 - 03:36pm DavidW Greetings. Thank you for checking out what I am trying to say. It is not easy to know how to respond to you though. You appear to leave no daylight between your own view - which you believe to be the obvious and clear teaching of scripture - and any who disagree with you. For you these kind of people can only be false teachers who are not prepared to accept what the bible teaches. I may be wrong but I think you have only joined in the debates on this thread quite recently. The discussions about homosexuality have been running under various topics here since at least 2008 and always at some length. Nersen, for example, has been posting prolifcally on this subject (and many others) since mid 2008. Over that time many very thoughtful and articulate biblical reflections have been explored on this subject. On this thread, and others, it is manifestly not true that only you, Nersen and others of conservative persuasion have been quoting scripture. Nor is it true that no other scriptures or interpretations of scripture have been offered for discussion on this or other threads. Why do you and Nersen keep claiming this? Look back and see. I am not asking you to agree with them but to at least acknowledge they are there - people with a deep love and commitment to scripture who are exploring an understanding and interpretation other than yours, and giving careful reasons why. You may strongly disagree and even be totally baffled as to how I could think the bible supports my position. OK - just say that. I can live with that. But please stop claiming that no arguments from scripture are being offered at all. They are. You just don't agree with them. And for what it is worth your arguments don't persuade me either. But I still respect your love of the Word and commitment to following it. Finally David these are discussion threads. I value them as a place I can explore and wrestle with issues that matter and with people who diosagree with me. I may even change my mind as a result of debating with others. But for that to happen here I will need some sense that you are taking the trouble to understand where I am coming from and a respect that I care just as deeply about the Word of God as you do. I am not going to be persuaded if you just assume that if I don't happen to agree with your understanding of a text then I am not taking the Bible seriously and am a false teacher. Forgive me if you feel misunderstood but it may help to know that is how your approach comes across to me. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 31 March 2012 - 10:05am Asserting something follows doesn't ....make it follow..... Lambeth 1.10 stands.... Write to the AbC if you want confirmation!! Really amazed that people can give no arguments from scripture given the repeated assertion that the sexual 'practice' it , in line with the church catholic today, calls incompatible with scripture is acceptable...in scripture. It's irrelevant to hear the trolling of those who do not have a Christian, let alone an evangelical, view of scripture on this thread....but even they might make a case from scripture to change the mind of evangelicals, if they could.... But, they can't and just repeatedly assert evangelicals should take a Revisionist view of scripture....irrelevant. Others seems to want to justify their own behaviour but that only matters before God, not here....He will judge. Since they never show anywhere in scripture which doesn't condemn but blesses, in any circumstances, the acts they want to justify, I guess they are confident that God accepts behaviour going against OT and NT teaching. The open revisionist position is, at least, logical.....They reject scripture at will and hardly anyone attends to hear their ramblings (see cofe attendance trends or new Hampshire attendance), but those who merely assert compatibility with scripture for a revisionist view but never show the acts they want to justify are in any circumstances ever acceptable to God in scripture, aren't making a logical case. I'd be happy to agree if anyone would ever show a case from scripture to support ditching Lambeth 1.10 ... but that case is never made. Why? Posted by: DavidW Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:27am Origen Adam, Would it not be fair that if you expect others to acknowldge parts of Lambeth 1:10 you ought to be prepared to acknowledge other parts? I think so. If you don’t get too sick of it or God’s word that it is derived from, come back and we can discuss the rest when you have grasped these parts. "cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining thoseinvolved in same gender unions; while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage; 3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. – Jude 1 Posted by: DavidW Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:25am DavidR What exactly is your point? 300 hundred posts with several scriptures describing one core belief, holistically and in context, and none describing the opposite, should have ended the debate some time ago. Is your point that you don’t like people posting the scriptural truth, do you believe the false and baseless should get equal treatment? How can their be a covenant of people of faith when they don’t share the same faith? Posted by: Dave Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:10am The CofE website http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/human-sexuality/homosexuality.aspx rstricts its view of Lambeth I.10 to respect as part of the mind of the Communion as a whole. This leaves the old Higton resolution from 1987 This needs repealing or amending if and before the church expresses God's blessing on same sex unions of any kind. Dave Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 31 March 2012 - 06:19am Here's a suggestion. Now that the Church of England has rejected the Covenant, perhaps it follows that Lambeth 1998 1:10 no longer stands. It might be a resolution made under conditions of intense disagreement well over a decade ago, but even if it stands the decision of the Church of England has been to reject one of the means by which that Lambeth 1:10 was said to maintain itself. The Church of England has just asserted its autonomy. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Saturday 31 March 2012 - 01:50am @Bowman Thanks for the heads-up about TED. Fascinating stuff. But I still think conservatives are dumb. And evil ;) Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Saturday 31 March 2012 - 01:12am Yes, I'm also a bit sick of Nersen citing Lambeth 1.10 all the time. It clearly says: "We must confess that we are not of one mind about homosexuality." Which bit, Nersen, supports your position?! And is it possible to construct proper sentences.....without.....all....the dots?? http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm Posted by: DavidR Friday 30 March 2012 - 07:14pm Of the 300 posts on this thread no fewer than 66 are by - Nersen! (though it may be more accurate to say mostly 1 post repeated 66 times). Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 30 March 2012 - 10:37am Just resorting to Labelling doesn't work when you cannot make an argument, Origen ..... Talking of Your 'hatred' of scripture would be a response using your tactic .... Weak arguments from revisionists.... No wonder Lambeth 1.10 stands Posted by: DavidW Friday 30 March 2012 - 08:48am Origen Adam, I agree with nersenpaul, 300 posts and no direct counentance for same sex relations in scripture presented. Lambeth 1.10 is a very good statement on the issue. The main argument for same sex relations seems to be calling believers names such as bigots, homophobic and prejudiced; what exactly is the purpose of that? I should read 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1 to see what God's word says about such an attitude. And on that point it is worth considering what the actual issue here is, its not primarily to do with sexuality, though that is the manifestation, it is part of a 'new tyranny' even some 'gay' commentators are noticing, where sections of society are out to force their morals on the rest and if the rest dont affirmm them, punish them. Posted by: Bowman Friday 30 March 2012 - 08:23am The problem I have with conservatives is that I do find their positions bigoted and intolerant. I genuinely don't understand how so-called Christians can come to espouse such hatred - it's beyond me! Relax, Iconoclast :-) They aren't espousing hatred. They are espousing a willingness to accept conditions that you find unreasonable in order to preserve something that is precious, perhaps even to you. Like yourself, they may be right or wrong in any given case, but the clashes are thoroughly predictable because they are fundamentally clashes of universal human temperaments. Once you can step outside of your attachment to your own temperamental "iconoclasm," you will see both the limitations of your own prior views, and also the best way for someone of your own temperament to handle, with integrity, those who are more conservative. You will then read this whole thread with another pair of eyes, and if you are still advocating for the homeless, you will see the same clash of temperaments at work around issues of wealth and poverty. I attempt a quick explanation below. But it is much more fun to laugh with Jonathan Haidt as he explains ;-) Traditional morality in any culture uses the five values of caring, fairness, (ingroup) loyalty, authority, and purity to preserve the stability of hard-won and easily lost social gains (13:46, 14:48). The most bitter disputes in any given culture will be those that are about the three values of loyalty, authority, and purity. This is because, whilst liberals and conservatives agree on the relevance of values of caring and fairness, liberals reject the values of loyalty, authority, and purity, whilst conservatives accept them. The crux of the matter is that the order that serves the common good can seldom be preserved without at least the risk of some harm or unfairness to those at the bottom. Conservatives, focused on security, are willing to tolerate that risk. Liberals, who are bored by security and open to change, flirt with social erosion in their refusal to agree to this. Their clash is both temperamental and inevitable. The question is whether, for society as a whole, this leads to a dynamic, dialectical stability or to destructive polarization of stagnant positions. The answer to the "problem" you raise is to open your mind to a point of view that sees the interplay of these values and temperaments (15:00 and 17:10). To test your grasp of these principles, Identify the temperamental tension posed by this emerging issue. Posted by: DavidR Friday 30 March 2012 - 07:44am Hi Nersen, '300 posts' - and how many are yours repeating your claims about Lambeth 1.10? And how many, like this one, are people politely pointing out to you that Lambeth 1.10 actually says: 'We must confess that we are not of one mind about homosexuality.' Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Friday 30 March 2012 - 01:10am @Iconoclast:"My impression of the proponents of Gay marriage and homosexual relationships on this thread is that they are very good examples of 'Cranmers law'." The problem I have with conservatives is that I do find their positions bigoted and intolerant. I genuinely don't understand how so-called Christians can come to espouse such hatred - it's beyond me! Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 29 March 2012 - 10:27pm 300 posts.... And still nobody shows that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re what it says is incompatible with scripture.... I can respect an open revisionist who doesn't care about going against scripture where it contradicts the Guardian, but why do those who assert the 'practice' mentioned in Lambeth 1.10 is compatible with scripture never show how or where it is blessed in any circumstances..... in scripture? Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Thursday 29 March 2012 - 02:03am People tolerating me? Gosh. I don't know. Good discussions and interactions at the Anglican In Depth group, Unitarians, Western Buddhists, and even Baha'is earlier on. I think you'll find that prophetic figures had what they said changed by their own religious outcomes, never mind by others. As has often been shown, the Christ of faith isn't exactly the Jesus of history. How much did the later Buddhist traditions add or subtract from Buddha - for example, the Pure Land tradition just for a start? That is not the basis of tolerance or absence of tolerance regarding any faith. It is always about how they would tolerate as and when it mattered. Over the long run, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism have very good records. Posted by: Kevin Ellis Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 08:42pm Lots of questions. I am not sure I am competent enough to give even partial answers. User 3664 - you may well be right. Maybe I am hypocritical on the issue. Jeremy - I guess I would not want to go against my bishop - that it seems to be one of the bases of being an episcopal church. I am not sure either, for me, how clear scripture is on this issue. I vere between being very conservative to open to the possibility to acceptance. My lack of being sure on the issue means I am on a journey. What I feel I cannot do is pretend that I am clear about the doing a service of blessing; and then regret it afterwards; open to the fact that I might find the experience enjoyable. I feel I can go to the ceremony; for having explained where I am on my journey to the couple, they are happy for me to be there. If they are willing to have me there, then on the basis of shared friendship, I am willing to go. Bowman - Yes, you may be right on all counts. I repeat my desire to avoid personal remarks. We cannot accuse those we do not know. Posted by: Iconoclast Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 06:11pm My impression of the proponents of Gay marriage and homosexual relationships on this thread is that they are very good examples of 'Cranmers law'. http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/cranmers-law.html Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 03:03pm Pluralist, It is interesting that you judge Baha'i as not the most intolerant. I would like to know whether anything apart from your own views are tolerant to you? And of course your views are intolerant of the Baha’i Faith The very fact that it rewrites for its own purposes what the prophets have written makes it not part of the Zoroastrian-Jewish-Christian-Islamic pattern, but against all of them. Not sure on what basis you think it might. Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 02:49pm Hi User 3664, [quote] Now you may be having a tiny fleeting experience of what gay people go through, our entire lives through, Kevin ! [/quote] But Kevin has already said they are his friends, I don’t consider that can be suffering outrage of society. Do you mean you think viewing same sex relations as error is somehow an outrage? Between the two I would say thinking they are ok is an outrage. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 02:16pm User.... Can someone in the cofE, in your judgment, not be a bigot while thinking Lambeth 1.10 is right re scripture? I would agree with you if you, or anyone, ever showed Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re scripture in any circumstance ..... That's a bigoted position?? Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 11:23am Kevin - I should have said that I have found a number of bishops etc! A positive thing that they did, rather than a negative! Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 08:13am Kevin, thank you for joining the small circle-- Anonymous, Vicki, and Jeremy-- of those who have offered personal experience of the topic on this thread. The dialogue betwixt you and Jeremy is especially helpful. Regardless of a parish's theological drift, it can have or lack openness and empathy. Jeremy's testimony about his unhappy parish experiences (see below) reads like another world. (What would it take to change that world for the better?) The dialogue you have with your friends sounds more familiar to me; it resembles somewhat the ones that I have seen over the last few decades between gay clergy and their parishioners and dioceses. Many have said much here about their settled minds, but few have told the story of their journeys from here to there. Thank you for sharing yours. Typing this from New England, I will be the first to admit that I have no sense at all of the context that rightly informs your judgment. However, I do pose a gentle consideration on the principle of your refusal, foreshadowed perhaps by Jeremy's sly quip about blessing weapons and Jesus's command to pray even for enemies. If your concerns are largely about the exegesis of the scriptures, then I cannot do better than the books already on your desk. However, in many good minds, the reservations about the Church approving same sex relationships are actually empirical. That is, the theological answers that they would find settling cannot come without answers to factual questions. Will homosexuals prove to be at least as monogamous as heterosexuals over the long run? Nobody knows. Is it true that the interpersonal dimension of marriage can helpfully replace the intersexual dimension of it that has defined it from the beginning? Nobody knows that either. Would replacing the traditional ideas about marriage with a more abstract one have a price in social understanding of the relations between women and men? Many have reasonable opinions, but we don't know, and will not find out soon. These are not bad questions to ask. But since they are about a reality that does not exist, something will have to be ventured or a good answer to them will never be found. They will never be answered without broad experience of gay couples trying to make commitment work. Since love is as risky as war, we do not know what we will find when they do. Those who say they do know are fanatical or bluffing. But we do know that the choice of lifeling loneliness or a string of transient liasons is a choice of evils. It is rash to presume to confect a sacrament out of a social movement. But it is wrong not to pray for persons who want deliverance. And it does want compassion to say that one will have an answer to the burning issue of their lives by the turn of the next century. Someday this will all be clear, but what does one do in the meantime? This dilemma has been faced before. After the Byzantine emperors had made divorce and remarriage legal in the civil law, they handed marriage over to the Church to administer. But, of course, the Orthodox believe that the marriage bond can be forged only once, is eternal, and lasts even into the world to come. Theologically, divorce is not merely wrong; it is clearly ontologically impossible. How were they to accommodate a system of disposible marriages? There were fierce protests; there was also an emperor. Stuck with the unwanted power to make people miserable, the bishops had to find some accomodation for the fraity that had made the civil laws necessary. In that situation, which was perhaps analogous to some situations today, the Church decided to fully celebrate weddings of the never-married, which honors what it considers God to have revealed, but to supply a more modest observance for all others, which shows God's compassion for the penitent. And so it still is today after a millennium or so. (Not all gradients are slippery slopes.) Given that the Church of England has its own way of marking the difference between a wedding about which it has no reservations, and one about which it does, would it be compassionate and principled to use the latter observance? This honors the persons for at least making the difficult choice of commitment, but recognizes that theirs is a journey into something unknown. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 01:24am My point about the Baha'i Faith was that it had, precisely, intolerant aspects, including about homosexuality. But I would not regard it as the most intolerant of faiths - hardly. I don't accept its inclusivism either, in that it rewrites for its own purposes what the prophetic figures it includes were about. But it is still legitimately part of the Zoroastrian-Jewish-Christian-Islamic pattern. Its attempts to include Krishna and Buddha are at too great a stretch, and of course Hindus and Buddhists regard the Baha'i Faith as a distortion of what they stand for (as do others). I tolerate the Baha'i Faith simply because it is just another faith, that's all: if the troops marched in (as they sort of say for the non-existent but 'expected' swelling of numbers) then the toleration of it would probably have to become means of resistance. If it was ever to come to 'power' then it would make all the same mistakes religions in power have made before, as in Christendom, as in Islamic states. Now there is another point about the Baha'i Faith and that is regarding the believers. Whilst the institution is highly self-protective, many of the believers do think it is as inclusive and progressive as the shop window claims, and no doubt this improves the behaviour of the faith. On the other hand, they discover the rules about relationships between male and female prior to marriage which makes me think the faith is almost cultic. I've seen some upset in this regard. Large numbers leave the Baha'i Faith and are never properly counted out, and yet the UHJ also has a habit of creating covenant breakers that simply cannot understand what they have done wrong. They are cast out. The fact that Baha'is raise money from only among themselves and have a hefty administration puts a heavy demand on believers and many become disillusioned. And there happens to be a Unitarian Baha'i Association that allows non-Haifan Baha'is to continue their beliefs and practices but in a spirit of freedom outside of what the Universal House of Justice might think. Others just stay as individuals and make their own contacts. Whilst there is an argument to be had about exclusivity and inclusivity, I do have some extra than usual knowlede about the Baha'is. Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 12:01am 'My problem is not that two or three of their guests are outraged by by refusal but their accusations about my supposed bigotry, even though they have know idea who I am.' Now you may be having a tiny fleeting experience of what gay people go through, our entire lives through, Kevin ! We suffered the outrage of society and still do suffer much outrage of people, even though they have no idea who we are. Kevin you seem more concerned for your own feelings and position, than for the happy couple. Why oh why, do the concerns, feelings and sensibilities of heterosexuals always trump ours* ? * those of us who are lesbian and gay. I have had over 60 years of it. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Tuesday 27 March 2012 - 04:45pm Kevin - thank you for explaining. Do you mind if I ask another question? You don't make clear the grounds of your preferring not to officiate at a Service of Prayer and Thanksgiving (for as we know, civil partnerships can't be blessed, though nuclear warheads can!). It might be because your bishop has directed you not to do so, and you feel that you must obey his direction? Though I think one of the canons might make it perfectly legal to do so on pastoral grounds. Or it might be because you don't really think that their partnership is or can be approved of by God? If it is the latter, then I wonder how it is you can attend, and by your presence appear to give support to what they are doing, when you don't in conscience think that it is a right thing? I have not found that a number of senior evangelicals, whose theology leads them to a position that means they don't aprove of gay relationships that might be sexually active, still manage to find that they can support friends or family they know are gay - inviting them with their partners to their homes, having them to stay, and providing them with double beds. At a personal level that is all very nice - but if it is ok in private - then why is their thinking in public so at variance? It seems rather hypocritical to me. Don't get me wrong - I hope that one day they will get there and treat all LGBT people like any one else - but it is an awkward time we are in. Posted by: Kevin Ellis Monday 26 March 2012 - 02:12pm Jeremy - The situation is this, although it is only my side. A couple who have asked me to officiate at the blessing of their civil partnership are good friends to me and my family (eating together, visiting together). They asked me to officiate. I have declined, although I will be there. They are fine with. They know me well enough to know that I am on a journey. My problem is not that two or three of their guests are outraged by by refusal but their accusations about my supposed bigotry, even though they have know idea who I am. People on all sides of the debate would do well to be rigorous in debate, but very slow to personally condemn another. For the record, they really are fine with my refusal and honesty. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Sunday 25 March 2012 - 11:19pm Kevin - can I ask, who is asking you to support their relationship with your theology? Is it your gay friends? And, if so, what does your caution about supporting their relationships mean in real terms? Or is this a general position you take? Is it something that shapes how your church looks at gay people who might be intersted in joining? Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 25 March 2012 - 11:04pm Waterangel, are you saying Ephesians 5 contradicts Ephesians 2? It doesn't .... If we are saved by grace, we don't sin in response... That'd be a very poor response to the cross.... Posted by: DavidW Sunday 25 March 2012 - 10:39pm Pluralist, I am led to believe the Baha'i faith doesnt tolerate homosexuality. So much for your ideas of toleration and inclusiveness. Posted by: DavidW Sunday 25 March 2012 - 10:37pm WaterAngel, Having read your post, I tend to agree. Yes Jesus Christ is the truth the way and the life. I think my question was the Jesus Christ who tells us to steal and lie? My point being, anyone claim to follow Jesus but does what they say match His Biblical testimony. Pluralist, You wrote "The inclusive includes inclusive positions, and only exclusive positions to a point where they don't threaten an inclusive position." So in reality the inclusive is actually exclusive, which was my point. Interesting that you mention the Baha'i Faith. In fact it is the only worldview that incorporates the messengers, all the other religions that those messangers belong to, reject the Baha’i faith. Its a good example of deception, what seems to be an inclusive religion is in fact the most exclusive of them all. So the common toleration and inclusivity mantra is actually the most exclusive and intolerant worldview in reality. Posted by: Kevin Ellis Sunday 25 March 2012 - 08:34pm I think I am in agreement with David W. I am an evangelical Anglican priest. Like many evangelicals, I have a good number of friends who attracted to people of the same sex. In recent times, I have expressed caution over whether I can support theologically such relationships. As a result, I have been accused of being a bigot. The interesting is that it is no one who knows me who make such accusations, but those who do not know are quick to judge. Perhaps there is a moral within this little pericopae for the wider debate? Kevin Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Sunday 25 March 2012 - 06:54pm The inclusive includes inclusive positions, and only exclusive positions to a point where they don't threaten an inclusive position. It's like a liberal democracy includes those political elements that are liberal and democratic so that those that would introduce fascism or communism are tolerated to some degree, but should they overturn the potential for democratic choosing again they are suppressed. I mean the smaller some things are, the easier it is to tolerate them. So for example, take the Baha'i Faith. My church this morning had a service based around it and included some of its materials as worship. Now I happen to have done a bit more reading than usual on the subject, and I'd be very tolerant of the Baha'i Faith. But I regard it as ultimately intolerant and would therefore be concerned if it ever became over large. So my toleration of it is somewhat based on its weakness and its self-presentation in that weakness as tolerant itself, but I would be warning people about its inconsistencies should it ever grow and be significant. As there is little chance of that, it is not the top of my agenda. It ought to be able to develop, and the Iranian Shia Muslims have no excuse. The Bahais practice tolerance themselves, but their all-male uniformity at the top, their not quite openness to science and where it leads, their intolerance of homosexuality as such, their literalism, and the control from the democratic centralist Universal House of Justice (secular and religious in intent) are all bases for warning should this faith ever grow to significance. So toleration and inclusivity are all about flexibility and continuing toleration and inclusivity. Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 25 March 2012 - 06:39pm Nerson The two statements are contradictory, it is difficult.However God sees the heart, that is what i would interpret as "hope" for sure refusing to speak about something does not mean a person does not think about something and to stay in continuous prayer is a calling for a "time and season" at other times we have to live in a sinful world and cope, as sinners ourselves. All of us, how about Jesus i believe forgive my unbelief. That covers a multitude of sins.. Silence in prayer can be useful sometimes, but it is unhealthy if it is used as an avoidance strategy. Angela Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 25 March 2012 - 06:23pm David W Who decides the light and the darkness, is an interesting question. Jesus said "I am the light" so if you earnestly seek to follow jesus and you accept Jesus in your heart then, if it is true you can only be light yourself. Although the 10 commandments are the instructions on how to achieve the beatitudes, it suggest that if you keep one you become the other. Of course we are all darkness and light, we all have aspects of darkness and light about us, but when we are focusing on Christ and Christ alone we can only share in a Christlike manner..Christ is the way to help us decide which is the light and dark.. The world tends to be full of shade, and rightly so really for one needs contrast how will you see the light if you are in it? From the darkness the lighter is all the brighter. Jesus was in the darkness of the sin of humanity, in that place his light shone for all to see. Some people of course did not like that. This might be as good an explanation as any about inclusivity and exclusivity, for what Christ did was to "offer" inclusivity in and through himself to the kingdom of God. Upon acceptance it became exclusive because not everyone wanted to walk in the light. The hope of things to come? Reminds me of this reflection The light at the end of the tunnel has gone out due to economic crisis. Angela Posted by: DavidW Sunday 25 March 2012 - 04:51pm What exactly is inclusive about a position which excludes exclusivity? This is the problem with relativism. Inclusivity is quite clearly more uncomfortable about including that which it doesn’t want, than exclusivity has excluding that which it doesn’t want. How exactly can two positions be inclusive when one of them is exclusive? The Biblical testimony of Christ says (John 3) says people loved darkness instead of light. Who decides what is the light and what is the darkness. Who decides what is sin and hate and what is light and love? As an example, is it right to inclusively accept both Westboro’s message that God hates gays, and the LGCM message that same sex relations are blessed by God. I am exclusivist, I reject both as contrary to the Biblical testimony. But surely an inclusive position would include both and welcome the diverse views; yet I have yet to find the people promoting inclusiveness welcoming both, they seem to accept one and reject the other. Posted by: DavidW Sunday 25 March 2012 - 04:41pm What exactly is inclusive about a position which excludes exclusivity? This is the problem with relativism. Inclusivity is quite clearly more uncomfortable about including that which it doesn’t want, than exclusivity has excluding that which it doesn’t want. How exactly can two positions be inclusive when one of them is exclusive? Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 24 March 2012 - 05:37pm Hi Waterangel , you asked me for a hopeful message as it is nearly Easter.. . How about, gay or not, Christ died for our sins! For all of us..... Ephesians 2:1-10...... Which is followed by Ephesians 5:3-20 Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 24 March 2012 - 03:43pm I appreciate all the posters here. I think that people here have very heartfelt views and that they share them from a point of wanting to see change for a better world. The obstacle has always been the difference in opinion on what would make a better world. Inclusivity is uncomfortable for most of us, we have to include that which makes us feel threatened and shifts the boundaries of all that we have and do believe. Most people just decide to go to places or be with people who are likeminded or accepting of who they are as people. But some of us based on personal experience usually decide to challenge the boundaries, sometimes for the better and sometimes to the detriment; but the boundaries themselves are important.The way in which we challenge says a lot about who we are, and where we are with or without a belief, its the same process. I have sensed some intellectual sarcasm on occassion here the cover for anger about particular situations, but i can honestly say it mostly comes accross as a pros and cons discussion about all the issues we cover, sometimes it can be painful because it can pull on the strings of emotion in a way not intended, from that place you know what to take to God if you are a believer or if you are not what to deal with in which ever way you deal with it.. Inclusivity and exclusivity i have discovered is a position of the heart, yet there are real practicalities like finances and opportunity, there is the way we have to deal with peoples perceptions of us good and bad. But inclusivity is about the human race, we are all in it, some at a distance, some watching , some doing but we are all in it. Occassionally there is a sadness at a missed opportunity, or a lack of ability which creates its own sense of aloneness, which in turn can make people give up or divert as an equivalent. It is always sad when in the name of Jesus people are excluded, for (a) it is never true and (b) in a world where diversity can create adversity Jesus is overlooked, for diversity is about inclusion of all. There was no time limit from Jesus, Jesus had three years to try and turn people from hateful and destructive ways, he taught many , like the olympic torch the message ran from city to city, the symbol of a flame of hope. We are different but the same, because we are human. We are all included in that, but some run the race faster than others. It is the turning away from that which is destructive whether its the way we live or the way we think others should live that makes the difference between a peaceful society and a hateful society. We an lead people to Jesus, we can accept or reject Jesus and most of all we can share Jesus. Whilst we are telling people that Jesus acepts them in their sin Jesus then does the work of working within , we dont need to be telling people all the time that they are wrong. Jesus will do it, if they are. "Peace i give to you and peace i leave with you!"( Jesus the way to eternal life pge ?) on the way to his death before resurrection. Angela Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 24 March 2012 - 12:38pm Thanks for your comment, Angela - I felt my offering had fallen on very deaf ears. But, to be entirely honest, I wasn't surprised. Posted by: Bowman Saturday 24 March 2012 - 09:53am Hi Angela! Though it does seems rather irenic at the moment, the end of the thread may indeed be near, except as a wall where drunks from the neighbouring villages spray bad graffiti after the pubs close. What has spun out the thread for so long is not the topic of the original essay-- everyone is quite sane about the plight of gay evangelicals (and anyone else) suffering in the gloom of cold, judgmental parishes like some described here. Those parishes breed the bored, fidgety hooligans who get drunk and spray on our walls in mad desperation. But we have seldom had the imagination to accept that most of reality is not so neatly polarised as the opinions in the forum of the village of Fulcrum. Nothing has been quite so odd as reading another post scolding Nersen for not changing his mind, closing my laptop, crossing the street, and hearing the same view of 1.13 expounded in the parish kitchen by the elderly gay man who runs it. He won't change his mind either. What he has believed all his life he will not reconsider now, even if he will not judge younger gay men born into a different world. Likewise, because this is Cambridge (Massachusetts), it was inevitable that, when a jolly young atheist fell in love with a devout Episcopalian, they would marry, even though both are women. That the atheist would become even more smitten with the Church than her life-partner is also not as unusual as many might think. But I confess that I am startled that she so delights in the 39 Articles. The glory of God is a human being fully alive. Apart from that, real differences have been exposed here in ways of thinking about the Church and the scriptures. The discussion has gone on as long as it has because these matters involve deep principles, and they bring differences of opinion into sharper focus than even, say, the occupiers could do. Some have been genuinely shocked to find that it is possible for others to question their splendid reasoning. The occasional gay evangelical who strolls through is understandably surprised (and usually annoyed) to discover that this thread is hardly ever merely about the gay experience in evangelical churches. There are some who know in their bones that the issues inside the church are just the same ones they have already met with out in the world. But there are also others who know in their own bones that this cannot possibly be the case whilst the church is really being the Church. Was there any way to discover these differences without discussion? I doubt it. But now that we know, might we not discuss things-- new things-- in a different way? Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 24 March 2012 - 09:50am Bowman, you write. '...the immediate challenges are to answer (a) how does one treat today's cases of conscience that we know will be quite diverse, even if informed by the scriptures? (b) what unity is and is not possible among those holding different views within the one faith? (c) what is the most faithful way to understand compatibility? I do not say that a rivalry of views will last forever, and that no view is better than another. But we are alive today, not a century ago, nor a century from now. God has given us, here and now, the difficulties he wanted us to have for a good purpose we do not see.' Bowman, like Nersen, I value this helpful summary of the issues that surround the sort of debate we've been having on this thread and elsewhere. It can be difficult to avoid polarization, especially when views are held that are contrary and yet each seeks 'compatibility' with scripture. Church history has seen many such debates where a traditional view is engaged with from what may be dubbed a revisionist view. The discussions and disputes that marked the interchange between traditional Christians who saw slavery as part of God's order and those who challenged the view as inimical to God's will was such a struggle. In more recent years, we are still held by different understandings from scripture on the place of women in the ordained ministry. And here we are, once more, within the debate concerning the bible's stance on gay relationships. Do the scriptures condemn such solely where they are, for example, in the context of patriarchal tribal mores, pagan idolatry or oppressive and abusive sex? Or do they condemn all such sexual liaisons regardless of context and the quality of the relationships? Or do we conclude that the bible does not condemn faithful, godly, committed same-sex relationships? And what do we bring to this debate? Is it simply a matter of our Christian stance, whether we are evangelical, liberal or catholic? Does it just depend on whether we are straight, gay, bisexual or transexual? Surely there are other fctors we bring to the discussion, including our early memories, conscious and unconscious, individual and collective; our experiencing of good nurturing or early rejection; our adjustment to others as we mature; our experience of relationships with women and men, straight and gay; and how comfortable we are with intimacy. Whatever 'reader-response' we bring to scripture and its understanding and however we wrestle with biblical hermeneutics, including reading 'against the grain' where we need to, let us make 'every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace' and let us seek to speak 'the truth in love' (Eph. 4:3,15). Thank you, Bowman, for your contribution to this enterprise. Posted by: DavidW Friday 23 March 2012 - 09:44pm I fully support nersenpaul's post of Friday 23 March 2012 - 04:36pm Well said. Posted by: DavidW Friday 23 March 2012 - 09:42pm Hi WaterAngel, I agree that sexuality as opposed to God's purposes is dominating debate in society at the moment, but that people are dying isnt a very good point. When it comes to eternal life, ouitside are the unrepentant sexually immoral (Rev 22) and sexual immorality is a barrier to the Kingom (ie Lev 18, 1 Cor 6 etc) Most of the churches that know and hold to the Biblical truth of God are spending their money and resources on helping the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick, orphans etc. unlike the organisations such as LGCM and Stonewall which are spending their money on promoting sexual immorality. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 23 March 2012 - 04:36pm Hi Bowman - I appreciate your honest, courteous, relevant and direct responses. Re usury, I see a huge difference between the biblical ban on charging interest to a needy brother (or sister) and a commercial business borrowing from another business in order to make a profit. The Lord is not negative on interest in a commercial analogy in the parable of the talents, which I think is significant. I am not involved in commercial lending and do not charge needy brothers or sisters interest (although, I was tempted to when I saw the new Jeep of one brother who borrowed 44k in 1999 and has never paid a penny back!! Do pray for my patience and his solvency!) Re dealing with difference in the church, they had to do it in the times of the apostles, of course, and did not set a model of turning a blind eye, fake indabas etc when what God has revealed is at stake. Reading Philippians and Galatians, we see one with apostolic authority, inspired by the Holy Spirit, being very harsh about some false teaching in the church. In 1 Cor 5-7: no accomodation is recommended, but we are sometimes told that we will have to split. Unity is to be based on God's revealed truth, not for the preservation of an institution even if some contradict what God has revealed. Insitutional untiy can be an idol.... we should stick to God's revealed truth, if we are evangelicals. The reality is that we have a relatively small no in the AC who want to ditch Lambeth 1.10 (most of whom do not care if it is right re scripture and are v honest about that) and a majority wanting to stay in line with the church catholic in the last 2000 yrs as they understand the bible (in Greek, Hebrew and Swahili) to support Lambeth 1.10. After the last few decades, we can see that we cannot live with this contradiction...... see the destruction of AC unity since unilateral actions in NH in 2003. There is only one solution which has integrity - in line with what we read in 1 Cor 5-7, there are times not to be united with people on the basis of their teaching and life. The relatively small no in the AC who reject Lambeth 1.10 can (with great integrity) start their own liberal church or join others with whom they agree - that would not only free them to do what they think is right, it would also free them from tearing the fabric and unity of the Communion - win-win? Posted by: WATERANGEL Thursday 22 March 2012 - 08:22pm This latest round of debate came about after Jeremy P revisited the forum, to see if there had been any positive movement. He was right in his analysis that there has not been. I feel genuinely sad about that, it seems that the forum continually goes around in circles with reference to sexuality. There are so many issues in the church where debates just go round in circles year in year out, people die in the process, the world changes in the process wars have begun and some ended in the process. Yet here the world would appear to stand still. I really do not think that that was what was meant by the words "be still for the spirit of the Lord is moving in this place" OR i might be wrong and maybe the spirit is moving in this place and when like jeremy people decide to move on and accept who they are in christ despite all the judgements that that is christ moving. Will this thread ever close,? will we ever just live alongside each other in todays world or will we continue to live in a bygone age where the relevance of the gospel is diminished.? Sometimes closure is not found, and we just have to live with the difference. You say potato i say potarto? Angela Come on Nerson give us a hopeful message its easter and you Simon. Just think if you dont Pluralist will which one of you can give us Hope of the things to come? and you Bowman dont want to leave you out.. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 22 March 2012 - 05:46pm Hi Nersen. Thanks again for the Goddard essay. Personally, I am never in any doubt about the good faith of your positions on these ethical issues, and I am not eager for you to change your mind on account of anything I post here. Where others champion one view against others, I have seen a duty to understand the honest, reasonably-founded differences and their consequences for the lived lives of those in Christ. A forum such as this is useful for that purpose. Your candor in pointing out that you are not persuaded by some arguments is not at all unhelpful. There are, after all, not a few evangelicals, both gay and straight, who see things your way. They all have consciences and discuss them with pastors. What would be the point of pretending that such views do not exist? On issues, such as these, in which more than one interpretation of the scriptures has a substantive case at the present time, but by different notions of "compatibility," I do not see a situation that is ripe for persuasion. Rather, the immediate challenges are to answer (a) how does one treat today's cases of conscience that we know will be quite diverse, even if informed by the scriptures? (b) what unity is and is not possible among those holding different views within the one faith? (c) what is the most faithful way to understand compatibility? I do not say that a rivalry of views will last forever, and that no view is better than another. But we are alive today, not a century ago, nor a century from now. God has given us, here and now, the difficulties he wanted us to have for a good purpose we do not see. Reading Dr Goddard's piece re usury, is it not the case that the church banning all lending, not just to needy brethren, was incompatible with scripture? I promise to read it again to verify my first impression, but that impression was that, no, the prior understanding of usury had a plausible scriptural case, even apart from the concept of acts contra naturam that was used to link it to blasphemy and sodomy. What changed was not that somebody read the Bible for the first time in a millennium and a half, but that a new notion of compatibility was successfully promoted in northern Europe. He finds the success of that promotion interesting, and so do I. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 11:55pm Hi Bowman, reading Dr Goddard's piece re usury, is it not the case that the church banning all lending, not just to needy brethren, was incompatible with scripture? I'm not against changing church positions to make them compatible with scripture! Show me anywhere in scripture which shows Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re what it says is incompatible with scripture, and I'd want to ditch it. Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 08:18pm Hi Nersen. Your personal position on lending is clear, and, I think, admirable. Dave seems to agree. Perhaps the time is ripening for a Fulcrum essay and thread on Christian personal finance? The relevance of the history of usury to this thread is, as Goddard argues in the excellent essay that you linked, that it is a test case for modern inferences from the Old Testament to the quite different moral atmosphere of the New. For those who do not detect a new prohibition on sodomy in the latter, the question whether one can be established for Christians by appeal to the former is a live issue. In that context, the precedent of usury is interesting, though Calvin's views may not be, and though there are other precedents worth attention. Obviously, personal feelings about the existence of a prohibition are irrelevant. The Articles are clear that responsible teachers in the Church of England should not deny that such inferences from the Old to the New are ever possible. But as such inferences have hardly ever commanded widespread and permanent assent, prudence demands that each be subjected to scrutiny. The question is whether the long history of such inferences, including those about blasphemy, usury and sodomy, reveals a pattern that would be helpful in that scrutiny today. The answer is uncertain, but it may not remain so. Investigation continues, and not only here. DavidW is not curious about this. Perhaps there is no reason why he should be. However, for those responsible for the cure of souls, prohibitions are the beginning of their queries, not the end of them, for even bible-believing Christians have much to learn as they live with the prohibitions that personally bind them. Of those queries, among the first is the question how a prohibition comports with the whole of what God has revealed to be true about human life. And as we have seen on this thread, that is no idle question to those who are "Evangelical and Gay." The theology of the Reformation in England suggests some approaches to that question for those who assent to Article XI. We will learn what we can from them. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 12:06pm Hi Bowman, to be clear, I agree that lending at interest to a needy brother is wrong....incompatible with scripture. That's the tes for an evangelical.... does the bible anywhere, in any circumstances, say that restrictions in the OT and NT which stand behind Lambeth 1.10 do not hold? OT food laws are done away with in the NT.... Clearly. Where is the practice mentioned in Lambeth 1.10 called good in any circumstances? Posted by: DavidW Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 08:50am The epistle to the Romans was written to a church in Rome that started mainly Jewish, became entirely Gentile when the Jews were driven out of Rome and became mixed again when they returned, which was causing division and tension. The latter part of Romans 1 addresses licence that the Gentiles are primarily susceptible to, and the first part of Romans 2 addresses the legalism that the Jews are susceptible to. One cant argue for same sex relations as a legalist knowing the OT law, one can only argue for it as a pagan gentile. Romans 1 makes it clear that to be in favour of same sex relations is wicked suppression of the truth, and having been given over by God. This theme is found throughout the epistle of Romans relating later to how, when people continually harden their hearts against God, God eventually allows them to their own destruction, providing of course they don’t repent in which case the slate is wiped clean. Praise God. But for most Bible believing Christians, being in favour of same sex coupling is an obvious and significant departure from the faith. Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 06:08am Romans 2:15. St John 1:18 Again, thanks to all for useful comments, some even illuminating more than intended. More might be said about the medieval association of blasphemy, usury, and sodomy, if only to establish the chronology of the interpretations of scripture (e.g. When and how, exactly, did certain passages acquire their modern meanings, whilst others ceased to be seen as interpreting them?). But it seems most directly helpful to both sides of this discussion to frame the underlying issue in terms of the Reformation theology of the Church of England. Given that man is fallen enough to require the testimony of the scriptures for his salvation, does he also need them to find the law of God? In a supposed clash between reason and scripture-- especially between reason about human nature and scripture-- one is often wise to suspect that each party is tempted to cling to one side of the tension that the Reformers saw between the universal human conscience to which St Paul refers in Romans 2:15 and the particularity of revelation in Christ that we see in St John 1:18. Both in the writings of the magisterial Reformers on the Continent, and in the Anglican apologetics of Richard Hooker, this tension is accepted as a dialectic between the law and the gospel. Fallen man has a conscience that can recognize God in his works and in the justice of natural law, but by the frailty of his nature, he cannot find salvation by reason, even though reason, once redeemed, can participate in a knowledge of God that is indeed its chief end. In this dialectical view of things, reason and conscience remain sources of divine truth, though that truth is not adequate to the finding of salvation. Thus Hooker-- Whatsoever either men on earth, or the Angels of heaven do know, it is as a drop of that unemptiable fountaine of wisdom, which wisdom hath diversly imparted her treasures unto the world. As her waies are of sundry kinds, so her maner of teaching is not meerely one and the same. Some things she openeth by the sacred bookes of Scripture; some things by the glorious works of nature: with some things she inspireth them from above by spirituall influence, in some thinges she leadeth and trayneth them onely by worldly experience and practise. We may not so in any one speciall kind admire her that we disgrace her in any other, but let all her wayes be according unto their place and degree adored ( Lawes II.1.4;1:147.23-148.6). The lawe of reason doth somewhat direct men how to honour God as their Creator, but how to glorifie God in such sort as is required, to the end he may be an everlasting Saviour, this we are taught by divine law, which law both ascertayneth the truth and supplyeth unto us the want of that other law. So that in morall actions, divine lawe helpeth exceedingly the law of reason to guide mans life, but in supernaturall it alone guideth. (Lawes I.16.5; 1:139.3-10) On this view of things, although reason is no guide to salvation, it does play a divinely-created role in the conduct of human life. Not only is the Church bound to recognize this role in the life of the individual Christian, but she is herself very dependent on the same "right reason" for her own affairs. Hooker defended the Church of England not only with scripture, but also with Aristotle. However, the dialectic is, to many, counterintuitive. To some, it makes little sense that the same scriptures that declare man's sinfulness should also insist on his use of reason. Indeed, there being then no Forum in the vilage of Fulcrum, several enterprising 17th C ancestors of today's villagers remonstrated with Hooker in A Christian Letter that he was a revisionist who had endangered the religion by law established. Calling themselves certaine English Protestantes, unfayned favourers of the present state of religion, authorized and professed in England: unto that Reverend and Learned man Mr. R. Hoo[ker] requiring resolution in certayne matters of doctrine (which seeme to overthrowe the foundation of Christian Religion, and of the Church among us) expreslie contayned in his five bookes of Ecclesiasticall Policie, the Fulcrumites objected that all through his book-- Aristotle the patriarch of Philosophers (with divers other human writers) and the ingenuous [sic!] schoolemen, almost in all pointes have some finger; Reason is highlie sett up against holie scripture, and reading against preaching; the church of Rome favourablie admitted to bee of the house of God; Calvinwith the reformed churches full of faults; and most of all they which indevoured to be most removed from conformitie with the church of Rome; Almost all the principall pointes of our English creed, greatlie shaken and contradicted. . . Shall wee doe you wronge to suspect you as a privie and subtill enemie to the whole state of the Englishe Church, and that you would have men to deeme her Majestie to have done ill in abolishing the Romish religion, and banishing the Popes authoritie; and that you would bee glad to see the backesliding of all reformed churches to bee made conformable to that wicked synagogue of Rome . . . and that you esteeme . . . the bookes of holy scripture to bee at the least of no greater moment then Aristotle and the Schoolemen: Or else doe you meane to bring in a confusion of all thinges, to reconcile heaven and earth, and to make all religions equall: Will you bring us to Atheisme, or to Poperie? For even then the villagers of Fulcrum were not known to mince words. Nersen's revival of Goddard's essay on Calvin's rationale for rejecting the ancient, scriptural, and medieval consensus on usury is not without "interest," but it does not Posted by: DavidW Tuesday 20 March 2012 - 03:40pm All people who identify as LGBT are according to God’s Biblical testimony men and women whom God loves and has created for His purposes, that’s man and woman in union; therefore LGBT is something of an oxymoron. So I suggest the Christ like approach is that all people are equal provided they think in terms of God and His word rather than who they think they are in sexual attraction/LGBT. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Tuesday 20 March 2012 - 11:28am “can it be impossible for evangelicals (and others) to do something similar with the universal prohibition on same-sex sex?” Good question Blair! And as we are seeing, some evangelicals are moving on this issue but are afraid to “come-out” and say so publicly. Others are probably concerned not just with the interest their bank balances accrue but with the actual income that will rapidly diminish if they change their mind. As indeed Jeremy Marks of Courage found out when his evangelical donors jumped ship after he announced his U-turn. I think though that it is just old-fashioned prejudice that is holding up the progress towards equality and justice. People like Dr Goddard will bend over backwards, so to speak, to insist that he isn't homophobic and will rightly insist on Christ-like pastoral approaches towards LGBT people. Unfortunately from him and his bed-fellows we're not interested in being patronised by well-meaning religious folk, we want to be recognised as equals and be able to work out the gospel along with the rest of Christ's body without any prejudice being outworked against us. Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 20 March 2012 - 05:19am St Luke 6:35 Gentlemen: Please note that, in comparison with the OT passages cited below, the word of the Lord does follow the usual pattern of simplifying and intensifying a moral obligation as it passes from the Old Covenant to the New. A few posts ago, Nersen perceptively posed this pattern as a test for a Christian obligation derived from the OT, and he might be right about that. If he is, that is a very helpful gloss on Article VII. Similarly, it may be important that the universal NT form of the prohibition is not the form for trading with Gentiles but the one for assisting fellow Jews. That too, is consistent with the gospel. The last several posts all pose fascinating points, but before engaging them as is their due, it seems useful to point out that, traditionally, the prohibition on sodomy appears to be derived from the prohibition on usury. That is, both were seen in medieval tradition as sins contra naturam, but the moral theology of the category was built on the condemnations of usury found both in the scriptures and in Aristotle. This is why Dante places blasphemers, sodomites and usurers together in the Seventh Circle of his Inferno. So, generally, theologians before Calvin (including Luther) regarded speech about God, money, and sex as human practices to be practiced in accord with the evident order of nature. When that is in the mix, some of the points made in recent posts will find new applications and raise new questions. Finding their contemporary application is not a trivial task. Thanks to all for insightful comments. Posted by: Blair Monday 19 March 2012 - 10:31pm Hello nersen, Dave, Bowman and all, I'm aware I've raised this question before and am not sure that it's the most helpful one, but would like to clarify a thing or two. I'm not trying to argue that two wrongs make a right, but press the question about usury because (a) virtually all of us, self included, are usurers, simply by dint of having a bank account, and yet (b) nowhere in the Bible is it commended or blessed. I don't think that a Scriptural text commending usury can be found - any more than one commending same-sex sex can be found. My implied argument is doubtless pretty obvious... nersen, thank you for the link to Andrew Goddard's thorough and helpful essay. But please note: as Dr Goddard makes clear, the ban on lending money at interest was, before being shrunk, universal. The texts Bowman quotes were not read as referring merely to loans between friends. Dr Goddard says, "It is, however, vital to recognise what a radical change [Calvin's] work represented", before quoting John T Noonan who says that "The doctrine [of the ban on usury] was not some obscure, hole-in-the-corner affection, but stood astride the European credit markets, at leasrt as much as the parallel Islamic ban on usury governs Muslim countries today". So, if it became possible to re-read the Scriptural texts such that what was once a universal prohibition was scoped down to a far smaller ban, can it be impossible for evangelicals (and others) to do something similar with the universal prohibition on same-sex sex? in friendship, Blair Posted by: Another David Monday 19 March 2012 - 06:50pm I had thought of making a comment on lending at interest myself. It seems to me a good example of something which is clearly "incompatible with scripture" - the OT verses quoted make that clear, and the extensive teaching in the NT about the dangers and deceitfulness of money and wealth only reinforces the conclusion. It is therefore not the least surprising that any lending at interest was forbidden by the church from early on, not just the mediaeval period.* It was the subject of pronouncements by ecumenical councils. So, for perhaps 1300 years any lending at interest was banned for Christians, as being "incompatible with scripture". The interesting question is, why did this change? We can see some effect of the change in saying that 'usuary' is not just lending at interest but lending at "excessive interest". There is, of course, the question of what is "excessive" (Nehemiah condemned "the hundreth part" - 5.11 - which equates to about 12% PA if that was a monthly interest. That means that most credit cards are usurous in the sense of excessive interest). But more interesting is what the process might have been that led to the change of definition which caused the reinterepretation of the parts of Scripture referring to lending at interest. I suspect that it was pragmatic considerations of the utility of lending at interest, rather than any change forced by a re-examination of the scriptures concerned. I note that the change was happening really before the Reformation. However, whatever the mechanism, it is a very good example of how the church changed its mind about an activity. Before the change, the understanding of the Scriptures in condemning the activity was broad ("lending at interest"), and after the change it was narrow ("lending at excessive interest"). Such changes occur for an activity with a much greater weight of Scripture against it than any form of homosexual activity. In summary, for many centuries the church condemned an activity in all forms. Then it changed, and permitted some kinds of the activity, while condeming others. Might not the same happen for other activities? On a lighter note, it amused me to thing of an interview for a prospective bishop: "Have you at any time had a deposit account paying interest?" * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuary seems to be a balanced article on this, and this makes clear that 'usuary' being defined as excessive interest only happened after legal permission was given to lend at interest. So, one must not apply this understanding backwards into the interpretation of the verses. In the context of the time was there any distinction between permitted and forbidden rates of interest? Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Monday 19 March 2012 - 04:15pm I find this revisionism by Nersen very worrying.... Where specifically in Scripture are the passages that tell us that God will bless usury under the sort of terms that Nersen describes?....If it is never commended in Scripture it is, surely, dangerous of Nersen to try and tell us that his kind of usury might be acceptable, or heaven forfend, even blessed.....Surely he must see that in any circumstances it is dangerously revisionist of him to support charging interest where it is not so commanded....If this behaviour is incompatible with Scripture, which it clearly is unless you engage in a huge exercise in revisionism (which is not likely to convince those of us who take seriously the plain meaning of Scripture), then I hope soon that the Communion will soon come to a mind about it, so that its incompatibility is made clear to all....This is surely the kind of case where Section 4 of the Covenant with its useful provisions about relational consequences would be used in relation to provinces that act in a revisionist way by accepting this unScriptural behaviour. Or, to put it another way, Nersen, you are prepared to reinterpret the Scriptures about usury, because that's what you do - but Scriptures about other things are not to be so reinterpreted. Posted by: Dave Monday 19 March 2012 - 01:36pm Blair and Bowman, Usury carries with it an implication that the interest is unconscionable or excessive. The verses Bowman list restrict the condemnation to lending to the poor or other Jews or excessive interest. The story in Nehemiah 5 is instructive. In Roman and Greek society loans to finance trade were widespread. Evangelicals should not be surprised that the Medieval church got some things wrong. These verses do not relate in a straight forward way to business loans, mortgages and car finance. There are many aspects of current financial practice which deserve criticism which involve charging high rates of interest to the poor and those poor records. Interest of say 40% on specialist credit cards is one thing but 4214% on 30 day loans from Wonga is quite another. The question for us is are we prepared to take the risk of small loans to other Christians without interest? Dave Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 19 March 2012 - 11:03am hi Blair and Bowman - two wrongs do not make a right, I am sure you would agree, the church has oftren sinned in its history but because we have in the past and today gone against scripture cannot mean we must make ignoring scripture a habit when it is inconvenient (especially if we are evangelicals).... but I certainly avoid charging my bretheren interest because scripture does ban that. But does it ban companies making commercial loans to other companies who take loans to make a profit? This is not the same as lending to a brother in need, is it? This article by Dr Goddard may be helpful. Semper Reformanda in a Changing World: Calvin, Usury and Evangelical Moral Theology PermaLink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=84 Posted by: Bowman Monday 19 March 2012 - 07:54am It is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as man is bound to restore ill-gotten gains, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury. --Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, circa 1270 Posted by: Bowman Monday 19 March 2012 - 07:21am you'd struggle to build a case solely from Scriptural texts that usury is permissible... Indeed, St John Chysostom, among others, made a scriptural case that usury is forbidden to Christians. [Exodus 22:25] If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. [Leviticus 25:36] Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. [Leviticus 25:37] Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. [Deuteronomy 23:19] Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: [Deuteronomy 23:20] Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. [Ezekiel 18:17] He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. Posted by: Blair Friday 16 March 2012 - 04:33pm "But when the NT, inspired by the Holy Spirit, agrees with, builds upon OT morality laws and never blesses an act in any circumstances, on what authority can we say the same act is blessed in any circumstances?" Um, nersen, couldn't something similar be said of the lending of money at interest? I don't think anywhere in the NT 'overturns' the OT proscriptions (and I don't think the parable of the talents counts as I don't think it was read this way - but open to correction on that point). I suggest that, without a possibly strained use of that parable, you'd struggle to build a case solely from Scriptural texts that usury is permissible... in friendship, Blair Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 13 March 2012 - 03:15pm Hi Bowman, yes, my point is on what authority do we ask the heterosexual to repent? Scripture, I guess. I agree that the question is to do with what the NT teaches.....we don't worry about the OT food laws because the NT says OT food laws don't apply....that is our authority to ignore some OT rules re food. But when the NT, inspired by the Holy Spirit, agrees with, builds upon OT morality laws and never blesses an act in any circumstances, on what authority can we say the same act is blessed in any circumstances? Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 13 March 2012 - 07:37am Hi Nersen. Thanks for a good reply! But, say a man used to sleeping around becomes a Christian, I'm sure we'd all agree that he'd do well to look at what the bible says re sexual behaviour and repent. The same applies to others equally... Is that in dispute? The point of Church recognition of the monogamous relationships of homosexuals is precisely to discourage promiscuity and encourage stability and virtue. How effective that is remains to be seen. ...acts banned in the OT and the NT... I don't mean to split hairs, but this way of phrasing things is confusing to me. You probably are not equating homosexuality to, say, leprosy or eating ham or menstruation, but those are each, in different senses, banned in the OT. Apart from the Ethopian Orthodox, Christians generally see the NT as starting from a different moral ground,differently understood in different traditions. One can sometimes argue for continuity, but a case must be made for that, and a Christian who rejects the Third Use as contrary to the evangelical gospel is unlikely to accept it even then. Anyway, a pure "acts morality" lands one in paradoxes. Earlier Lambeth conferences solemnly pronounced against birth control in all its forms. What happened to that? The bishops at Lambeth XIII did agree to condemn some sexual acts, but not the ones obliquely discussed here. One or two of those they do condemn are not mentioned in scripture. And finally, if a few sexual acts are really the concern, then homosexuals are no more the direct concern than those married heterosexual couples who also perform them. The question is really: what does the NT generally teach about life in Christ, and how that is applied to persons who are involuntarily outside the orders of creation recognized in tradition? (That you may recognize as the final thought in I.10.) A difficulty is that NT morality is scarcely ever an "act morality" and is usually a wisdom-based "virtue morality" with a special attention to motivation. Some, as you suggest, pay so much mind to the scarcity of prohibitions that they miss the difficulty of the cultivated life in Christ. Others miss the point completely and mine the NT for rules that were intentionally omitted. A related difficulty is that a Christian life is not an earthly life perfected on its own terms but a life transfigured in Christ by grace. In all ages before the Reformation, this was understood to require and enable an asceticism at the heart of Christian life (compare e.g. the Great Fast of Orthodox Lent). With our suspicion of works righteousness, we have little sense left of what that sort of life in Christ would be like. That leaves us practicing worldliness to the best of our God-given ability until we stumble across some alien precept that is nearly unassimilable to the rest of our world-shaped lives. I suspect that this is very much the predicament of a sane, gay, evangelical. The truth is that it is hard to make sense of the NT without more maturity than we usually have when we are most in need of it! This is why the actual pastoral care of the church is so important. Have you suggestions for that? You may recall that one of the four positions listed in Lambeth I.10 was that monogamous committed relationships for homosexuals, although not marriages, nonetheless deserved the Church's support as a discipline favorable to virtue and unfavorable to vice. That seems to me to be a serious attempt to deal with the whole problem. But like the other three, it failed to attract even a majority, never mind the consensus one would want to see on such matters. With all this talk about grace, virtue, life transfigured in Christ, etc, I hope that you and all of the villagers are remembering to have a blessed Lent! Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 12 March 2012 - 08:27pm Hi Bowman, thx for your reply. As mentioned below, I see zero problem with being evangelical and gay.... Just as there is no issue with being heterosexual and evangelical. All sin.... All saved by grace. But, say a man used to sleeping around becomes a Christian, I'm sure we'd all agree that he'd do well to look at what the bible says re sexual behaviour and repent. The same applies to others equally... The verses you give don't say that acts banned in the OT and the NT are blessed in any circumstances. If they were, in any circumstances, I'd have no problem arguing against Lambeth 1.10, but I fear that some give licence for acts without the authority needed to do so. Posted by: Bowman Sunday 11 March 2012 - 05:25am A Blessing of Homosexuality in Scripture? Specifically-- St Matthew 8:5-13, St Luke 7:1-10, St John 4:46-53. The argument is that the centurion's pais or doulos would have been understood by 1st C Jewish readers to be his male lover, that there is nonetheless no hint of admonition, and that, in context, the import of the miracle is the Lord's blessing of persons formerly excluded by the Law. Quod erat demonstrandum. Or is it? Angela and Nersen: The interpretation is not my own, and I have my own curiosity about it. But to your excellent questions. This is one of those "world of the Bible" interpretations we've heard since we were children in which the preacher infers the true meaning of something done by Jesus from a reconstruction of the cultural context in which He was acting. In this case, the reconstruction is supported by (a) the evangelists' Greek word choice, (b) the well-documented 1st C Jewish prejudice that the Romans were bisexual and promiscuous, and (c) the reader's sense that the proposed intention in the Lord is characteristic of his other acts (e.g. the disputed case of St John 7:55-8:11). Angela is right about the fundamental meanings of the words, but as in English (e.g. "boy") these meanings can and do carry a heavy freight of social, even sexual, meaning depending on context. Nersen is quite right to challenge the inference that Jesus's help for a sinner is necessarily a legal validation of the sin itself. My own initial reaction to that is that SS Matthew, Luke, and John have somewhat different views of the law, so that it is unlikely that any proposed interpretation of this story captures the views of all three. But we shouldn't confuse apples with oranges. Nersen's wise and profound question was not about the law but about blessing. If God is blessing any of us, he is surely blessing a sinner. He is not condoning error or frailty or sin by doing so, of course, but our relationship with him is by grace, not solely or primarily legal. The memory of Jesus dining with prostitutes and tax collectors inclines me to believe that he would not withold healing from a centurion's love slave. And Tom Wright is surely right in noting that it cannot be coincidence that the persons Jesus so often chose to bless with his presence were, under the law, ritually unclean and so "untouchable" for any observant Jew. Our Lord wants his Church do the same, whatever that actually is. What I suspect Nersen is truly concerned about is what the Continental Reformers called "the third use of the Law." That is a perfectly fair question-- and really the more logical starting point for an evangelical discussion of these issues. Here is a discussion by a contemporary Anglican. May I close with the subversive thought that neglect of historical theology may be inhibiting the renewal of the evangelical centre? Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 10 March 2012 - 04:35pm Bowman? Why do you say that the first Jews would have interpreted pais as a male lover when the greek translation defines it as being girl or boy child with the presumption of being in training ie not fully developed in terms of training rather than growth..Ie doulos meaning a man that gave himself up to be a servant or slave was for practical task, it was not for "relational" task was it? it did not read to me like that.. Thankyou for the translation though! Angela Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 10 March 2012 - 11:51am Thanks for your constructive reply, Bowman (a certain contrast with other posts!). And, thanks for the verses (also contrasting with some other posters who snipe but still make no case from scripture). Do you really take these verses you give to justify the sexual practice Lambeth 1.10 says is condemned in scripture? The verses do not seem to say that bans in the OT and the NT do not apply in certain, even rare, circumstances, do they? Even the centurion you cite is not given to us as a model of moral life, is he? And, even if you read in a sexual relationship for him, which is not mentioned in scripture, how do you fit that with OT and NT bans on the same sexual activity? And, when you quote 1 Cor 13, is it not fair to read it in the context of 1 Cor 5-7? Re 1 Cor 13, I don't see how it is loving to tell somebody an action is fine by God when we only see bans on it in scripture and no blessing in any circumstances. Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 10 March 2012 - 10:04am Thank you Bowman for your correctives towards our debate when you write, 'On this thread, can we not acknowledge that the topic of the thread is not only the anguish that old attitudes cause persons like Anonymous, but also the anguish that new attitudes cause persons who have depended on implicit faith in stable institutional religious authority?' I appreciate your even-handedness and would like to apologize to Nersen and others if, in seeking to discuss the views put forward on both 'sides', I have shifted from an attempt at compassionate objectivity towards a personalized attack. The latter has not been intended but words can be sharp-cornered things, especially when the conversation is in slow motion in the context of what Fulcrum offers. Inevitably, the messages of non-verbal commuunication (where someone is offended by a word or phrase, for example) are completely lacking in such encounters. We do our best iwthin the limits of the medium. Bowman, you cite the need for a 'balanced compassion'. I heartily agree and prayerfully seek the balance of 'speaking the truth in love' (and 'hearing the truth in love'). Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 10 March 2012 - 08:41am Oh dear...it's worse than I thought. Posted by: Bowman Saturday 10 March 2012 - 08:24am Blessings, Nersen. No, I wouldn't dream of attacking you, and I wish others would stop. Ephesians 4:29 and 5:19-20 seem to me to be good advice. Criticising persons for the opinions they hold, or for the tenacity with which they hold them, is not a healthy use of time. It is better on all sides to discuss arguments or information, if there are any to discuss, rather than personalities. However, after certain unchristian attacks on your own personality, we all have a duty to dissociate ourselves from them. That was my purpose. You misunderstood my post. When I post a citation of scripture without comment, it is because I think it a word in season (again, Ephesians 5:19-20). The villagers of Fulcrum know their scriptures, and no restrictive interpretation of my own is implied, since I would not lecture them as though they didn't. Rather, every verse has many contexts, and the wisest readers know more of them. God is still speaking. All that matters is that we have ears to hear. On the blessing of homosexual relations in scripture, I posted some candidates for examination last January. For convenience, I have just posted them again for your consideration. What do you think? Also, supposing for a moment that the Church of England ended up blessing a same-sex union, or even consecrating one of them bishop, what kind of wrong do you think that this would be? Is it a lapse of discipline? An error concerning morals? A deepening of prior confusion? A christological heresy? A cosmological catastrophe? A precedent for setting aside a particular vision of authority? A bad pastoral practise? Those aren't rhetorical questions. After reading objections to both practises hereabouts for months, it is still not clear what degree and dimension of wrong is being alleged for them. When I open the door and step into the Commonwealth and Diocese of Massachusetts, what do you expect me to find? On the major question, I am reluctant to advocate any stance to English Anglicans because the lived subtleties of practise in their context may matter in ways I cannot foresee. As it is, Anonymous, Vicki, and Jeremy describe parish experiences worse than any that I have encountered even in quite conservative dioceses. Where I presently live, "marriage equality" already being the law of the commonwealth, my parish has had a partnered lesbian vicar, and lesbian friends have had their unions blessed in the cathedral by the bishop of the diocese. The state acted; the church reacted; we adjust. But there are questions. One is-- do our prayers and blessings for people we care about have a sacramental import? Taking the longest view, it has never been wholly clear that one could say that of any weddings anyway, but innovation invites a pastoral and clinical anxiety when dealing with persons whose identities may not be as stable as their orientations. Vicki did not reply to my post about it (Evangelical and Gay 93 [19408] 21 December 2011). Jeremy sees the question himself, and did reply to my asking, but understandably prefers not to rely on what seems to him to be an outside validation. Still, when these relationships are strained or broken, as can happen, one winces to think of fellow Christians further burdened with any ambiguity whatever about how the Church views that. And the truth, as my post on Lambeth 13 points out, is that this church really has no clue. Another is-- what does one do if, despite all the acceptance the people of God can manage, their gay or lesbian vicar nevertheless really prefers a social world that is nearly all gay and non-Christian, what does one make of that? Is this actually evangelism that we should try to support somehow? Or is the attenuation of Christian fellowship to a merely professional connexion a deeply unscriptural pattern of life that is bad for the parish? If s/he is also notably less interested in the lives and circumstances of their "straight" parishioners, how is s/he able to pastor them? Indeed, how does one explain, without seeming to convey an unintended rejection of their ministry, that they really are obliged to cultivate an interest in the things that sustain the life of the world, not just in their dreams of changing it? Shepherds must care for their sheep, not only their fences. There are other questions beyond these. We have been dealing with them for years anyway, of course. We still do not deal with them honestly. Posted by: DavidR Saturday 10 March 2012 - 08:01am Bowman, I always value your reflections offered with that eloquent, whimsical detachment to those of us you call 'the villagers'. But at the very moment you claim not to engage you have engaged of course. And your neighbour is starting to complain about you. Welcome to the village! Posted by: Bowman Saturday 10 March 2012 - 05:54am A Blessing of Homosexuality in Scripture? Specifically-- Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10, John 4:46-53. The argument is that the centurion's pais or doulos would have been understood by 1st C Jewish readers to be his male lover, that there is nonetheless no hint of admonition, and that, in context, the import of the miracle is the Lord's blessing of persons formerly excluded by the Law. Quod erat demonstrandum. Or is it? Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 9 March 2012 - 07:56pm Bowman, attacking me doesn't show that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re certain acts being incompatible with scripture..... Just that you cannot think of anywhere in scripture where the same behaviour is blessed by God in any circumstances? Posted by: Bowman Friday 9 March 2012 - 02:33am Nearly all the villagers here have scolded Nersen for not acknowledging the force of their arguments, and replying in some winsome, reflective way that truly meets them. Friends, I do understand... But surely, by now, if it could happen at all, we would have seen the charming, openminded, witty Nersen that is being demanded on some other thread? Conclusion: when Nersen presents himself as an authoritarian, he is being himself. And, after all, some Christians-- some of the Christians we have most admired-- have needed their authorities. Why is this even worthy of attention, never mind scolding and abuse? True, Fulcrum would better achieve its mission, if its Forum were not marred by extremes of repetitive, formulaic posting. Posts that only repeat what has already been said to antagonize others are just spraying graffiti on walls in cyberspace, not true communication. But for us to digress from a real conversation to shout at a crude graffito on the wall makes little sense. Understandable as the impulse is. Personally, I don't discuss things with militant authoritarians because it can't be done on either side in good faith. Some people truly need their authorities; I want better critical thinking than it may be safe for them to give. Berating them for not being as dialectically nimble or as broadly informed as others just seems to me to be cruel. Also dumb, if they are in fact living holier or more charitable lives than we are. Indeed, if the reader will reflect on this, s/he will imagine circumstances in which, if only one knew more, one might be ashamed to have criticized in ignorance. (Fulcrum really should apologize to Nersen for letting one or two egregiously offensive attacks through.) When Phil gallops down the village lanes startling the children and bellowing to all that our conversations may have eternal consequences, I tend to agree with him, from a few points of view. So whensoever Nersen does build a real argument for something, and explains to others how they might, on the basis of their own present commitments, come closer to agreeing with it, I read his views with the respect they thoroughly deserve. I still think of one or two posts in which I think he did that, and I learned a few things from his thoughful comments on my replies. But when he is just posting homage to his current authorities, I view that as a compulsive behaviour, wish him better, and turn my attention to others who more fully engage the discussion to enlarge the circle of our sympathy and understanding. Posted by: Bowman Friday 9 March 2012 - 01:07am On this thread, can we not acknowledge that the topic of the thread is not only the anguish that old attitudes cause persons like Anonymous, but also the anguish that new attitudes cause persons who have depended on implicit faith in stable institutional religious authority? It is certainly the case that Christians like Anonymous, Vicki, and Jeremy have suffered from the former, and equally the case that the latter has caused an upheaval in the emotional lives of traditionalists of various kinds. And while it is clear that the partisans on each side work for the further heartbreak of the other, I am unpersuaded that there is any good reason to respect the polarized way they have jointly framed the issue. Rather, I believe that both conditions are well within the compassion of real Christians. In general, where I do not see balanced compassion, I do not see a disciple of Christ. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 8 March 2012 - 08:13pm Roger and Davidr, I hope you understand your points are repeated too....but perhaps don't answer the questions being asked of you and others...... however many times you or others try to talk of my view, the ABC is quite open and honest about what he calls 'the mind of the Communion' represented by Lambeth 1.10..... I didn't write it or call it the mind of the Communion, as you know. My point is simple, evangelicals surely cannot condone anything incompatible with scripture. But, if Lambeth 1,10 is wrong, pls show anywhere in scripture which makes it clear the behaviour it refers to is only against God's will in certain circumstances........ I'm listening for an answer but it never comes. No doubt, this question will again be ignored and personalised responses, eg davidr's last, might follow but surely evangelicals would want to show their views are compatible with scripture if we are to break with the church catholic today and 2000 yrs of tradition.. ...and permanently split the AC. So, Davidr, sorry if I missed it but please show where Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re scripture and that the behaviour in question is only condemned in scripture in certain circumstances but blessed in others......Quite happy to agree, as an evangelical, if anyone shows Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re scripture Posted by: Phil Almond Thursday 8 March 2012 - 07:16pm Roger Hurding Matthew 5:21-48 has to be read in the context of Matthew 5:17-20. Does ‘fulfil’ really mean ‘revise’? Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Thursday 8 March 2012 - 05:27pm Nersen, let me try to deconstruct your oft-repeated phrases and hopefully encourage engagement with a true 'listening/responding/listening' dialogue with you and others. 'The mind of the communion'. Do you really know what this is? Surely the communion of God's peple is rich and diverse, holding a vast range of views and understandings in its engagement with scripture, tradition and reason. Even where scripture is prioritized there is a spectrum of interpretations as we seek to discern the 'mind of Christ', enlightened by the Spirit. Interestingly, too, the concept of 'mind' here embraces all aspects of knowing, including the rational, psychological, emotional, experiential, imaginative, intuitive, sensing and creative. How can any of us say, "we know the mind of the communion"? 'Incompatible with scripture'. You hold a particular interpretation of the comparatively little that the bible says about being gay and the outworkings of that orientation. In fact, your stance here is an example of the views that Anon, who started this thread, Vicky, Jeremy and others have experienced in the dilemma of being evangelical and gay. And yet there are a number of us, as you will have seen, who draw a different conclusion to you in studying the bible, holding, we believe, however tentatively, views that we too see as 'compatible with scripture'. You are not convinced by these biblicallly based reponses but please give up the refrain, 'they're incompatible with scripture' as if your case is proven beyond doubt. 'Lambeth 1.10' is frequently cited as if it was a unanimous position that had been hammered out. In fact, as has been pointed out by others, the 'mind' of the conference declared, 'We must confess that we are not of one mind about homosexuality.' 'Revisionists'. You adopt a circular argument here in which your view on being gay and its consequences is seen as a hallmark of evangelicalism, therefore those holding a contrary view, even though put forward from the sciptures, cannot be evangelical. So what can we call them? Ah, revisionists seems a good term! Again, as has been pointed out a number of times, church history is peppered with revisionists who have revisited scripture and begun to revise their understanding. Jesus' statements, "You have heard that is was said to those of ancient times...but I say to you...", are a foundational example of revisionism. In more recent centuries, Christians who challenged slavery were clear revisionists. 'Reading in special conditions into scripture which aren't there'. Here we are up against the hermeneutic challenge of context and culture. There are serious debates to be had in seeking to be truly 'compatible with scripture', so let's graciously engage with such debates. This thread has demonstrated the huge difficulties faced in being evangelical and gay. Are there any out there who worship and serve in an evangelical context, are also in a faithful, committed gay relationship and are fully accepted and valued in that same community? Posted by: DavidR Thursday 8 March 2012 - 04:40pm Nersen this is boring, repetitive and discourteous. You know very well there have been numerous lengthy and very thoughtful cases made for a biblically based inclusive position on same sex relations on Fulcrum threads. What you mean by 'they never show' is actually 'I don't agree'. Fair enough but why not just say that? I don't agree with you on this one at all, but I have never claimed you are making no case at all - and out of Christian respect for you I trust I never would. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 8 March 2012 - 11:44am User, agreed...the problem is when some assert behaviour 'incompatible with scripture' according to Lambeth 1.10 is compatible with scripture.....But, they never show how it is blessed in any circumstances. That cannot be an evangelical position. Neither can reading in special conditions into scripture which aren't there eg the claim it's only ritual acts which are banned.... Not what it says......as open revisionists would agree! Evangelicals can't be condoning anything incompatible with scripture ....that is the role of revisionists Posted by: User 4346 Wednesday 7 March 2012 - 06:37am There should no boundary when it comes to coming forward to proclaim the scriptures and it is just fair that anyone who is inclined to do so. Though there are some parts of the word that go against what is the common belief so it may not be something that you could touch when proclaiming the word. But innately, there should be no problem with it all. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 6 March 2012 - 02:34pm Bowman, how about reading verses in context? So, 1cor13 might not mean love false teachers in the context of 1Cor5-7! 1cor5v12 may be of relevance in the light of what the Spirit teaches re unfit church leaders in apostolic letters to Titus and Timothy Posted by: Bowman Tuesday 6 March 2012 - 07:12am 1 Corinthians 13:1, St Matthew 5:22. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 5 March 2012 - 08:00pm Jeremy, if the 'mind of the Communion' is right to state some behavior is 'incompatible with scripture', if someone claims to be evangelical, how they justify from scripture condoning the same behaviour matters....revisionists, of course, can go with the guardian rather than scripture. There is no intrinsic problem with being evangelical and gay.....but it's not logically possible to be evangelical and condone behaviour incompatible with scripture. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Monday 5 March 2012 - 07:26am Nersen - can you respond to what I wrote about avoiding the point? Several points were awaiting your input: 1. I suggested that you take the "sexual acts" issue to another thread - but commented that people who are so keen to focus on that usually have either an aesthetic distaste for some sexual acts that they don't like the idea of themselves, or else are rather over-obsessed by gay sex because they find it dangerously and disturbingly attractive. What do you think? 2. That the thread was about the difficulty of being evangelical and gay. I still think that this is self-evidently the case - do you? 3. That there are other kinds of knowledge than the propositional. Your over-reliance on "the mind of the communion" has been conclusively shown here to be over-confident (the Lambeth Fathers being not so nearly univocal as the phrase suggests). Can you respond to that rather than simply quoting the phrase? 4. This raises another point: in something that you wrote recently you rather indicate that you think things can be settled by votes. I want to challenge that notion. First because, of course, you can't. The record of Lambeth 1998 may include a resolution that is definite - but it was only narrowly passed, and as soon as it was bishops started speaking against it. And the discussions and debate before the vote on the reolution show clearly that the Communion was not of one mind. But more importantly, where is your evidence that Anglicanism is a form of Christianity where a univocal interpretation of anything is held to be either desirable or possible? We are not RCs, so there is (thank God) no magisterium, nor anything that can behave like one. Significant variations in how the faith is lived and expressed around a common biblical and liturgical core has been the hallmark of Anglicanism - and that biblical core has also allowed for significant local and regional variation in interpretation. Do you recognise this characterisation of Anglicanism? I can go into much more detail if you need me to explain why this has been historically so. Perhaps you could explain why you think that the ecclesiology you espouse is a) appropriate, and b) historically justifiable as being in continuity with the tradition? Anyway, I am sure you are not avoiding the discussion and I look forward to reading your detailed responses. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 4 March 2012 - 09:13am Angela, it is not my view that I raise but what the AbC calls the 'mind of the Communion' and the view of the church catholic. Thx, will have a look at the link. Bowman, the whole fake indaba 'process' was set up to avoid the view of the majority being asserted ....and a particular issue was in mind....that is why the issue comes up on this thread. Taking a Zulu word, but not their resolution process, does not hide a political device aimed at Not having a straight forward debate and vote..... Wonder why a debate and vote has to be avoided..... Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 3 March 2012 - 05:01pm Nerson I found this Magazine which has an interesting article under the title of Are Evangelicals or University Professors more irrational when it comes to homosexuality. I thought you might find it interesting the arguments are good i think, but i know they are not in complete agreement with the views you express on the compatibility with scripture..But they do reason well and rationally. of course you will have to type the title in the search bar to find it. townhall.com Angela Posted by: Bowman Saturday 3 March 2012 - 11:32am Lent has distracted me from the forum, but it seems seasonable and reasonable to clarify for charity. Jeremy: Thank you again for your contributions. I was not particularly urging you to be guided in 2012 by the perceptionsof Lambeth bishops who were already very uncertain among themselves in 1998. Rather, because their resolution and report has been cited so often hereabouts, it seemed useful to review their actual contents, and so I did. Those were what they were. Though the individual bishops were of no fewer than four (4) minds, they did collectively reject both mere "stuckism" and its obvious alternatives, and instead anticipated a future consensus beyond the divisions of that time, and described some key elements that they believed that it should have. Those elements would be valuable to persons who want their view of human nature and its sexuality to be consistent with their understanding of life in Christ. That consensus has not yet arrived. Whether Augustine's Dilige, et quod vis fac or Luther's Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo is the better maxim for the time, I cannot say. Pluralist: Were you disquieted by my comment that you seem happy in your relativism? No offense was intended, and I gladly apologize if any was taken. My curiosity was, and is, about an ethnographic phenomenon-- the curious polarization of the villagers of Fulcrum, on which nearly all visitors comment. Meanwhile, it seems odd that your indaba thread is more about homosexuality just now, whilst here we are discussing dialogue. Anyway, thank you for your further gloss over yonder on the UUs; I hope that you found the citation interesting. Perhaps after Lent, we can take up what distinguishes a community of seekers from a community of believers, and whether, indeed, there is any essential difference? Ours is not a caravan of despair. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Friday 2 March 2012 - 11:03pm Well, no, Nersen, I wasn't trying to avoid it. Not in the slightest. But this thread is not about sexual acts. Start one if you want to discuss them. Though I think that people who want to do that are usually either people who have an aesthetic distate for the "sexual acts" (I really am not quite sure what you mean by these it must be said), or are in fact themselves really very fascinated and aroused by the idea of these forbidden things. The obsessively anti-gay have been shown time and again (look to the loudest shouters of anti-gay propaganda in the USA for many examples) to be the most closeted - desperately keen to deny to others that which they most deeply and "shamefully" desire themselves. Aesthetic distaste I can understand - something that does not attract me sexually is something that I take no delight in contemplating. And the very various sexual habits of married couples (which quite commonly include oral and anal sex acts) cannot be deduced from their formally sinless married state! But then I don't go poking around in the bedrooms of my married friends. But much of the hostility to gay people is rooted in a fear of gay sex not because it is unattractive, but because on the contrary it threatens to attract far too much. Homophobia, "Homosexual panic", aggression against gay people, queer bashing, all these rather extreme reactions to the presence of a minority are not justified by our exisence - but the dissonance that we create in people who don't feel comfortable in themselves. I remember it. I didn't display it in hostility - but I remember the anxiety it produced. Anyway, I look forward to talking more about these kinds of things on another thread if you want to start one. My original posting back on here was to try to get people who clearly have a rather prurient anxiety about "sexual acts" to get back to the point of the thread. Which was about why it is so very difficult to be evangelical and gay. But you illustrate the point rather well. I keep thinking of Daleks zooming around, barking "mind of the Communion...mind of the Communion... Lambeth 1:10...Lambeth 1:10" Time and again it has been shown to you that your confidence in knowing the "mind of the Communion" is not prehaps shared by the Lambeth Fathers, who acknowledge that they are nothing like as univocal and decided as you suppose. You don't seem to be able to relate to other kinds of knowledge than propositions. The knowledge offered in the thread focused on personal knowledge - and before you damn that please remember that it is personal knowledge of the Father in John's gospel that we are told is eternal life. And that is an unqualified kind of knowing. so your inability to admit a form of knowledge that has its direct correlate in the Scriptures you purport to hold so highly is rather a shame. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 2 March 2012 - 09:11am Jeremy, trying to avoid the issue? Revisionists can condone behaviour incompatible with scripture as they are a law unto themselves and ditch scripture where it clashes with the Guardian. Those who label themselves 'evangelical' but never show that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in what it says is incompatible with scripture, however much one 'listens', need to think about whether they have made an error re scripture or whether other factors have led them to disagree with what the abc calls 'the mind of the Communion' and they are willing to contradict scripture on some issues ....which Cannot be an evangelical position ....... Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Thursday 1 March 2012 - 10:57pm Nersen - I don't think I mentioned sexual acts. What is the matter with you? Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Thursday 1 March 2012 - 04:34pm A happy relativism, asserts Bowman. Well, first of all, Paul associates homosexuality with idolatry, which is a ridiculous position to take when gay people are observant Christians. One should not absolutise any scripture when it is simply the view of one person, one who otherwise is quite equalitarian in the face of his eschatotology (the belief in the near ending of the world, about which he was wrong). Nevertheless, beyond that, there are no boundaries to scriptures and interpretations, and I am happy with the pluralism by which I can read the Bhagavad Gita, the Qur'an and so on, indeed any mystical or reverential text, and come to a view. I'm quite happy to dismiss large chunks of the Bible or those as irrelevant to what is good and stable and nourishing today. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 29 February 2012 - 07:00pm Jeremy, have not the revisionist arguments been heard for decades, even from the ABC? Have they not failed to change the 'mind of the Communion'? Goddard2Goddard debates here showed listening? Threads like this one have shown evangelicals listening in vain for anyone, including you, to show the sexual acts you want accepted are in any circumstances compatible with scripture.... This matters for evangelicals if not for revisionists. I still listen for any convincing case which shows lambeth 1.10 is wrong re what it says is incompatible with scripture....I'd be happy to agree if any is made one day Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Sunday 26 February 2012 - 11:19pm Bowman, Thank you for your exposition of the position of the bishops. I think the problem is that we gays have got more uppity. I am not seeking the "moral guidance of the church" really - it makes it sound like I am lost, muddled, unhappy and outside and the answer is inside. After all I am part of the church, not external to it. Gay people in 1998 in Britain still lived under Section 28, and there were no civil partnerships and none of the equality legislation that is designed to protect LGBT people from discrimination. But now we live and have lived these changes for some time. Most people at work know that while there is nothing to stop them personally disapproving of gay relationships they can't use that personal dislike in the workplace, or in the marketplace of goods and services. Visibility of LGBT people is so much greater - almost everyone has someone LGBT in their extended family, or as a friend. So trying to return to the 1998 text, which as you rightly and interestingly point out, is full of provisionality - despite the following resolution that was rushed through - and for which Rowan Williams apologised the next day to LGBT supporters - is not really adequate. I am sure there are still lots of bits of the Communion - Uganda and Nigeria for example - where the church can pretend that nothing has happened or changed since then - though even there, where, as David Kato found out in Uganda last year, the persecution of gay activists is very real and very deadly, gay people are finding a voice and are refusing to go away quietly. So anything, like Lambeth XIII, that smacks of removing agency from gay people, that objectifies them and that even hints at patronising them, will not satisfy present conditions - or the present generation of LGBT christians. I hope that bishops can recognise this when they undertake their review this year. Written submissions have to be in by May 31st. All smacks of rather indecent haste to me. But I hope they get some helpful stuff. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Sunday 26 February 2012 - 11:03pm Nersen - you are kidding, right? I have yet to hear of any church in England that undertook any serious listening process (I'm not saying that there aren't any, just that they never featured on my radar, and I think I am pretty savvy about the C of E) - no, I tell a lie - I know of one, in Liverpool. Tell me about all this listening that has been happening. By the way, guidelines for how listening should be done can be found in the ed.Groves Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion book. Posted by: Bowman Sunday 26 February 2012 - 10:36pm Reading the rest of Jeremy's post, I was struck by two thoughts whose plausibility I cannot assess. (1) Is homosexuality in persons or conformism in parishes the more tractable problem for evangelicals? Jeremy says that his faith development was hurt by the conformism of his previous and evangelical parishes. I believe him. That's bad for any Christian and worse for an evangelical Christian, who, after all, has the demanding task of making personal sense of the saving work of Christ. Yet it seems-- this is what I cannot assess from here-- to be the culture of many evangelical parishes. Without detracting from the poignancy of the several GLBT pastoral issues, is there a serious problem of conformism to be addressed? (2) Must evangelicals be positivists? Jeremy's views on the interpretation of scripture strike me as... ripe for further development. But they seem characteristic of the villagers of Fulcrum in that he seems to have started from a very positivistic position, then later encountered the "historicity" of interpretation as pure disruption of his earlier views. Jeremy, like Pluralist it would seem, has plunged on into a happy relativism in search of something better, and invites evangelicals to dive in after him, whilst others seem to avoid the mere history of interpretation itself, perhaps to forfend that very relativism. However, since the core theology of evangelicalism is compatible with a few approaches to interpretation, and since positivism is no defense against relativism anyway, I rather expected English evangelicals to be sure of their gospel and devoted to the scriptures, but flexible about approaches to interpretating them. Not so? Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 26 February 2012 - 09:42am Hi Jeremy. Yes.....listening is good.....it's been going on for decades and still today....But what the ABC calls 'the mind of the Communion' is what it is because strong arguments are never given, eg below, which show convincingly that the acts called 'incompatible with scripture' are in any circumstances compatible with it. Revisionists can say that scripture is not binding on them, but surely 'evangelicals' would not condone any acts which are only condemned in scripture and never blessed in any circumstances? Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Sunday 26 February 2012 - 02:24am 'We' wishing to assure 'they' is already loaded and discriminatory language. Posted by: Bowman Saturday 25 February 2012 - 10:17pm Welcome back, Jeremy! Your quotation from Lambeth Conference XIII alone was worth the wait. It will be better for the thread to focus for a moment on just what the Anglican bishops actually said at Lambeth XIII. I promise to comment on the rest of your reply; please forgive the delay. What would surprise most readers is that the bishops staked out an intelligent, but provisional position that, for the time being (1998), firmly rejected both of the positions that we see in the Forum. We see this (Please click here) not only in the discommendations of same-sex marriages and the ordinations of those in them (at the top of the page), but also in the rejected amendments that proscribe homosexuality itself (at the bottom of the page). But if the bishops did not choose any of the positions then extant, they were also politely clear about why they won't work, and also about what would be more faithful than any of them. And meanwhile, certain Christian duties of charity and respect were not in doubt. Those working out Anglican positions on homosexuality in the Church in the spirit of cannot do better than to work through their resolution and report. The bishops at Lambeth did not leave us to infer that they were unsure. Their words could not be clearer-- We must confess that we are not of one mind about homosexuality. And though they strove mightily to express the mind of the communion, they are clear that this mind is not decided-- We have prayed, studied and discussed these issues, and we are unable to reach a common mind on the scriptural, theological, historical, and scientific questions which are raised. There is much that we do not yet understand. Indeed, they lay out a spectrum of four positions on homosexuality that they find, and presumably respect, among the Anglican bishops in attendance. The intelligent view of the majority appears to be that none of these positions will ultimately prove to be correct in the form in which it was presented at Lambeth XIII. Believe what you will, but any of the listed views, though acceptable, is provisional. And the bishops advise the Communion to live as Christians as the discernment of a more durable consensus proceeds-- The challenge to our Church is to maintain its unity while we seek, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to discern the way of Christ for the world today with respect to human sexuality. To do so will require sacrifice, trust and charity towards one another, remembering that ultimately the identity of each person is defined by Christ. That remembering hints at both the puzzle and the solution they awaited. See (H), here and below. Why the difficulty? And why did a majority of the bishops vote to say that, in effect, even their own private views were not, and could not be, the last word in the matter, even to themselves? The text shows the majority of the bishops framing this puzzle in a way that resists all the easy answers. (A) While affirming sexuality and marriage in traditional terms, they are aware that the Scriptures and the experience of the Church demand some thoughtful provision for the unmarried-- The New Testament and Christian history identify singleness and dedicated celibacy as Christ-like ways of living. The Church needs to recognise the demands and pressures upon both single and married people. Human beings define themselves by relationships with God and other persons. Churches need to find effective ways of encouraging Christ-like living, as well as providing opportunities for the flourishing of friendship, and the building of supportive community life. Presumably, churches need to find effective ways because too often they do not have them. Where the experience of the local church is that it is almost exclusively a chaplaincy to married couples with families, pastoral practice is not being faithful to the tradition affirmed at Lambeth XIII. (B) Likewise, they admit the obvious-- We also recognise that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. That is, the bishops did not take the easy out of ignoring or dismissing the subjective self-understanding of believers in order to evade the issue. At the same time, they do not agree about how pastors should relate to that self-understanding, and it is understood on all sides that correcting a false self-understanding is at the root of much, if not all, pastoral care. (C) And the Church has a duty to defend homosexuals from discrimination, but is not itself simply another public place in civil society-- We call upon the Church and all its members to work to end any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and to oppose homophobia. The bishops oppose civil discrimination and hatred, not just in principle, but because it is the work of the Church to do so. However, the bishops do not link this work to changes in the Church's own practice, and as we have seen, they opposed those changes at least provisionally. Now, this implicitly affirms a cherished goal of liberal churchmanship, but rejects its recent ecclesiology-- i.e. in obedience to the Spirit, change the Church's sacred tradition to induce the unbelieving civil society to follow it to higher ground. Liberal Anglicans have understandably found this confusing. (D) Moreover, the homosexual question comes from within the Church itself-- Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. One should not view the priest trying to help the gay man in the choir as the mere agent of some vast conspiracy. (E) And one can't just say that sex is not a concern of the Church, or that there are no absolutes in this area-- Clearly some expressions of sexuality are inherently contrary to the Christian way and are sinful. The deontological language slams the door on a common notion that sex is just too hard a problem for a settled ethic. Moreover, a carefully-balanced list of acts that are malum in se show that this is hardly a partisan position. (F) Nor is it true that wrong relationships, including presumably those of homosexual Christians, necessarily fall in some realm of gracelessness beyond Christ's redeeming work-- All human relationships need the transforming power of Christ which is available to all, and particularly when we fall short of biblical norms. The question for all is-- to what sort of transformation is Christ giving his power? From this, one would expect to see a divine prompting to repentance in relationships of all kinds, and especially in those against God's will. (G) Theological, historical, and scientific knowledge is relevant. While the guidance of the scriptures appears in the report itself, the majority agreed that the Church cannot solve this puzzle from scripture alone-- We have prayed, studied and discussed these issues, and we are unable to reach a common mind on the scriptural, theological, historical, and scientific questions which are raised. If this were only a matter of plucking the right passages and doing the right exegesis, this would be simpler, of course. But a majority of Anglican bishops in 1998 believed they also needed answers to theological, historical, and scientific questions in order to arrive at a less provisional consensus. (H) Finally and subversively, the key to both the problem and the solution is a developmental and social vision of the self in Christ-- alienated from him in its divisions, and unified with itself in union with him. But this Christian anthropology has not yet matured. Following the St Andrews Day Statement, the bishops welcome better knowledge about homosexuals and their lived experiences, but insist that Christian life is no more to be grounded in any sexual division than in earlier racial or economic divisions. It is the most complex paragraph of the report-- There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality of Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given to use in him. Those who understand themselves as homosexuals, no more and no less than those who do not, are liable to false understandings based on personal or family histories, emotional dispositions, social settings and solidarities formed by common experiences or ambitions. Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" hetrosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humainty in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation.[12] 12. An examination of the theological Principles Affecting the Homosexual Debate, St Andrew's Day Statement 1995. To my admittedly self-interested eyes, this looks as though the bishops were waiting for a Christ-centered hybrid of clinical psychology with moral theology. And, after all, why not? Again, my point to any reader who has made it thus far through a lengthy post is that the Anglican bishops at Lambeth Conference XIII did not issue a fatwa that was meant to shut down honest deliberation about homosexuality. To the contrary, they explained why none of the positions extant in 1998 was adequate to the situation, and awaited a theological development that would be, in their judgment, more faithful. Whenever, Lambeth Conference XIII is cited, we should be reminded of its rejection of easy answers, its agenda for a Church that learns before it discerns, and of course, its broad pastoral concern for gay Christians. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Saturday 25 February 2012 - 12:45pm I don't want to appear to be being relucant to engage. I tried posting the response below yesterday (and a brief earlier one) - but neither have been posted. This morning I contacted Fulcrum to enquire and it seems they didn't get through. So I am trying again. Hopefully, this time it will appear. From Friday 24th Feb Nersen – hello again – and hello to Lambeth 1:10! I am assuming, Nersen, that you meant (among other things) this bit: “We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ”? You describe my posting as “arguments”. It wasn’t – it was a testimony. My point was, and is, that the original article and other comment here suggest to me that there are evangelicals who do not receive the assurance described above in the evangelical churches they go to. There is still a lot of fear, hiding, and insecurity for evangelicals who happen to be gay. They aren’t confident of the how they will be regarded or received or treated should it be known that they are gay. They will probably not be spoken of as ‘gay’ people at all. I think that is shameful, worrying and unhealthy: what do you think? Bowman, thank you for your cheery welcome. One or two comments in response to your questions. I think there is a very great and honourable tradition in Scripture of reinterpretation by taking a saying and detaching it from its original context and its “plain meaning”, and then using some element of its sense to support something else. For example – in order to use the book Haggai, we have to totally ignore the fact that the prophecy regarding Zerubbabel was utterly wrong and did not come to pass. Now, I have heard some inspired teaching from that book – but only when the book has, if you like, become decontextualized to make it useful for the present context. That scares some evangelicals. I don’t think it should. Paul the Apostle does the same thing, just en passant, but he does. 1 Timothy 5:18. There is also a strong tradition of prioritising some parts of Scripture over others in order to achieve a desired hermeneutical result. Scripture is doing this all the time – there are contests going on internally as this collection of writings is worked over, reinterpreted and so forth. Again, the “evangelical canon” has historically prioritised Paul over the gospels to preserve the shape of faith as Luther and the Reformers set it out. But it is not the only, or indeed, the necessary way to read Scripture. Nor is it particularly a Scriptural way of so doing. All of which is by way of prefacing my comments about Ephesians Chapter 5. Verse 21 seems to me to be very useful for a same-sex marriage. The rest of the passage less so – Paul’s imagery does rather depend on men and women being the actors in the event for its success. But then again, it is not a passage that I would want to use as a model for a modern Western marriage I don’t think – the subordination that is implicit just keeps on popping up despite the best efforts of verse 21. What makes marriages is a union. Of bodies, hearts and lives. I think that the prospect of this being something that takes more than one form clearly panics a lot of Christians, but I don’t think it needs to. People who know long-standing same sex couples often say how they can recognise precisely this united quality about them, just as they might with a long married heterosexual couple. By their fruits shall ye know them. Civil partnerships do not assume any necessary sexual relationship. Marriage makes a general presumption of such a relationship – and of course, the absence of such is grounds for annulment. Of course, not all marriages, and some very successful ones, have much of a sexual relationship, and some not at all. Ditto for some same-sex partnerships, by the way! I wouldn’t want to imply that they are any the less marriages for that – a very elderly couple marry in their 80s and 90s. They are married, even if not all bits work as they might. Cuddles can express union. But that potential for physical union is there in marriage. And a lot of same-sex couples think that is a strong part of what make up what unites them. I don’t think it should be beyond the whit of theologians to speak a theology of marriage that encompasses rather than excludes. I, though I am no theologian, would start with the doctrine of God and the communion of the Holy Trinity, and then explore ideas about union, covenant, fidelity, friendship. There is so much material to draw on. But it will take a leap of imagination to get over the fixity of form that we have lived with up to now. I would like to see it offering Christian people who want to get married something better than the traditional ethics of sex and theology of marriage. If hardly any brides arriving at church for their weddings are virgins (let alone the bridegrooms), and if many couples have had a number of long-term sexual relationships before they even meet the person they finally marry, then a doctrine of marriage that assumes no sex before marriage is a failed doctrine. The focus should be on the goals of marriage – fidelity, stability, growth, community, union. And how to live and grow through the tough times. That is what people want marriage doctrine to help them with. They are not interested in, in fact they are offended by, a prurient interest in who is in the bedroom with whom and what goes on therein. The church I worship in is at one and the same time a cathedral and a parish church. It is lively and busy, with a large, growing congregation. That is mixed, but with a preponderance of older people. There is a significant children’s and young people’s work. The music is very good. It is probably fairly described as middle-of-the-road. The building is one of the finest in the country and there are many visitors. Anyway – forgive me if I don’t comment on your questions about evangelical churches. I might come back to them another time – though I rather think not. Too many unhappy memories. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 24 February 2012 - 11:10am Lambeth 1.10 represents 'the mind of the Communion' acccording to the ABC..... hardly 'nutty theology'...... Why haven't revisionists changed that mind if they have a strong case from scripture? The logic of some on this thread would demand that the Labour Party must accept someone is a socialist Because they say they are, even if they join up, knowing its stances, but then argue for Privatisation of the NHS and no more welfare state...... Doesn't make sense, does it? Same goes for the AC and cofE.... We don't have to split from the church catholic today and in the last 2000 yrs because a few want to justify acts which they never show are compatible with scripture in any circumstances.....and that's why the 'mind of the Communion' is what it is....And revisionists are emptying churches in the US and the UK year after year...no case from scripture, no interest especially from the young in the west.....for revisionists Posted by: Bowman Friday 24 February 2012 - 05:31am "De gustibus non disputandum est—that is, there is no disputing against Hobby-Horses; and for my part, I seldom do." --Laurence Sterne, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. Greetings Jeremy. I suppose you've been to one of those parties where, in a huge room full of lovely people with interesting things to talk about, the natural antagonists find each other and start a fight within minutes, eh? ;-) Yes. Before you dropped in, we were just discussing the fact that a thread that is nominally about gay evangelicals had mostly been about our own differing views on hermeneutics and authority. Many words-- some good ideas, some ideas less good, a bit of moving testimony and commentary on that, but little topical information. As we have noted, and as you have noted, there are few villagers in Fulcrum to provide context for the original article, which is scarcely ever mentioned. We do our best. Welcome. Since you mention that you are affianced, I wonder if you might contribute a word or two about marriage itself. Do you think St Paul's words in Ephesians 5:21-33 interpret relationships somewhat like your own? If not, is there a passage elsewhere in the scriptures that does? Some in my country who accept the social and legal rationale for civil unions do not see what makes them "marriages" in a Christian sense. Some further argue that the deep problem roiling the churches is not the prospect of civil unions but the unfinished task of making Christian sense of marriage itself. Still-- you choose a Christian marriage. What would you tell them? And since the top of my screen says "renewing the evangelical centre," could you say more about the beliefs of the church with which you worship now? If it is not evangelical, what is it? Is it itself renewed-- or just new? My eyes were drawn to this part of your post-- I think it is a bit of a shame that, if I ever think, would I like to go back to being in an evangelical church, I know that the answer is a resounding no. The stereotyping, the dogmatism, the nutty theology, the rubbish pastoral care, the manipulations, the pressures to conform, the rejection of gay people, the patronisation of black people, disabled and learning disabled people, women (don't get me started) - plus bad liturgy, saccharine hymns, and, for too many, a life in the bubble, that avoids rather than engages, has cured me of it for ever (I think). And I am not forgetting the the positives - mostly the lovely people. But trying to conform nearly killed me. Posting from the United States, I can't say that I've ever beheld anything so bad as all this in any province of The Episcopal Church. Should you stroll through the Forum again, it would interest me to read more about any single detail in your description. Some of the faults you describe seem pastoral-- the dogmatism, the nutty theology, the rubbish pastoral care, bad liturgy, saccharine hymns. About any one of them, what do you mean? Could you enlighten me on how your views of these differed from those of the persons (and their parsons) who presumably prefer things as they are? Other faults you mention seem social-- stereotyping; the manipulations; the pressures to conform; the rejection of gay people; the patronisation of black people, disabled and learning disabled people, women (don't get me started); and, for too many, a life in the bubble, that avoids rather than engages. I wonder whether you meant to suggest that any of the former cause the latter? If so, how? If they don't, what does? Despite your view of things, you find it to be "a bit of a shame that, if I ever think, would I like to go back to being in an evangelical church, I know that the answer is a resounding no." Why? What about evangelicalism still speaks to you? Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Thursday 23 February 2012 - 02:55pm Thanks for your personal, thoughtful, realistic and encouraging post Jeremy. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 22 February 2012 - 08:33pm Jeremy - Lambeth 1.10 is not my position but that of the CofE and the AC..... you raise some emotional arguments but do not show that it is wrong..... what does not make sense is the insistence from some that they are evangelical (implying having a high view of scripture) while at the same time condoning acts which the 'mind of the Communion', not I, says are 'incompatible with scripture' - while never showing that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re what scripture says...... I'd be quite happy to agree with you if you, or anyone, can show that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong re what it says is incompatible with scripture...... emotional arguments only avoid the issue which, I guess, might matter for 'evangelicals'. Roger, perhaps you might think about taking some time over Lent to think about whether you really have backing from scripture for your tolerant position on some acts...... but not others. Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 22 February 2012 - 10:29am Jeremy, thank you so much for your honest, heartfelt reminder of the initial posting for this thread. What you say is a terrible indictment of much evangelicalism in its excluding, discriminatory mode. And Phil, like you, I seek to prioritize scripture but to do this I believe we are called to use every God-given faculty as we engage with the text, seeking to love God with our whole being and our neighbour as ourselves. This includes our reasoning, hopefully being shaped by the 'mind of Christ'; our evaluation of tradition (at time rejecting it, as with the prohibition of the slave trade); our emotions (the whole range as expressed in the Psalms: anger, lament, joy, love, etc); our imaginations (entering into the texts and contexts, reading creatively between the lines, etc). And Nersen, do take reflective notice of Jeremy's posting - excellent material for the 'turning aside' for Lent. Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Tuesday 21 February 2012 - 10:19pm Gosh - It IS Groundhog Day round here! Just before starting on my Lenten disciplines I thought that, after a couple of years away, I would pop back in and see where Fulcrum had got to - and this thread caught my attention. But that is because I am gay, and I used to be evangelical. I have to confess that I am not evangelical anymore. It is threads like this that finally cured me of that. But, while that may mean that Nersen and Phil Almond may be predisposed to ignore anything else I say, I hope they won't. The start of this thread was about being gay and evangelical. They have no experience of that; no more do most of the people posting. What is interesting is how easily the discussion turned to a discussion about "homosexuality" and the "compatibility of homosexual genital acts with Scripture". But the originator of the whole thread - the writer of the article - describes himself as gay, not homosexual. There is a persistent reluctance among some evangelicals to face the linguistic self-determination of people who are not like ourselves. I am not homosexual, I am not same-sex attracted, I am not, heaven knows, struggling with same-sex attraction. I am gay. I am still a Christian. I enjoy going to a church that is unconcerned about my domestic arrangements (partnered, engaged, and entirely monogamous since you ask), and is positive about using my gifts (singing, preaching, leading housegroups). We listen to more Scripture than I ever heard in an Evangelical church. The sermons are briefer - but no less biblically based. I have certainly got beyond thinking that the evangelical hermeneutical canon is the only way to read or take seriously the Bible - it isn't. Can someone help Nersen understand this? - it might make his postings more varied and interesting. I am enjoying being a Christian more than I have in years. The liturgy is mostly pure Bible, and the music is fantastic. I think it is a bit of a shame that, if I ever think, would I like to go back to being in an evangelical church, I know that the answer is a resounding no. The stereotyping, the dogmatism, the nutty theology, the rubbish pastoral care, the manipulations, the pressures to conform, the rejection of gay people, the patronisation of black people, disabled and learning disabled people, women (don't get me started) - plus bad liturgy, saccharine hymns, and, for too many, a life in the bubble, that avoids rather than engages, has cured me of it for ever (I think). And I am not forgetting the the positives - mostly the lovely people. But trying to conform nearly killed me. I wouldn't have had a moment's hesitation in publishing an article like the one that started the thread under my own name. I am out at church, out at work (NHS Chaplain - a great refuge for unacceptable gay clergy, means bishops can heave a sigh of relief - some of us are really gifted and were great in parishes, but they would be in knots if they had to employ us now - so giving us a licence doesn't feel quite so bad), out to my bishops, to family and friends. It never occurs to me to worry about what people think or how they will react. I am just myself. My social world is mostly with straight friends and a few gay ones. I don't really have a "homosexual lifestyle". In fact, as I put on Facebook the other day, my gay lifestyle on Saturday consisted of walking up town to post a letter and go for a cuppa in a local cafe. I think I am a healthy normal person, who just happens to be gay - and I think the anonymous and (mostly) celibate world of christians who daren't come out because they are not sure how they will be received is a damning indictment of whatever bit of the church they are afraid of. One day I may find I got it all wrong and that Nersen is right. But I tell you what, the fact that an article like Evangelical and Gay has to be published anonymously, and that you won't find that many gay people in evangelical churches (and not at all in some recommended ones) says to me that there is something seriously wrong. It is a tragedy that the bit of the Church of Jesus Christ that is the Church of England manages to present itself as the least welcoming significant institution in the whole country to this minority - in fact, so unwelcoming that it has had to negotiate special legal protections for itself so that it can carry on discriminating. As Bishop Alan Wilson put is (actually about the women Bishops debate), “Everybody outside the Bubble sees that this is about discrimination.” You can fluff it up with Scripture, conscience, history, tradition – but ask the people on the receiving end what it feels like. It feels like discrimination. And I wonder what Scriptural defence of that there is, after the Jesus event? Anyway, a holy and blessed Lent to you all! Jeremy (Pemberton) Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Tuesday 21 February 2012 - 10:17pm Gosh - It IS Groundhog Day round here! Just before starting on my Lenten disciplines I thought that, after a couple of years away, I would pop back in and see where Fulcrum had got to - and this thread caught my attention. But that is because I am gay, and I used to be evangelical. I have to confess that I am not evangelical anymore. It is threads like this that finally cured me of that. But, while that may mean that Nersen and Phil Almond may be predisposed to ignore anything else I say, I hope they won't. The start of this thread was about being gay and evangelical. They have no experience of that; no more do most of the people posting. What is interesting is how easily the discussion turned to a discussion about "homosexuality" and the "compatibility of homosexual genital acts with Scripture". But the originator of the whole thread - the writer of the article - describes himself as gay, not homosexual. There is a persistent reluctance among some evangelicals to face the linguistic self-determination of people who are not like ourselves. I am not homosexual, I am not same-sex attracted, I am not, heaven knows, struggling with same-sex attraction. I am gay. I am still a Christian. I enjoy going to a church that is unconcerned about my domestic arrangements (partnered, engaged, and entirely monogamous since you ask), and is positive about using my gifts (singing, preaching, leading housegroups). We listen to more Scripture than I ever heard in an Evangelical church. The sermons are briefer - but no less biblically based. I have certainly got beyond thinking that the evangelical hermeneutical canon is the only way to read or take seriously the Bible - it isn't. Can someone help Nersen understand this? - it might make his postings more varied and interesting. I am enjoying being a Christian more than I have in years. The liturgy is mostly pure Bible, and the music is fantastic. I think it is a bit of a shame that, if I ever think, would I like to go back to being in an evangelical church, I know that the answer is a resounding no. The stereotyping, the dogmatism, the nutty theology, the rubbish pastoral care, the manipulations, the pressures to conform, the rejection of gay people, the patronisation of black people, disabled and learning disabled people, women (don't get me started) - plus bad liturgy, saccharine hymns, and, for too many, a life in the bubble, that avoids rather than engages, has cured me of it for ever (I think). And I am not forgetting the the positives - mostly the lovely people. But trying to conform nearly killed me. I wouldn't have had a moment's hesitation in publishing an article like the one that started the thread under my own name. I am out at church, out at work (NHS Chaplain - a great refuge for unacceptable gay clergy, means bishops can heave a sigh of relief - some of us are really gifted and were great in parishes, but they would be in knots if they had to employ us now - so giving us a licence doesn't feel quite so bad), out to my bishops, to family and friends. It never occurs to me to worry about what people think or how they will react. I am just myself. My social world is mostly with straight friends and a few gay ones. I don't really have a "homosexual lifestyle". In fact, as I put on Facebook the other day, my gay lifestyle on Saturday consisted of walking up town to post a letter and go for a cuppa in a local cafe. I think I am a healthy normal person, who just happens to be gay - and I think the anonymous and (mostly) celibate world of christians who daren't come out because they are not sure how they will be received is a damning indictment of whatever bit of the church they are afraid of. One day I may find I got it all wrong and that Nersen is right. But I tell you what, the fact that an article like Evangelical and Gay has to be published anonymously, and that you won't find that many gay people in evangelical churches (and not at all in some recommended ones) says to me that there is something seriously wrong. It is a tragedy that the bit of the Church of Jesus Christ that is the Church of England manages to present itself as the least welcoming significant institution in the whole country to this minority - in fact, so unwelcoming that it has had to negotiate special legal protections for itself so that it can carry on discriminating. As Bishop Alan Wilson put it (actually about the women Bishops debate), “Everybody outside the Bubble sees that this is about discrimination.” You can fluff it up with Scripture, conscience, history, tradition – but ask the people on the receiving end what it feels like. It feels like discrimination. And I wonder what Scriptural defence of that there is, after the Jesus event? Anyway, a holy and blessed Lent to you all! Jeremy (Pemberton) Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 20 February 2012 - 07:36pm Roger, you want to 'move on' .....to get away from the question of what is compatible and incompatible with scripture? I'd have thought that wouldn't be an 'evangelical' thing to do.... Sounds like you'd like a fake indaba...but more delay is not the answer to the fracturing of the AC since TECs unilateral actions in 2003...... delay is only in the interests of a small, aged, revisionist minority ....the cause of the fracture, not the solution. Posted by: Phil Almond Monday 20 February 2012 - 04:24pm Roger Whatever terms we use there is polarisation. That is a fact. And any attempt ( I am not sure whether Bowman is saying this or not) to explain that polarisation in terms of the temperament or character of the parties who are polarised is to fall into the trap of what Lewis called ‘Bulverism’ in an essay of that name. You posted “If we could learn to step outside these boxes and visit afresh scripture, tradition and reason, allowing the rightful place of experience, emotion and imagination too, our disagreements could be much more creatively and enrichingly examined.” That statement already begs the question. We are polarised already. Some, presumably including yourself, would agree with your post. Others, including me, would strongly dissent from giving tradition and reason the same weight as the Bible. As far as I am concerned, all my posts arise from visiting the Bible afresh. To take one example: either the wrath of God is a final punitive wrath on those who are not delivered from it by the death and resurrection of Christ – or it is not, it is something else. There is no third alternative. Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Sunday 19 February 2012 - 02:41pm Thank you Bowman for referring us to Jonathan Haidt's talk on the differing moral roots between conservatives and liberals. I am sure this has a great deal to say about different opinions, differently expressed, on this and other threads. Jonathan's hope is that 'we can learn to be civil and open-minded toward those whose morals don't match ours, but who are equally good and moral people in their own terms.' Some may shrink from this aim as it appears to be simply relativistic, seemingly denying that perspectives can be objectively true or false. And yet there is surely value in this empathetic stance, seeing that liberals favour fairness and justice, for example, and conservatives favour loyalty, authority and purity. It would be good if our discussions could move forward from the polarization of 'revisionists', to use Nersen's term, and 'stuckists', to use Bowman's word. If we could learn to step outside these boxes and visit afresh scripture, tradition and reason, allowing the rightful place of experience, emotion and imagination too, our disagreements could be much more creatively and enrichingly examined. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 19 February 2012 - 08:48am Hi Clare. Sure, many angles to revisionist arguments, but nothing very convincing to show Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in what it says is'incompatible with scripture'....that's why the 'mind of the Communion' is what it is. For example: it is asserted that Romans 1 talks of abusive or ritualistic acts..... but it doesn't say so....and nobody shows it does.... As I've said, I'm quite happy to ditch Lambeth 1.10 if anyone ever shows it is incompatible with scripture. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Sunday 19 February 2012 - 03:37am Angela. I am sure that if there is transcendence that humour must be a part. We are told that, in the quantum world, everything can and does happen but it depends on the observation. That is funny in itself. Posted by: Bowman Saturday 18 February 2012 - 07:56pm Welcome back, Clare! If you don't mind, I'd like to try to reframe a certain sort of conversation between stuckists and revisionists as being between two reasonable points of view. How far those shoes fit any who post here, I leave to the thoughtful, fairminded reader. At worst, we just see-- we very often see-- the irresistable force-- "the World has changed!" slamming into the immovable object-- "a mere change of world will not change Me!" Now some of that is rooted in an underlying collision of temperaments that is humourously explained by Jonathan Haidt here. Haidt (pronounced "height") is right to suggest that those with liberal and conservative views can have a common conversation if and only if they first understand and respect the differing compositions and social contributions of their moral sentiments. The debate over the Anglican Communion Covenant, for example, often looks like an experiment meant to prove his point. But some of this collision really is caused a problem for faith that is more than a clash of temperaments. One can frame that problem a few ways. In the Fulcrum attic, I see that it has been done this way by Tom Wright, and this way by Oliver O'Donovan, for example. But hereabouts it seems simpler to say that most posters can be sorted according to which of two outcomes is more to be avoided-- (a) The church falling out of some relation to the wider society that seems to some to be the heart of the faith because it cannot exercise any present moral and pastoral judgment. (b) The church being unable to give stable shelter to the faith of individuals over time because it has taken on a prior commitment to restless adaptation to the world's changes. Nobody doubts that churches should and do adapt, but only some see anything of transcendent importance in that adapting. Nobody is wholly insensitive to the idea that an organic community of faith is helpful to individuals, but some are very, very reliant on that. The impasse has come of never quite discussing these different ways of being a Christian directly, and never, ever admitting that, unless things are very wisely done, there are real losses incurred in taking either path. In effect, Christians on both paths have taken the position that the pain their preferences cause other Christians are "permissible harms." That really does not seem to be what Jesus would have done about homosexuality. And what are we doing about homosexuality? Oliver O'Donovan rightly notes in a few places that actual discussion of the moral and spiritual substance of lives in Christ lived under that sign have been rare. If compassionate fellowship and ministry were the real concerns, we would expect to see lots and lots of attention to this, and we would expect to see differences expressed mainly about the merits of rival approaches for diverse situations. (Celibate homosexuals, partnered homosexuals, promiscuous homosexuals, part-time homosexuals, and persons seeking to change their sex really do not look at all like one single spiritual predicament.) Instead, both in the wider Anglican circle and on this thread (with the exception of the original article and the posts to and from Vicki), homosexuality seems to have become the pretext for a war that both sides believe that they can win. But wars do not usually have winners, only, sometimes, victors. In the Fulcrum Forum, the best posts have two qualities. (1) When the matter is empirical, they too are empirical-- they contribute actual knowledge to the topic at hand. (2) They manage to communicate scepticism about the merits of other points of view without dehumanizing and dechristianizing those holding them. We are fortunate to have as many of these as we do! But (3) even better posts-- my own do not yet rise to this level-- would show how a fellow Christian on the other path that avoids the other fear could actually step nearer to common ground and to less fear of any kind. It should not be thought that we need a map of common ground before we find it. We already know why we should have no fear. Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 18 February 2012 - 05:47pm Pluralist, You have to stop my sides are splitting with laughter!! "You also dialogue with Yale post liberals" I like your post, Anglicanism does have some quirks, but so do all the churches. You told me you did not believe in the ressurection or that Christ was our saviour, God has a brilliant sense of humour for you often educate in your debating. I dialogue with all sorts of people me! it would not even enter my head to think of them as post Yale liberal anglican man from mars or earthling. I have come to the conclusion that NO church completely fulfils the criteria we may put on it, whether you believe or do not believe the social structure of the organisation of all churches have their strengths and weaknesses, the secret appears to be being able to be our strongest in the right time and right place, that may be a church or it maybe somewhere else but neither have to be an all or nothing. Both can be difficult if its the wrong time and place.. Your blogs are always worthy of a read, but there is so much they are sometimes hard to follow, for me .(and i would hate to view one of your caricatures of me, lol) You seem to me and i am open to correction, to want proof, where it is impossible to find it, as for the churches that is a teaching and relational thing, the two do not always come from the same place! I can prove nothing, believe much, and discern a lot, none of these are of any use if my faith is shattered beyond repair. Fortunately that is not possible , whilst we can still ask the questions.Christianity is not confined to denomination. Angela Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 18 February 2012 - 02:28am I see some reference to me and a little puzzlement. So perhaps I should add some clarity for Peter and others. I make comments here from the outside. In 2009 and 2010 I was still attending an Anglican church but participated less in terms of its core rituals, transferring again to the Unitarians and settled there exclusively when I changed home and crossed the Humber. The repetitive poster Nersen Pillay keeps associating me with revisionists, but I can be clearer that I am not a Christian and so I am not a revisionist in any sense. While I associate myself with Unitarian history and ideas, the Unitarian Church (if there is such a thing) changes with its members rather than we change to it (though I am sure there is some culturation). Where I continue to comment is regarding loose ends - particularly the Anglican Covenant - and a reason why is because via my blog and Facebook I retain friends that overlap into the Church of England and The Episcopal Church. I would still like to see a broad and liberal Church of England. But they are the Anglican liberals and for me the Anglican Churches must choose their own futures, including issues of gay inclusion in ministry and blessings (an obvious double yes from me). I used to supply regular articles to a TEC website but they haven't received one for a very long time - it is not where I am any more. My view on Jesus (evident from my blog) is that he is no more than a culturally limited human being, like anyone else, the position that happens to be in a line from Francis William Newman, the brother of JH Newman. I also dialogue with those who come up with forms of Yale postliberal theology - a sort of conservative non-realism, although most of its proponents seem to be quite realist and more experiential. These tend to be evangelicals. I am too dismissive of radical orthodoxy to dialogue with it because of its own collective rigidities. Unitarianism has enjoyed slow, stable and steady growth in the United States. In the UK it still 'bumps along the bottom' it might be said, although recently some congregations have shown some considerable growth, and the questions why run through the denomination! Certainly online presence has taken away loss of sight and made for many more enquiries. Some Unitarians still regard Jesus as a significant and leading presence, and push a clearly Christian shaped (free) liturgy, but others like me do not, and there are many of eastern, pagan and humanist leanings. Pluralist - Adrian Worsfold Posted by: Clare Thursday 16 February 2012 - 04:24pm Nersen - its been so long! You do however make my very point for me. A dispassionate analysis of postings on fulcrum would find that the 'revisionists' argue their case in different ways whereas you in particular do not engage with what is said but repeat the mantras 'Church of England and the mind of the communion...compatible with scripture.' Just repeating it endlessly does not further your argument. I am part of the Church of England and the communion and I (along with many others) believe it is compatible. So it is simply not true that 'the Church of England' in its entirety believes in this incompatibility. If it did, we wouldn't all keep talking about it. To convince us (which is surely what you want to do), you need argue why is it incompatible not just regurgitate your pet phrase over and over. Otherwise it just looks like point scoring. Furthermore, using 'revisionist' as a 'boo' word is tiresome. I for one am proud to be, like Jesus, a revisionist. Posted by: Clare Thursday 16 February 2012 - 04:09pm Thanks Dave but the posts were posted over a year and a half ago - I don't think I'm that controversial! One in particular really piqued me as it was countering some gross misrepresentations of Islam. I really believe that Chrsitains have the duty to desist from bearing false witness and to challenge it when they encounter it but somehow or other the post just vanished. I don't think it ever reached fulcrum and some sort of browser incompatibility happened - so never mind. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 16 February 2012 - 04:00pm Clare, please bring back your liberal catholic drum... Posted by: Dave Thursday 16 February 2012 - 03:37pm Clare, Chrome normally works fine for me. If you think a message has been lost, you can make sure you are logged on, use the back arrow to find your post in the editor and post it again. The message may be lost altogether if you hit the control key by accident. Otherwise if it is long and controversial a moderator may be sitting on it. I would wait a few days, then post short version if you still want to make the point Dave Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 16 February 2012 - 11:11am Clare, do you mean the revisionist line repeated ad nauseam but which has failed to persuade 'us' ...ie the cofE and the AC which still hold some acts are 'incompatible with scripture'? Posted by: Roger Hurding Thursday 16 February 2012 - 09:40am Clare, it's good to hear your voice again. I, for one, have missed the sanity and wisdom of your posts and hope that we weill hear from you further. And thank you Bowman for the rich quality of your postings. They have been great contributions to the debattes over the past few weeks. Posted by: Clare Wednesday 15 February 2012 - 10:04pm Bowman - I was that liberal! I used to post fairly regularly banging the liberal catholic drum. (if you cliick on my name you will be able to read my back catelogue - should the fancy take you). I gave up after two long, thought out posts disappeared into the ether (I think because ti didn't like me using goggle chrome?) and life got really busy and I got tired of the same old mega- posters just reiterating the same points over and over without really listening to what others were saying. I still read it occasionally and maybe tempted back to comment occasionally, although I notice that the usual culprits are still endlessly reiterating the same lines -if it hasn't convinced us yet, despite being repeated ad nauseam - why not try a new line of argument? Posted by: Bowman Friday 10 February 2012 - 10:57pm Dave: Belated thanks for your gracious informal moderating on this and other threads. Peter: Nobody is very interesting when merely repasting the same ideas in the same words into the threads over and over. And I have not yet detected any disputed matter on which Pluralist and I agree. However, the top of my screen says "Renewing the Evangelical Centre," and renewal requires both a certain creativity from within, and also a bit of helpful scepticism from without. One would think that Anglican comprehensiveness would ensure that there are always internal sceptics for every need. But, to my surprise, it doesn't seem to be the case. Straightforwardly liberal comments are rare in the Forum-- the "revisionist" comments hereabouts are rather tamer than those one might hear in, say, certain seminaries of TEC (= The [Protestant] Episcopal Chuch In the USA). And whilst the Forum's regular contributors seem to be somewhat familiar with the catholic tradition in Anglicanism, I have not noticed a critique from that perspective on the threads. I'm not sure why. So, it may be dialectically helpful to the Forum that Pluralist has staked out and defended the old latitudinarian position with respect to the Church's place in society. Some of his posts are just agitprop, but there are others that show a sincere, independent engagement in depth with concerns parallel to our own. Of course, this may only stimulate more appeals to fideism. That would be a disappointment, but renewal is risky-- or it is not actually renewal. Posted by: Dave Friday 10 February 2012 - 11:46am Peter, You need to read the article http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=677 and the comments at the top to understand the Fulcrum position. More official comments, if any, can be spotted by the contributors photo. Try the home tab if you want to know more about Fulcrum. Regular readers know Pluralist, you will find a link to his blog sooner or later if you stay with us. Dave Posted by: Phil Almond Friday 3 February 2012 - 09:23pm Vicki As I keep saying I want the strongest arguments on all sides of disputed points to be in the public domain. As most people will be aware some, at any rate, of such arguments on all sides of the homosexuality dispute are to be found in Gagnon’s book (arguing that homosexuality is a sin) and in the books and articles of others (arguing that homosexuality is not a sin) and there has been, and probably continues to be, extensive interaction, argument and counter-argument between the authors of these books and articles and others. Gagnon participated for a time on the Fulcrum forum thread ‘Homosexuality, Scripture and Church’ around July 2008. Obviously this current thread has a long way to go to capture and extend all these arguments and counter-arguments, but I will continue to put forward the strongest arguments as I see them, including, where appropriate and possible, those used in these other debates. In this post I want to mainly stay with Romans 1-3 and argue again that it is universal in its scope and about all humanity as a result of the Fall. Paul, after his introductory remarks in 1:1-15, says he is not ashamed of the gospel for the gospel is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing, both to Jew firstly and to Greek, for in it a righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. ‘Jew firstly and to Greek’ is one of Paul’s ways of saying ‘all human beings’ – compare verse 14 ‘both to Greeks and to foreigners’. This must be so. In the light of what he says later in this letter and says elsewhere he can’t possibly mean just to ‘Jew firstly and to Greek’. So he begins by speaking about a gospel of salvation which he has to preach to all people – because he is a debtor – to all. Then: ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of men, holding fast the truth in unrighteousness…..’. Why does he write this? What is his train of thought? He is starting to set out why all people need the gospel of which he is not ashamed and the salvation which it brings to everyone believing. In 1:19-32 he elaborates on 1:18, including ‘God gave them up…’ three times. The description in 1:29-32 is paralleled in Genesis 6:5, ‘The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time’. If we each ask ourselves the question ‘Do I see aspects of myself in Romans 1:18-32 and Genesis 6:5 as I was before I became a Christian (if I am a Christian) I wonder what our answers would be? Bearing in mind that Paul addresses each of us in 2:1-5: we are without excuse (compare1:20): we judge others but we do the same things as the others we judge. And we know for certain that the ones we judge deserve the judgment of God for the things we do. But don’t we realise that we are under the same judgment? Do we think that we will escape the judgment of God? Are we complacent because we see the kindness of God and because there is no sign of his judgment? Don’t we realise that his kindness should lead us to repentance? Don’t we realise that that by hardening ourselves against repentance we are storing up wrath for ourselves which will in the end be manifest when the righteous judgment of God is revealed? Does this not cause each of us to search our hearts and see aspects of me in 1:18-32 and Genesis 6:5 as I was before my conversion – and as I am now that I am a Christian, to the extent that ‘my members on the earth’ are not fully put to death? Are we not all, by nature, idolaters; since idolatry is to worship and obey and love something or someone (usually ourselves) instead of the only God? Romans 2:6 – 3:20 is a very important and critical passage which I hope to look at further on the thread ‘The Apostle Paul and Bishop Wright’s views on Justification’. In brief, Paul sets out the basis of God’s judgment (‘ the doers of the law will be justified’), shows that the Jew, in spite of his advantage, does not excel the Gentile, (nor vice-versa), because all are under sin (3:10 – 3:19), and concludes that by the deeds of the law, in other words on the basis of God’s judgment set out in the previous verses, no-one will be justified, leading to 3:21 – 26 and the manifestation of a righteousness and justification which does not depend on doing the deeds of the law. In Romans 1-3 Paul is setting out a universal gospel for a universal human condition. What other explanation can there be of the descriptions of humanity given in 1-3 other than the Fall? I note part of your 16 December 2012 post, on Romans 1:26-27: “A more debatable issue I think is raised here in that Paul does see male-female relationships as the natural one. The different route of questioning therefore goes down the lines of was this a ‘God-given’ opinion or his own (as he does sometimes in other places). We see same-sex activity throughout creation, so what does ‘natural’ even mean? How much of this choice of wording is Paul reflecting the social opinions of the day and how much weight should be given to it”. I have given my view on nature and natural in posts on 20 and 25 August 2011 on thread ‘Presuppositions and Homosexuality’. Obviously if both sides of this disagreement are appealing to the Bible as inspired by God, the view that here Paul is not giving a ‘God-given’ opinion but his own opinion is ruled out. If it is true that ‘We see same-sex activity throughout creation’ we see a situation that is post-Fall. You have asked me for any further evidence that homosexuality is a result of the Fall. I refer to my 11 September post on ‘Womens Ministry and Homosexuality: Questioning the Connections’ in which I describe the Bible’s use of marriage to illustrate the relation between God and his people as ‘a remarkable constellation of interrelated pictures’. In the light of these pictures it is inconceivable that same sex fulfillment could have been part of the ‘very good’ pre-Fall human nature described in Genesis 1 and 2, but heterosexual fulfillment in marriage clearly is ‘very good’ and part of pre-Fall human nature. George Day in his 14 December post dismisses Genesis 1 and 2 ‘an argument from silence’. This is far too casual in the light of these weighty pictures. Phil Almond Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 1 February 2012 - 08:26am Bowman, perhaps the covenant is a slow, compromised, Anglican way of doing what you suggest....defining identity as small groups have attempted to force acceptance of their ideas and have failed to persuade 'the mind of the communion'? So, people and provinces can opt in..... Free choice. But, equally, people can, with integrity, choose not to opt in if they are committed to their revisionist positions. Stress in the AC arises from tiny groups needing the AC platform but wanting to go against the mind oh the communion at will.....having failed to change it despite decades of trying.... No integrity in that Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 1 February 2012 - 01:09am Thanks for clarification of the Fulcrum usage of "revisionism." I find myself needing another word for, not a modified orthodoxy, but a position that opposes any final reconciliation of estranged parties at all because that brotherly love in the Lord would also be an orthodoxy. "Pluralism" is not that word. One can imagine a church with parties that have historic differences, but also a clear ability to cooperate on common ground, and no deep, embittered, transgenerational rivalries. That, in fact, seems to be the Church's natural condition-- pluralism within unity. For now, I've adopted "entropism" for the view that fears the emergence of any deep unity among those of different tendencies. The entropist says in his heart, "I am only secure while others are divided." Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 1 February 2012 - 12:48am Thanks, Nersen, for clarifying. And more thanks to Nersen, Pluralist, and Dave for clear, descriptive posts! 2a. The question is-- what should Anglicanism look like? The Second Anglican Communion can be viable if its confessional core is more unified than that of its predecessor, and if that core supports a robust, adaptive Christian identity that is effective in pastoral care, evangelism, and missions in "markets" where people "buy" their feet. A 2AC with a clear Christian identity will look more like the churches in the world that are growing-- e.g. Pentecostals in South America. But all the tribes of Israel must cease their warring and sacrifice in Jerusalem before they build a temple. That would necessarily be the triumph of one vision of Anglicanism and the death of another. Had the ecumenical consensus of today been available to past generations of Anglicans, the fragmentation of Anglicanism would have had no theological motivation in the life of the Church itself. On that view, deep pluralism in the Church of England and elsewhere was the unfortunate byproduct of historical conditions that came to an inevitable end, taking the impetus to estrangement and division with them. But, of course, this is the death of the vision of Anglicanism as a tradition so defined by the divisions of the past that the entropy they caused is more important than any one of the constituent and rival traditions. That is the roughly the position of the more entropic liberals in TEC. It is likely that the 2AC would have clear bilateral ties, different in each case, with the communions who have invested nearly a century in discussions of faith and order with the 1AC. Thus, it is not unthinkable that the 2AC may have warmer relations with some Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Anabaptist, etc churches than with some of TEC. Sorry about the entropists, of course, but otherwise that is a good thing-- the whole objective of almost a century of global effort to unify the Church "that they may be one." 2b. Should the CofE emulate TEC? In general, no. Wise or foolish, it is not possible. Despite the obvious ties, and some real TEC strengths, the positions of the two churches in their respective societies have never been similar enough for a plausible overall comparison. The challenges that face both churches also face many other churches. Just take the best ideas wherever you find them. (And kindly leave a few with us, please.) That said, North America does have the most competitive religious "market" in the English-speaking world. Americans and Canadians (apart from Quebec) have grown relatively more comfortable with that sort of pluralism than Christians in the British Isles or the Continent seem to be. If I were English, I would be taking a very broad, eclectic look at the whole spectrum here, with different sorts of queries about different traditions and contexts. And, please note, the health of TEC is really beside the point, whatever one conceives that to be. 2c. And then all the Windsor questions about offending each other? It would be wise for Anglicans to get their identity clear before staking out precarious positions on the great issues of the day. Most of those are matters of discipline, not of dogma. Unity in Christ trumps them all. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 28 January 2012 - 08:18pm Bowman, the relevance to this thread of mentioning the terminal decline of TECusa and unitarians in the west is to show the falsehood in the assertion that being ever so diverse and open in theology is what the cofE or AC should do in order to connect with people in the west..... But, even with high churchgoing rates in the USA, TEC struggles to get 0.25% of Americans attending.... It ain't that complex to understand.....people are going to church in the USA, just not to revisionist TEC. I think what we observe, in the cofE too, is that people don't want a church to reflect their views....they can have a better time in the pub talking about their views...but even in England today, thousands of young Brits come to hear what the bible says...even when it is counter cultural ....maybe it's an integrity issue and people are interested in those who believe the scriptures are God breathed (2Tim 3:16) and stick to what it says but don't find religion interesting when it ditches biblical authority on some issues but not others ....the decline of revisionists is not surprising.....although it's faster than expected perhaps. And, all sorts of arguments are made but nobody ever shows that what 'the mind of the communion' says is incompatible with scripture is clearly blessed in scripture in any circumstances. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Saturday 28 January 2012 - 04:08pm This argument of numbers turns people into units. Andy Pakula's gay inclusive Unitarian church in London is doing very well, because it offers a distinctive choice in London, just as other Unitarian churches in London are able to specialise. Kingswood Birmingham Unitarians with its moderate Christianity has done very well because it provides a community and is surrounded by evangelical churches of the various denominations. These churches are also well led. Hull does not do well because it is in an off city centre location that is awkward, and in a very secular city - go up Holderness Road and its evangelical and high churches and none of them are doing well. One Unitarian church in Pudsey is closing, not because it became more inclusive but because it didn't budge at all and was laid low by a building - £74,000 wasted on it in recent years. The Hull church building is likely to be expanded. York might have closed but it has now a good future after a 600% recovery. Wakefield isn't helped by its building but suddenly has a group of discerning younger people in their thirties attending and will be the basis of its future. The reasons churches grow or decline is complex and specific, and London is exceptional in terms of churchgoing thanks to its vast variety of populations many of which seek social and communal connections through churches and other religious gathering places - more like the United States. And I repeat, American Unitarian Universalism has shown consistent steady growth as it has become identifiably more diverse and inclusive - certainly quite different from the Episcopalians. On Christmas Day no less the Unitarian church in Dublin had 240 attenders, 40 of which were children. It is doing as well as that because it has a place within Irish culture at a time of the breakdown of Roman Catholicism. Its former minister led it well and takes the service at Hull on Sunday. I'll take the one after. The argument from numbers is, in the end, sterile. I've done sociology work on younger attenders, as in teenagers and people in their twenties, in evangelical settings. They've almost all vanished from the church scene. Their manifest reasons for attendance might be religious, but their latent reasons are friendship groups and social activities. When there is a change of structure in how these work out, they are gone. But whereas in the past these folks came to churches thanks to parents and broader connections, now I can see the next generation and they have never darkened the doors of these same churches. All the faith was along the evangelical and traditional lines, but has no anchor in today's societies. Whether evangelical or liberal, churchgoing involves a small minority of people especially where attractions and associations lie elsewhere. Posted by: Dave Saturday 28 January 2012 - 12:32pm Bowman, 1. Revision is here used to mean ethical revision relating to homosexuality. Unitarians are the successors of the independents who have rejected the trinity and hence orthodox Christology. Universalist Unitarians have gone on to believe that all will be saved. These churches ( individual fellowships with a building) have been named when they were set up there theology may have subsequently moved. 2. The question is what should Anglicanism look like? Should the CofE emulate TEC? And then all the Windsor questions about offending each other? Dave Posted by: DavidR Saturday 28 January 2012 - 11:37am Bowman It may be off thread but thank you for mapping the DNA of TEC. The most illuminating I have read. Posted by: Bowman Saturday 28 January 2012 - 02:37am "The AC can see which are growing and appeal to young people and which, like TECusa (fewer than 1 in 400 Americans attend, avg age 60+) are really very out of touch with their own populations. It really does not look like revisionist ideas are going to connect with the population.....even in the west, as TECusa and revisionist Anglicans prove by their terminal decline." (1) As always, I am pleased to see discussion here take an empirical turn, but a few terms of reference in Nersen's post are unclear to me. Hitherto, I have only heard "revisionist" used in Maoist circles-- what is a revisionist evangelical? How are they similar to Pluralist's English Unitarians? Unitarian-Universalists hereabouts do not think that they are much like those hopelessly traditional, even dogmatic Episcopalians. (2) While I don't at all mind Nersen's take on the The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (TEC), I don't understand why he compares it to The Church of England. The two churches don't seem to have the same responsibilities or prospects. But perhaps he can explain his idea, if I explain my confusion. The size and demography of TEC is a complex matter. Even before that little quarrel in the 18th C, Englishmen who attended the church by law established in, say, Georgia, Maryland, and Connecticut heard strikingly different theologies from their pulpits. And no historian I know would dispute that the dysfunctional organization of the Colonial churches, Tory opposition on these shores to Independence, and distraction by issues of episcopal succession after the war enabled Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists to grab a larger share of the "market" than Episcopalians could do, as speakers of English pushed over the mountains into the frontier that Jefferson bought from Napoleon. Nor is it in doubt that these same disadvantages have made TEC a wonderful church for wealthy, powerful, often snobbish Protestants through the two centuries that followed. Episcopalians have been elected to Congress and corporate boards at rates that are still astonishing, though the Supreme Court of the United States is now as Roman Catholic as any in Europe. Only TEC would have thought to build a church for the President across the street from the White House and a huge basilican cathedral for the nation at the highest hilltop in Washington. (Only Rome would have found it necessary to build a rival national shrine to the Virgin on the next highest hilltop.) However, it says a lot that the Presiding Bishop is in New York, even though her cathedral is in Washington, because that is where J. P Morgan wanted her to be. When the Patriarch of Constantinople complains to his Greek bishops in this country that their "American system of parishes governed by the wealthy laity" (senior warden, junior warden, vestry) is not Orthodox, it is tacitly understood to be the Episcopalian pattern, which prosperous Greek businessmen and strong-willed priests rather like. Thus, as a small denomination for so long defined more by class than by any other social distinction, evangelism of the masses does not come easily to TEC. In fact, it does not come at all. As it is, TEC's niche in American life somewhat explains its many contradictions. Its traditions have made the church a haven for many who flee from the worst excesses of American religion to find more ecclesial substance, or less fundamentalism, or better aesthetics. Thus a huge proportion of the Episcopalians that I have known joined the church as adults and have a serious engagement with the services, though some will react for the rest of their lives against the vulgar doctrinal pugilism of their childhood religions. In a church so small, this is a large constituency that breathes a sigh of relief to hear something-- anything-- somewhat radical and free from a bishop somewhere. (Sadly, that is more likely to be the past Bishop of Newark than the past Bishop of Durham.) So the small proportion of Americans who worship in TEC is usually seen as a cause rather than as an effect of its theological driftiness. And the demographic puzzle that bishops try to solve is, not only the aging of the "baby boom" generation, but also that of positioning the church in a more multicultural and multiracial country, whilst remaining a recognizably Anglican church. The parish nearest to this keyboard has an imaginative woman priest who visits jails, a large building, many widows, few funds, and music miscalculated to appeal to the myriad Brazilian neighbors who have brought their own churches with them. As Nersen points out, a wiser model for such parishes is needed. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 27 January 2012 - 04:49pm The 'real world'.... is that the one in which hardly anyone goes to ever so diverse and inclusive unitarian groups and, as a result, many (maybe most) will close in the next decade? By your logic, they need to get more diversity into their ideas to stop themselves going extinct very soon?? Ah...but that strategy has not been working for...decades....in 'the real world'. The CofE can see which of its churches are growing and which are not ..... look at HTB - where is the revisionist CofE church with a thousand people in their 20s and 30s in London there every week? I am sure revisionists in the 60s did not expect to have dwindling nos relative to evos? The AC can see which are growing and appeal to young people and which, like TECusa (fewer than 1 in 400 Americans attend, avg age 60+) are really very out of touch with their own populations. It really does not look like revisionist ideas are going to connect with the population.....even in the west, as TECusa and revisionist Anglicans prove by their terminal decline. On this thread, 'evangelical' has been 'revised' by some to force inclusion of revisionist views held by people who want to hold the title 'evangelical'...... what does 'evangelical' mean if not those who have a high view of scripture? It is not convincing when people assert revisionist views must be biblical and evangelical just because they call themselves 'evangelical'. And, as usual, assertions are made but not backed up from scripture (still clinging to the idea that this matters to 'evangelicals') - eg the assertion that Romans 1 is only talking about sexual activity which is abusive or to do with pagan ritual.... but nobody ever shows where it says that..... I trust 'evangelicals' are not for reading into texts things which are not there or excluding from texts difficult bits which don't fit society etc? I am quite happy to campaign for the end of Lambeth 1.10 if anyone shows it is 'incompatible with scripture' Posted by: Dave Thursday 26 January 2012 - 12:18pm Pluralist, A change in world view of paradigm shift can be "traumatic and devastating" irrespective of the truth of either position . Imagine a Jehovah's Witness becoming a Mormon, a Hindu converting to Islam or a neo-con embracing Marxism. My point was slightly different. I was asking Nersen to imagine the burden of a life of abstinence that traditional teaching on homosexuality places on the individual. If he is not fully convinced, he will not accept this. There is also the consideration of "freedom of conscience." Nersen, I did mean your views i.e. the vies advocated in your posts. The question of whether or not they are the teaching of the "church catholic", "the mind of the communion" or scriptural is a matter of debate. Roman Catholic teaching is clear. The teaching of the CofE may change. I just wish they would sort out the theology before they start pronouncing God's blessing on relationships and appointing priests and bishops who arguably would not qualify as elders in the early church. At the same time, I am arguing for understanding for those who find themselves desiring homosexual relationships and are being told by society and many in the church that there is nothing wrong with this. Dave Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Wednesday 25 January 2012 - 04:37pm The only traumatic and devastating experience of this material is that it lacks any anchor in the real world, around that which is shown to work and for which people have become, rightly, increasingly this-worldly for all their explanations. Posted by: Phil Almond Tuesday 24 January 2012 - 12:43pm Dave’s post on this thread (23 January 2012) raises a very important issue. As I have said, it is very perilous to take part in the kind of debates and disagreements on the Fulcrum forum and similar sites. We are all offering up to the strongest challenge and criticism available our deepest convictions (which mean more to us, to adapt a remark of Luther, “than sense or life itself”). We are all seeking, in a spirit of meekness, well aware of the beam in our own eyes, to be conscious at all times that we are treading on holy ground; first of all because we are debating and disagreeing about the being and character of the Living God and his Christ as revealed to us in the writings of his inspired law-givers, prophets and apostles; but also because if the challenges and criticisms we make convince others that their convictions are mistaken we are all aware that we have brought about a traumatic and devastating experience: and that is true whether our overthrown convictions are about things like predestination, the atonement, the grand narrative, eternal punishment, or things like the ordination of women or homosexuality. Phil Almond Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 24 January 2012 - 11:39am Phil I think we are on the same, lines theologically, i agree with all you have said in your last post, though i am honest enough to say that the journey from beginning to end of repentance chasticement forgiveness and mercy sometimes sends my head into a spin..The speed of life is such it is really easy to sin and repentance last a little longer, a bit like it can take a lifetime to build something which can be knocked down in 2 minuites. The challenge is always about context, and practical theology being closely aligned with spirituality and the academics needed to maintain it. "surely goodnes and mercy will follow me" Angela Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 24 January 2012 - 10:16am Dave, do you mean what the abc calls 'the mind of the communion' and the view of the 'church catholic'? Not my personal view.... And, as mentioned before, I'm quite happy to agree with any revision if a case from scripture is made ie showing that activity rather than being 'incompatible with scripture' is blessed in scripture in certain circumstances or only condemned in certain circumstances. In the continuing absence of such scriptural evidence, which is why I guess 'the mind of the communion' is what it is, I don't see how it is anything but misleading, not merciful, to call blessed what nobody ever shows is blessed in scripture in any circumstances given condemnations in scripture which don't have the caveats some want to read in. Quite a responsibility to teach what is not justified in scripture......Matthew 7 and James have significant warnings for those who dare to teach.....best we stick to 'the mind of the communion' unless some shows it is wrong re scripture and changes the view of the church.... Posted by: Dave Monday 23 January 2012 - 01:35pm Nersen, I trust you have considered the burden which your view neceearily places on homosexual believers. Can you see how they may come to a different view of scripture and even if they are wrong, God shows mercy to them? Dave Posted by: Phil Almond Monday 23 January 2012 - 10:19am WATERANGEL You posted: 'The thing about grace though is it is not dependant on us standing "unblemished before the Lord" good job really!!' Nobody (certainly not I) is saying that grace is dependant on us standing "unblemished before the Lord". The point I was making is that the grace of God starts a process which does end (after, probably, many ups and downs, sins and forgiveness, backslidings and restorations, joys and sorrows, failures and victories, siftings, chastenings, agonisings) with those who receive that grace standing unblemished before the Lord. God's verdict of justification imputes righteousness to those justified; those justified are called to holiness and God's purpose is to impart righteousness to those justified. Phil Almond Posted by: WATERANGEL Monday 23 January 2012 - 08:26am Nerson Mercy is retropective, so it is not merciful to bless something that God clearly condemns. It is Trust. So the security issue is clear," Trust and Obey for theres no other way, to be happy in Jesus than to trust and obey." So first and foremost, Mercy is a process which is given and received, The "giver is God" and the "receiver" is anyone who claims it. The false sense of security, is an issue of human failure. An example might! (is it has to be said) be a member of the Clergy, who believes it is their right to make judgements, rather than leading people to Christ; from where the Judgement would be clear. But even this is not clear cut, Jesus was very much "in the world not of the world" . We all have opportunities to be in this scenario, and it may be that the objectivity is what enables Jesus to be heard and understood. "A light in the darkness" It is the best i can offer you Nerson, You see a lot of the verses that you quote in your various postings are very much contextual, sometimes there are not only contextual but also Individual and circumstantial. What I am trying to say is that although the Bible in full is true, that truth is applied appropriately according to circumstance and the individual. This is all to do with the personalized relationship with God. In the debate on Homosexuality, is it right for instance to say to a victim of sexual abuse that the way that has left you makes you unclean for God because you are Blemished..NO it does not , and it takes a long time to learn that, it takes a lot of phsychological adjustment to learn that. God is Merciful!! it is not as clear as "if it offends you cut it off" One needs to understand "your ways are not my ways" in depth to see that such promotion of the Gospel which can lead to the ritualistic abuse and murder of children and adults is not how God intended the Gospel to be used. We are called "To be a light" in the darkness, there is no need for a light if there is already light. Angela Posted by: Bowman Monday 23 January 2012 - 07:42am A Blessing of Homosexuality in Scripture? Specifically-- Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10, John 4:46-53. The argument is that the centurion's pais or doulos would have been understood by 1st C Jewish readers to be his male lover, that there is nonetheless no hint of admonition, and that, in context, the import of the miracle is the Lord's blessing of persons formerly excluded by the Law. Quod erat demonstrandum. Or is it? Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 22 January 2012 - 01:48pm waterangel - is it 'merciful' to say to someone that they can do something which God only ever condemns in scripture and never blesses in any circumstances? I don't think that is mercy - but very misleading and leaves people with false security..... maybe that is why Romans 6 had to be written....grace and mercy are no excuse for any sin. Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 21 January 2012 - 05:54pm Nerson Matthew 18 21-22 the unmerciful servant? You do wonders for my memory for i knew it existed but of course as always had to look it up. This issue of repentance and forgiveness is not as black and white an issue as it may appear.(but then i am a woman we always see the grey area, whereas men tend to be more black and white) For just as in a court of Law "intent" is the core issue. Though i recognise if someone breaks the law unintentionally ignorance is no defence, If you earnestly repent with the full intention of sinning no more then Grace is apparent. The thing about grace though is it is not dependant on us standing "unblemished before the Lord" good job really!! as I said it is the motivations of our hearts that count, even if it does not quite go to plan.. Angela Posted by: Phil Almond Friday 20 January 2012 - 10:18pm WATERANGEL I think we are somewhat at cross purposes. I was trying to make the point, speaking generally, (setting aside the homosexuality disagreement for a moment), that you surely would not tell someone an action (or thought or word) is good in the sight of God if God condemns that action in the Bible. The disagreement is about whether God condemns homosexuality in the Bible. I have more to say on that in response to Vicki. And of course Christians only become perfect when the process of sanctification, initiated and guaranteed by their regeneration and justification, is complete, when they stand before the throne of God in glorifed resurrection bodies. As I have said, we should equally emphasise the wrath and condemnation of God which we all face because of the Fall and Original Sin and the grace, mercy, forgiveness and love of God and his command and entreaty to submit to Jesus Christ in repentance, faith, love, obedience and fear. Phil Almond Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 20 January 2012 - 09:12pm Waterangel, re grace...what about Romans 6:1-2? Posted by: WATERANGEL Friday 20 January 2012 - 08:14am Phil I just want to clarify something, i am aware i did not mention the second coming in my answer to you. We are promised that Christ will come again, at that time heaven and earth will be one, "on earth as in heaven" which is why i said that i do not think that it was ever envisaged that we would be perfect on earth.I realized you may have thought i had overlooked that. Angela Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 19 January 2012 - 06:55pm Simon, your views are from scripture? You seem to be contradicting it...that 'does not work' if you are evangelical Posted by: WATERANGEL Thursday 19 January 2012 - 05:25am The short answer to your question is "when the something" is part of the "someone" in and through creation, which is of God that is "wonderfully made" The O/T talks a lot about the wrath of God , but it also tells us in Issaiah that "i will send you a Saviour and Wonderful councellor. I think we cannot say we are "evangengelical" and take the word of God seriously and yet miss this very important issue. God recognised that the world was imperfect, Which is why Christ in the time of Issaiah was the promise of things to come, which was Christ God himself on earth, who taught us to Love. After Christ crucifixion the hope of things to come was that we would be perfect in HEAVEN as pointed out in Revelation. I dont think it was ever promised or envisaged that we would be perfect on earth. Our repentance through prayer are for sins commited, with the intention of sin no more, the saying the world is paved with Good intentions, comes to mind for God himself "intended" for the world to continue being a beautiful and unblemished as he created it. This intention was not fulfilled, For just as it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. It is harder for a Perfect Man to recognise Grace. Only by grace can we enter . Angela Posted by: Simon Morden Wednesday 18 January 2012 - 04:22pm Phil - your binary (some might even say Dualist) view simply won't work here. For me? A same-sex relationship would be a sin. I am not attracted to men (and probably not attractive to men, but you'd have to ask other people about that...), and any relationship I would have with another man would be temporary. I'm also already married: I have spoken my vows before God and witnesses, and I take them seriously. For someone who is only attracted to the same sex? They'd probably find that a heterosexual relationship would be sinful - any relationship they had would continually be in conflict with the desires (burning, as Paul puts it) that their spouse could not possibly quench. The only alternative we can traditionally offer them is enforced celibacy: yet God said it was good to have a companion. I am all for monogamy (whether that's the Biblical model is very debatable, but that's for another day) . I'm just not particularly concerned about the gender of the people engaging in it. Posted by: Phil Almond Wednesday 18 January 2012 - 02:37pm WATERANGEL On your 17 January 2012 post on this thread: if God or Christ condemn something (thought, action, word), that something is a sin. How can that something possibly be good in God’s eyes? Therefore how can you possibly tell someone that it is good in God’s eyes? I agree we are all by nature sinners. I agree that Jesus accepts the greatest sinners just as they are when they come to him in repentance and faith. But that coming is the first, decisive, step in a process to conform them to the image of Jesus Christ, a process which will ultimately set them before God’s glory unblemished with exultation. As part of that process we are commanded to put to death our members on the earth. These members (sinful tendencies) will be different for each of us. We are all ‘born this way’ – that is Original Sin, which, as Article 9 says, deserves ‘God wrath and damnation’. We are not casting stones; we are disagreeing about what the Bible says about homosexuality – is it or is it not a sinful tendency? Is it or is it not part of the pre-Fall, very good, human nature? Phil Almond Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 18 January 2012 - 09:03am What about Romans 6:1, waterangel? And 1 Corinthians 6-7? And john 15? I'm very tempted to buy the beautiful new Bentley Continental v8.....but am not doing so as I think it'd greedy and a waste of money ...but perhaps I can take your line.....I'm made this way....to like such cars, God will accept me as I am? Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 17 January 2012 - 01:30pm Yes! Nerson I truly do, on these grounds i am confident.. All have fallen short of the glory of the Lord Jesus take me as i am, I can come no other way Let the one without sin cast the first stone I made you I created you i knew everything about you before you were born. I am not saying that the situation is perfect, rather the situation is imperfect and Jesus accepts all with imperfections. How shall they know if they do not hear? Gay clergy in positions of authority may (/maynot nothing is set in stone) be best equipped to enable people to find christ/ or a faith in circumstances where other people might not. I think we seriously as christians need to concentrate on oppression, of all types, this is only one type of oppression..We are asked to be enablers in the "building of faith" not the controllers of how that faith displays itself.. God before Christ and Jesus himself warned us of the consequences of "immorality" that immorality comes in many different forms, BUT it does not come in the form of "the creation of the being" in the words of Lady GAGA " born this way" People have no control over that and should not have to apologise for existing. Matthew 7 "not all who preach in my name will be sent by me" This is true, accross the board male/female gay straight black/white and all ethnic minorities..I have full confidence that though, through human disobedience and human failure and human rejection and human manipulation of the Gospel that God will be heard, a willing heart can do no other than to hear God and accept him. Angela Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 16 January 2012 - 08:13pm Waterangel, do you really have confidence to tell people an action is good in God's eyes when in scripture God condemns it and never blesses it in any circumstances? Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 15 January 2012 - 01:54pm Well, I confess to being well and truly confused, by some of the issues that are presented on this thread, and about some peoples views on homosexuality and christianity the celebration of and the leadership of.. I was wondering where this confusion came from as it began, with Tom Butler, Jeffrey John, the bitterness that ensued with Rowan and the divisions within the Synod.. But mostly the lambeth 1998 covenant said one thing and the 2008 lambeth covenant said another. The ten year gap had led to some "different" rather than better understanding of the issues concerned. So yet again we will be faced in 2014 with the issues of W/O and The gay clergy in positions of high authority on the same agenda sheet, yet again blurring the edges and delaying decisions causing years of uncertainty and unhappiness for all concerned. I am not Gay but i understand my God well enough to know that the acceptance of a Gay person in any post in the Church at the right tme and in the right place would be acceptable to him..I know this because we are told "my ways are not your ways" so I understand that although I do not understand, that God tells us " i have a purpose for you". There is a danger in thinking that if the Church accepts homosexuality at all levels that the Church will go into moral decline..But actually the moral decline has been to do with the covering up of Child abuse and spiritual and sexual abuse of people in the church of all ages and genders and not to do with being Gay. The non acceptance has led to some clergy taking very devious routes to both hide and express their sexuality, this in turn leads to deceipt and that has led to abuse. Far safer to accept it and have everything in the open, far better for some to be in leadership without positive discimination to homosexuality. Currently what we have is positive discimination for women ethnic minorities and homosexuals, this causes resentment. So if we all just lived and let live barring physical sexual mental and emotional abuse, it would be better. If the Church authorities made sure that ALL clergy were balanced and capable of dispute resolution and reconcilliation, that would be true leadership.. I have said before i appreciate Rowan Williams ministry, I do not always agree with everything he says or all of his views in terms of the human consequences on people who do not have access to him to explain his reasoning. We are told that we often will receive the gospel in a way we totally do not expect "like a thieif in the night" we need to be prepared, preparation means an open heart and a willingness to listen, it does not rely on definate understanding of interpretation, but on the "motivations" of our heart. Sometimes i am glad that i am in the position that i can say what i feel, because well the church cannot sack me, It is the manmade problem of renumeration for performing Gods Ministry. Who owns you God or the Church does your heart belong to God or the church? because in my view that is your answer to your conflict, IF God is the motivating force homosexuals in the pulpit wont bother you because you will be listening to God and not thinking about the sexual activity of the Vicar..I have to say that even though i have commentated on it,i do not like it, it is uncomfortable to think about the vicar/clergy "doing it"it is like children thinking of parents doing it especially when the clergy say they represent the "father"God. Yuk I dont think you have to be a teenager to find the idea distasteful. Unless you are a wife or husband of clergy that is. Everyone knows everywhere that homosexuality is part of the totality of the human race, the journey of discovery of sexual identity is not easy for anyone and there has to be some sexual boundaries, The important thing is that people can be who they are so they do not overstep the boundaries in the wrong way in the wrong place. As a world we have gone beyond the point where we believe it is our role on behalf of Christ to crucify other human beings. In the beginning was the word and the word became flesh, both male and female untill the separation of the woman from the man. In Christ Angela Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 13 January 2012 - 03:54pm Yea....as Christ said, (matt 7) not all who preach in his name are with him.....He rejects some as 'evildoers'.....'we' certainly ain't defined by membership of the cofE Posted by: WATERANGEL Friday 13 January 2012 - 10:29am Yes Dave Theres more,(cum here thers more)lol I genuinely do not understand the use of word illegitamate for context here.. The only point i was trying to make is that although the bible is a general book of instruction to all, the personalisation of it turns the WE to ME that in itself shifts the emphasis of responsibility, from the singular to the plural and thus lessons the burden. The expression of they could be mistaken by some to say it is anyones responsibility but ours which of course is not true, we have a "we" or "shared " responsibility to promote the Gospel and the ways of Christ.. It is the age old problem of the joining words giving context, and the problem of selective reading of the gospel without social context. Angela Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 12 January 2012 - 10:33pm The incarnation is God's statement about what 'we' means. Its kenotic (self-emptying - Philippians 2) aspect suggests that we cannot 'claim' we without first 'winning the right to say' we. Dave Walker had a brilliant cartoon once about 'me and all the people behind this curtain' - which concealed about three stragglers. What makes me part of your 'we'? What makes me part of God's 'we' (or 'I AM')? Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Thursday 12 January 2012 - 10:04pm Thou hast a good point there, Dave. Posted by: Dave Wednesday 11 January 2012 - 12:02pm A few grammatical reflections: 1. Christianity is about "we" rather than "me" 2. We should address other Christians in the second person singular rather than plural, although English does not accommodate this. 3. God's purpose is to make "them" "us" 4. The illegitimate us of "we" is to mean "you" to the neglect of "my" responsibility Any more? Dave Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 10 January 2012 - 08:09am My understanding of the use of the word "we" in christianity refers to " a group of people of which the "me" is a part of which has views in common with the "we" ie there are shared common denominators of belief ie "Christ" There is an agreement theologically that Christ is addressing the "WE", whilst it is the individual "me" that decides on response. In other words we are all given the same instructions but "we" may interpret it differently to the "me". This is the same as"they" the they are the collective group outside of ourselves who collectively come together in common belief, but may act out or share that belief from the context of the "me/I" So in conversation "IT" may be said, that "they" said meaning that an agreement was made as to what should be shared outside of the said "they" as oppose to every word that was actually said.. This is a VERY important issue mark because it refers to individual and collective responsibility, and the willingness or ability to either take personal responsibility alongside group or corporate responsibility, but as we know in many instances there is always the issue of the "I" that takes ultimate responsibility, in other words there is always an individual who takes responsibility for the group, and that one individual cannot in reporting say "we" There will always be a challenge to individualize responsibility.. When evangelizing the gospel collective sin led to the crucifixion of Christ but it was individuals, mainly Herod and Judas that were ultimately responsible for his death by crucifixion, in accepting Christ on an individual basis we share the repentance/guilt given to us through that action. I did not personally crucify Christ however everytime I sin i go against what Christ represented and thus become collectively and retrospectively partly responsible for the sufferering of a broken people and church who collectively wish to purify/ or sanitize if you like the memory of Christ we share. It is all very complicated and maybe i have not done the "we" justice and that has of course had an effect on the "i" So JESUS is not an IT Jesus is a HE . Jesus is not an OBJECT of worship but a sharing OF A living MEMORY. Angela Posted by: Mark Bennet Sunday 8 January 2012 - 07:58pm User 3664 - if you want to beg a question or two in a discussion about Christianity, I would recommend that you begin "We must be ..." My MA supervisor and I shared a deep suspicion of the word "we" used in this undefined way - who are the 'others' who are 'we' with me, and on what authority do I co-opt them to my argument? 'must' is a strong word, asserting a moral imperative - has this really been established, and is its scope clear? 'be' raises the whole issue of identity, of what is most important about who I am - it isn't about what I think or what I do, it goes deeper than that - I regard my Christian identity as a gift from God to me in Jesus - but do we have a common understanding of our identity which runs deep enough to use this profound word? I think that, in beginning with these words, you are making an assertion far stronger than you realise it to be, and actually counter to your main point, and to the gospel. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 7 January 2012 - 09:33am User, an 'epiphany' isn't necessarily from God if it contradicts what God has revealed through his Holy Spirit in scripture.......it is perhaps not the best thing for any individuals or the church... ..especially when no blessing in scripture can be shown? Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Friday 6 January 2012 - 08:34pm We must be open to, and praying for many epiphanies in the field of gayness, lgbt and gender, spirtuality & sexuality. This has been my own experince down the decades. Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 4 January 2012 - 10:18am Nersen, I agree with you in your commitment to listen to Vicki. She declares more fully and from first-hand experience the sort of argument that I and others have been feeling our way towards for some time. On the thread 'Christmas Truce', Bowman has posted two important pieces in which he suggests that our discussions need a better balance between the 'dialectical' and the 'observable'. 'Anon' and Vickie have contributed strongly to that balance. Simon's three questions also offer more emphasis on the observable side of the debate. My views are similar to Simon's here and Angela helpfully extends the discussion to include gay clergy. The church we are presently linked with adopts an inclusive approach and I suspect its clergy would be welcoming to gay members of the congregation, though I have not heard this mentioned as yet. I know that a number of lay members would also be welcoming and that it is likely that others would object or, at least, feel very uncomrtable about it. It would be good to know of evangelical churches that are welcoming to our gay brothers and sisters, whether celibate or not. Are there any such churches out there? Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 3 January 2012 - 06:08pm Indeed Mark.... Then it naturally moved into how someone being evangelical with a high view of scripture could justify what Lambeth 1.10 calls ' incompatible with scripture' as only talking about experience avoids the issue in the AC, especially for an evangelical. Very refreshingly, rather than your repetition of not understanding what words mean or you and Roger never answering the question re any blessing in scripture for the activity Lanbeth 1.10 refers to, Vicki has answered questions in a straight forward way....I'd rather listen to vicki more than tangents from you and Davidr. Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 3 January 2012 - 08:37am Simon, Your last paragraph is exactly what i would expect anyone who professes to be a christian to do..It seems to me to be so obvious that that is what we are called to do that i do not understand why anyone who follows the gospel does not understand it.. There appears to be an assumption here though, that "it would not be a member of the clergy" there is a liklihood that it might be.It may be a member of the clergy, in all sorts of circumstances that we would kneel beside or take communion "from" . I think it is important to separate what the instruments of the communion represent from (a) the person who gives them to us (b) the way we might feel about that person. The latter is the more difficult of the two. ie i might (might not) disagree with a gay clergy giving communion to myself or someone else, but i might like the person, do i need to like the person whom i take communion from?? They may not be gay but horrible they may hate women and yet i am supposed to take communion from them..? Of course in Christ armoured with all he gives me i can do most things though i draw the line at being crucified or flying if you get my drift. In other words what i am saying is, that IF we knew all about the person we knelt with at the communion rail; how many of ,would we say" i would not take communion with you"? what would that say about us? There are some very misguided clergy out there who believe it is "integrity" to not give ,take or share communion with certain people, this is fundamentally wrong for in the process of communion things can and do begin to change.Unless you are dealing with a psychopath who for instance may refuse a dying person communion and then say work as a chaplain in a hospital. So Yes what would people do in certain circumstances?? it is a vital question. Angela Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Tuesday 3 January 2012 - 07:21am Answer to Simon. Get them on the committee and fast. Posted by: Simon Morden Monday 2 January 2012 - 09:53pm At the risk of being on topic, I'd like to pose a question. What would happen at your church if: a) a long-standing member of the congregation told you in confidence that they were gay? b) a long-standing member of the congregation came out publically that they were gay? c) a gay couple turned up one Sunday to worship with you? It strikes me that what we actually do is what we actually believe. I don't know how to answer my own b and c - I've only been at my current church for three-four years, and the topic hasn't come up yet, at least while I've been present. At my previous church, I know what would happen, as the topic came up all the time... As someone with no authority in the church (I'm not on the PCC or anything), I'd have to advise my friend to caution as to who else they told. And we're not so big a church as to be able to ask 'hypothetically' on their behalf, either. But I would stand beside them, worship God with them, kneel at the rail with them, and not reject them as a friend. Posted by: Mark Bennet Monday 2 January 2012 - 09:25pm Nersen This thread started off being about the experience of a real person identifying as both gay and evangelical - it wasn't about Lambeth 1.10 or Romans 1 until you brought these in yourself. It seems to be rather impossible to have a discussion of these subjects on this forum without you creating a tangent in this direction. The tangent is yours. I may have assisted along the way in creating a tangential discussion. But this is a tangent, covered in depth and detail many times without you seeming to be able to engage in any conversation beyond it. There are other conversations to be had - important ones, like listening to the experience of homosexual people - Lambeth 1.10 and the topic of this thread. Mark Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 2 January 2012 - 08:53pm Glad you're happy, Davidr, maybe we can now get away from your tangents and to this thread? Lambeth 1.10 stands, I didn't write it....it's the position of the CofE and in line with 'the church catholic' today and in the last 2000 yrs despite decades of challenge from clever revisionists. I'm hoping to hear why it is wrong about what scripture says, not the usual avoidance of inconvenient verses, and I've been appreciating Vicki's straight forward answers engaging with scripture. Still interested in why Romans 1 is talking of rape or ritual and why the activity it is negative about is ok for Christians in any circumstances. Posted by: DavidR Monday 2 January 2012 - 05:15pm Nersen - you could not have illustrated my point more clearly. Posted by: DavidR Monday 2 January 2012 - 05:15pm Nersen - you could not have illustrated my point more clearly. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 2 January 2012 - 04:20pm Mark and Davidr, now you make out i don't listen and my views are strange or ignorant? You do realise, I'm sure, Lambeth 1.10 is the position of the cofE and the AC, not my unique position, and your bishops may be interested if you're really ever so confused about Polygamy! I find revisionists who openly reject inconvenient scripture much more convincing than your assertion of compatibility with scripture for acts you never show are blessed in scripture .....maybe you identify as evangelical for nostalgic reasons but are now 'liberal'? Despite your old revisionist arguments trying to change the position of the church for decades, Lambeth 1.10 still stands in 2012..... Rather than the vast majority of our bishops not listening or understanding revisionist arguments, could it be that you are not putting forward strong, scriptural arguments and that's why 'the mind of the Communion' is what it is? Posted by: DavidR Monday 2 January 2012 - 02:40pm Nersen, I am really not sure if you are actually aware of it or not but you simply and repeatedly fail to respond to what other people are actually saying in these discussions. It means that what you do respond to and criticise is your own inaccurate summary of what they were saying. We are all left scratching our heads thinking 'I didn't say that at all'. Please check it out if you don't believe me. Show these discussions to a trusted friend. You, and the rest of us, care too much about the faith to let these basic distortions get in the way of seeking understanding together. And it is so frustrating. Posted by: Mark Bennet Monday 2 January 2012 - 02:37pm Dear Nersen I am trying to deal with issues of method, of how we take the Bible seriously in these discussions. You persist in alleging that my questions are conclusions. At present you have done nothing to help me to see how you are dealing with scripture other than simply choosing the method and texts which give you the answer you want. When I show where the same methods lead when applied to different texts you rubbish my questions, and thereby fairly consistently undermine your own arguments by failing to defend your own methods. I do not think that you can realistically hope to persuade people who differ from your point of view using the methods you adopt. I wish you would engage with the issues rather than retreating to assertion. What do you make of Esther 2? Mark Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 2 January 2012 - 01:51pm Mark, if you're ever so unsure about polygamy being unacceptable then teach that too if you want..... Youll face little discipline in the cofE but people do vote with their feet. St Paul was happy to point to God's created order and I think it's significant that we have Adam and Eve and no Ethel or Elga there with Eve. I've given you verses which are against polygamy, but you, once again as on other issues, fail to give any scripture reference which gives any positive view ie any reason to doubt the position of the cofE. Hope you don't go back to not knowing what any inconvenient words mean. Maybe you'll answer re Romans 1 not talking only of rape or ritual acts? Davidr, the errors of others in the past are no reason for errors today. Posted by: DavidR Monday 2 January 2012 - 10:10am In the church where I was curate some senior church members told the vicar I should not be in Christian leadership at all - based on 1Tim 3.2. This was not because I was divorced, or remarried (or had turned up with three wives) - but because I was single. They believed this text taught that leaders had to be married. So who is right? Posted by: Mark Bennet Monday 2 January 2012 - 10:02am Nersen I asked you for a Biblical argument on consensual polygamy. "Nowhere recommended for Christians" is not such an argument - you could just as easily say "nowhere forbidden for ordinary Christians" on the basis of what you've cited so far. You used consensual polygamy as a measure of an argument on homosexuality as if it were a test case. I asked you to expand the point not so much to make a point on polygamy as to tease out hermeneutical assumptions and methods. It has been one of my points throughout that we need to be consistent and careful in our use of scripture. It seems to me that even on your best case you have drawn a false parallel. Mark Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 2 January 2012 - 09:22am Hi Vicki, I agree Romans is written about the actions of people who reject God ....and it's not limiting itself to rape or ritual activity, so I don't see how it can be argued the same activity is pleasing to God when we don't reject him, given the absence of any positive comment in scripture on the same activity in any circumstances. If it did, I'd happily agree with you. Hi Mark, you've not shown anywhere where polygamy is recommended for Christians. I've given you 2 NT passages which ban it for church leaders and an OT passage which doesn't recommend it. I realise God's perfect creation with Adam and Eve doesn't fit revisionist positions you want to take but it is what God created and it wasn't polygamous. As for David and Solomon, both are sinners, both failed.... Polygamy was no success for Solomon. They arent models for marriage. Even Abraham failed with Hagar. Esther ain't necessarily sinless too....you really want to argue everything she did gives us licence to do the same? Where in scripture is polygamy recommended for Christians? Posted by: Mark Bennet Sunday 1 January 2012 - 11:56pm Nersen Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that adultery was right, but I was suggesting some reflection on whether our definition or conception of adultery cohered with the Biblical text - it is so easy to assume we know what we are talking about. And you haven't given an argument to suggest that consensual polygamy is wrong. You've simply asserted it together with some texts which talk about other things. If you want to quote Genesis, examine the Jacob/Joseph narrative, which makes a considerable part of the book. 1 Tim 3:2 is about a leader in the church, and could be read as contrasting with the normal expectation. It could also refer to not remarrying after being widowed - I've never found a commentary which exploers the point. Titus is the same for an elder. The need to specify for leaders suggests some other practice might have been common, which Paul did not write against. Dt 17.17 says "he must not acquire many wives", but that is far from advocating monogamy - and that is about the king contracting marriages. And what of the passage in Esther 2 which I cited when asking questions (not drawing conclusions) about adultery. Was Esther right to do what she did, or not? Is her action approved in scripture, or not? That goes to consensual polygamy, does it not? Mark Posted by: Vicki Sunday 1 January 2012 - 11:16pm Hi Nersen You are absolutely correct that there are doubtless some gay people who do indeed live out their faith in practicing celibacy, which would be in agreement with Lambeth 1.10. I do however believe them to be in a minority, not least because I know of a number who give an outward appearance of being happy, but in the privacy of talking where there are no negative consequences of being honest, reveal a deep lack of peace. In addition there are a large number who at a given time take this position, but are unable to continue it as their lives go on, but they drop off the radar. Polygamy is an interesting one. It may be anathema to us, but certainly there is a question raised by David and Solomon. You reference Deut 17:17 and yet David was not permitted to build the Temple because of his adultery and the murder of Bathsheba’s husband. Solomon, with his 400 wives and 600 concubines was considered fit to do so. Obviously God did not see his polygamy as a problem and certainly not on a par with David’s sins. Another example is the fact that in Jesus’ day girls were married at an age that today we would consider below the age of consent and therefore child abuse. Yes, Paul’s words to the leaders of the early church are clear, but this simply demonstrates that the Scriptural view on marriage varies enormously with the cultural mores of the time. I won’t even start talking about Hosea! You can’t argue that the NT is different because the traditional view is predicated on the view that one man-one woman is the Genesis principle. So what was God up to between Deuteronomy and Romans that he seemed to change his mind on whether polygamy mattered? Just to be clear (!) I am not advocating polygamy, but there are a number of uncomfortable questions that should be addressed. Regarding Romans 1 – the entire passage is based on the sin of turning away from God, supressing the truth and turning to idolatry ‘…for although they…’ and the next section is the expression of this in their sexual behaviour ‘…therefore… degrading of their bodies…’, to reiterate that this was linked to idolatry Paul then reasserts the link ‘…worshipped and served created things…’. Nothing in that passage can be separated from the fact that Paul is clearly talking about God’s wrath on idolaters – therefore either all homosexuals are idolaters (etc) or the passage is referring to a particular act and not homosexuality per se. Which, incidentally, I believe fits much more with the expression of God in Scripture, the experience of gay Christians and what can be observed in the world around us. I’ve agreed that I cannot find a clear unambiguous blessing of a faithful, same sex relationship. But to turn the question, please show a passage where a faithful, committed homosexual relationship is condemned. Because that is the sort we are talking about. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 1 January 2012 - 09:41pm Dear Mark, since you've stated that you cannot even be sure from scripture that adultery is wrong, despite much clear scripture incl psalm 51, is there any hope you'd not be open to consensual polygamy? Perhaps Genesis gives a clue? God's creation was Adam and Eve, then we have Dt 17:17. 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are a good place to start re the NT attitude to polygamy. I think the NT passages especially with the Genesis creation show polygamy is not God's ideal. And, there is no blessing in scripture for polygamy amongst Christians is there? Now, will you show just where in Romans 1 only rape or ritual sexual activity are mentioned in a negative light? Posted by: Mark Bennet Sunday 1 January 2012 - 03:19pm Dear Nersen Given what happens in the Old Testament, I'd be interested in a Biblical argument against consensual polygamy. It might illuminate the kind of hermeneutical approaches which are involved here. Mark Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 1 January 2012 - 11:39am Hi Vicki, I wonder if you would accept that some gay people affirming Lambeth 1.10 are not 'broken' but happy and living out their faith? Still not convinced that scripture only talks of ritual acts or rape - is that the case in Romans 1 re women? Even if you think it is, would not your arguments also justify consensual polygamy? Have you read these Goddard2Goddard exchanges from the past? Quite good for putting both sides: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070117goddard2goddard.cfm?doc=181 Posted by: Vicki Saturday 31 December 2011 - 07:47pm Phil I am aware God doesn’t command a return to the Eden state – as I said, I was being somewhat facetious. As I have said elsewhere I simply disagree that the Romans 3 passage describes homosexuality per se, any more than descriptions of rape elsewhere in Scripture should be used to encompass heterosexuality. You have essentially concluded that homosexuality is a result of the Fall, therefore Romans 3, in describing the state of humankind post-Fall, must be encompassing all homosexuality, even though the behaviour and context described is in no way representative of the average same-sex relationship. I’m not quite sure how it is that people cannot see that Romans 3 quite simply does not describe homosexuality any more than rape or temple prostitution describes heterosexuality – to be fair I did once think this, though with hindsight I find it hard to comprehend that I also was so blinkered. I’d be interested to know if you have any Scriptural basis aside from this single passage, which I consider to be fairly easily refuted, to support your supposition that homosexuality is a result of the Fall. Nersen Concerning Lambeth 1.10 – quite simply I think it is wrong. While they act with the best intentions, the leaders of the Anglican church are fallible men who are also trying to balance politics and the wider, often contradictory, demands of the various pressure groups within the communion. I could speculate on why they phrased it the way they did but there is probably not much merit in that. I’d rather discuss Scripture instead which we at least can be sure is the word of God. When you say that Scripture does not specify it is talking about idolatry or rape – actually I think it does. In every instance the context clearly links homosexuality with one or other of these things. There is not one instance where homosexuality is discussed in and of itself in a consensual, committed and faithful relationship. When you consider that God’s revelation to us comes through the medium of the culture at the time, it is not particularly surprising, though it is hugely frustrating. While homosexuality exists throughout creation, it is highly unlikely that the writers of Scripture found themselves with a pressing need to consider the situation of a civil partnership. Frustrating, but then neither does Scripture tell us about the morality of IVF or condoms or any number of situations that our society now faces. We are left to take God’s word written in a different time to a different culture and try our best to apply it to our present day lives with the Spirit’s guidance – which is where my reference to the fruit of the Spirit comes in. If the teaching that homosexuality is incompatible with Scripture is right, then it should be apparent by the Spiritual fruit that results from the church taking this position. Where are the redeemed lives, the healed souls, the demonstration of God’s love, the glory to God’s name? What you actually get is genuine God-fearing Christians driven from their churches, broken people left over from ‘ex-gay ministries’, distressed teenagers who have been taught to hate themselves because they cannot change the fact that they are attracted to the same sex. That’s even assuming they dare acknowledge they are gay and face being ostracised. More likely they live in suppression and constant fear of someone finding out. On the other hand, one of the most powerful and revelatory experiences I have had was standing in a room of gay Christians whose own churches did not accept them and praising God together. It felt like an underground church that had finally found a safe place to worship God freely and the Spirit was unquestionably present among those people. Our faith is not just about getting the texts right, it is about living God’s kingdom here on earth. So my question is; where is the fruit that demonstrates the churches position is correct? Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 29 December 2011 - 08:15pm Hi Vicki, thanks for you response - I've asked Mark and Roger many times but you're the first person who has ever answered the question regarding any blessing in scripture to contradict Lambeth 1.10 and I appreciate your honesty that there is no blessing in any circumstances in scripture. There are very close friendships (eg David and Jonathan), of course, but that does not give any blessing for anything incompatible with other parts of scripture. I am not convinced regarding the specific bans you're mentioning. Why do you think Lambeth 1.10 does not specificy about idolatry or rape with regard to activity it says is 'incompatible with scripture'? Scripture does not specify that it is only talking about idolatry or rape, does it? It seems as if those specifics are being read in when what we have are general bans (which include idolatry and rape of course), do we not? Regarding your question, I am not quite sure what you are asking but re the gifts of the Spirit (or fruit), I accept everything we are taught in Galatians, Romans and elsewhere in the NT.... and the Holy Spirit does lead us into all truth - but I trust it is truth compatible with what He has inspired in scripture, and why I ask evangelicals for justifications from scripture (revisionists simply reject what they will but evangelicals ought to sound different...unless that word has been 'revised' too) - I appreciate you not wriggling out of questions but answering directly re what scripture has to say on these issues. Posted by: Phil Almond Wednesday 28 December 2011 - 09:35pm Vicki Genesis 3:21 ‘Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.’ Genesis 9:1-3 ‘And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.’ So God doesn’t command post-fall nakedness and vegetarianism. But the main point is that as I see it, if we believe the doctrine of Original Sin is true, Romans 1-3 can only be a description of post-fall humanity as a whole. To limit 1:24-27 to pagan idolatry misses the fact that we are as variously described because of the Fall, which is the same as saying because of Original Sin. Paul is painting the big picture, manifested in various ways, of fallen human nature, the big picture of sin and sinners, culminating in his universal conclusion in 3:9-20. Phil Almond Posted by: Vicki Wednesday 28 December 2011 - 07:56pm Sorry for the delay – I am aware topics have moved onto other things, but I have been away over Christmas and did not want it thought I was ignoring the more recent points raised. Phil: You are absolutely right that our lives are a continual struggle of submitting our consciences to God. If active homosexuality is wrong, then yes, this would be something that those who are so convicted would have to struggle with, however nothing in Scripture persuades me that it is. I realise this is not what you are advocating, but I don’t believe that God is flattered or pleased by us abasing ourselves or seeking new ways to put to death the sinful nature in order to fulfil the ‘mandate’ that Christians should be in a continual state of struggle. And since I honestly believe homosexuality is not wrong, I would be falsely acting out a repentance of something I deep down believe he has given me as a blessing. Your argument hinges on homosexuality being a result of rebellion against God. However, I don’t believe this to be the case. It is pure speculation that homosexuality is a result of the Fall, but even were it true, if we are indeed supposed to reject all things that are due to the Fall then we should also be naked and vegetarian. I realise I am being slightly facetious, however, my point is that some things that came about following the Fall are indeed blessed by God in his mercy until his return. And when he does return there will be no form of marriage – heterosexual or homosexual. Nersen: Yes I do assert that Lambeth is wrong in saying that faithful, committed, same-sex activity is incompatible with Scripture. However, every account of homosexuality in Scripture refers to promiscuous, non-consensual or/and pagan activity and this, I agree, are indeed incompatible with Scripture. I do also agree though, that there is no explicit blessing of homosexuality in Scripture. But then there are also no clear instances of faithful committed same-sex relationships in Scripture. Should we therefore take the only references there are, regardless of how accurately they represent the issue at hand and apply them broad brush (which is the traditional position) or do we use the rest of Scripture to inform how we should apply God’s Word to new dilemmas (which is the progressive position). You say you want to see an explicit approval of homosexuality in Scripture before you will accept it as God’s will, but there are many, many things in life that are not mentioned in Scripture, yet we accept them because they are not contradictory to the message of Scripture. I do find it odd (and frustrating) that Scripture is silent on the issue of homosexuality except where condemns it as part of an activity involving group rape or idolatry. Why God has done this, I have no answer to suggest. There are many things God seems to have left for us to work out for ourselves and many things he did not explicitly bless in Scripture, but his blessing is visible in the here and now. As I asked before, but wasn’t answered… I am interested to hear what you think the fruit of the Spirit have been from the traditional position? How has it glorified God? Surely the traditional point of view should be scrutinised as hard as any other? Posted by: Mark Bennet Monday 26 December 2011 - 11:35am Dear Nersen I do not think that you have accurately identified the full content or context of Lambeth 1.10, not do I think that the Archbishop of Canterbury used the phrase "the mind of the communion" in the way that you interpret it - so I think your headline comment is misconceived, and it is also notable that you cite Anglical Communion documents rather than scripture. That said, I am concerned that scripture may bear the meaning with which you invest it, and which has a certain weight of tradition behind it. I am also concerned that there has not been a point in Church history where that interpretation has been forensically examined in relation to the whole of the Canon of Scripture and against the practice and experience of the Church - as, for example, with the incarnation, which we celebrate at Christmas. It hasn't mattered enough in the past to put it under that kind of scrutiny, so maybe that is God's task for the current generation. In that task, the appeal to tradition is inadequate. I am also concerned that God in scripture reserves judgment as a divine act. It is very easy in ethical areas to presume judgment rather than giving pastoral advice, and indeed the practice of confession would be a place where that elision would very easily be made. But, in my experience, the homosexual people I meet who are associated with the Church are adults, well able to make their own decisions, and well aware of the texts which are so often cited against them. They know other scripture too. I do not see it as any part of God's plan for me to call down judgment on people I don't know very well - these are, after all, people who God loves and who Jesus came to save. Think back to the last supper - Jesus did not bar the door against Judas, nor stop him sharing the bread. Judas made the decision to leave. It worries me that we bar the door too easily to those we beileve to be wrong. It worries me also that I lived part of my life with a hermeneutic of visceral disgust in this area, of which I hope I have fully repented, and which leads me to realise that our collective corporate theology needs to be better than that - to have that visceral disgust dignified as holy and redemptive in the pronouncements of bishops and others is profoundly unchristian, and is the absolute antithesis to any saving word. It worries me that distinctions which are important to the homosexual people I know - about faithfulness, tenderness and love - are collided with proof texts which say nothing about those qualities as if that is the best we can do from the Bible. It worries me that this is all a distraction from the ethics of money and power which are much more present in scripture than our corporate discourse would suggest. I have lots of worries, as you see, but I am determined that there should be a proper place of discourse on these issues and that a premature closing of the argument should not be allowed to deny a redemptive word to people God loves, for whom Jesus died, and who bear in their lives the image and likeness of God. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 24 December 2011 - 07:31pm Mark, do you ever wonder if what the ABC calls 'the mind of the Communion' may be right?. Even the CofE hasn't ditched Lambeth 1.10 ..... maybe your doubts are not as persuasive as you think? Maybe scripture is not as opaque as you imagine? The church may actually have understood scripture correctly for 2000 yrs...in line with our Abrahamic relatives. You seem to read in specific bans while ignoring the general bans in scripture but still show nowhere in scripture where the acts you want condoned are blessed in any circumstances - why not? I can understand the 'open' revisionist position which is clear that it rejects scripture on certain issues (eg to come to the same conclusion as you re what Lambeth 1.10 calls 'incompatible with scripture'), but to accept your assertion that Lambeth 1.10 is not scriptural in what it calls 'incompatible with scripture', please will you show where scripture blesses the same activity in any circumstances? I still hope for a direct answer one day ....... Posted by: Mark Bennet Friday 23 December 2011 - 09:05am Nersen I will not repeat my exegesis of the incoherences, inadequacies and inaccuracies implicit in the question you seek to ask, or in the things you suggest that I have previously said or concluded - anyone who is interested can read all about it. I will, though, answer a coherent version of your question, which does come to mind, by saying that scripture condemns and nowhere blesses homosexual rape and sexual activity associated with pagan ritual. I have put this in to indicate the kind of specificity I believe we need in dealing with these matters - I simply believe that we do ourselves no favours if we retreat into unbiblical generalisations. Mark Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 23 December 2011 - 08:10am Dear Mark, I read your post and answered (again) your repeated question by referring you to your church's position in Lambeth 1.10....which is clear what sexual activity it talks of as 'incompatiblewith scripture'......now please will you answer my question and show anywhere in scripture where the same activity is blessed in any circumstances? Happy to agree with you and Roger if you make a strong case from scripture....but otherwise there is no strong reason from you to ditch 'the mind of the Communion' and the church catholic. Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 22 December 2011 - 10:32pm Dear Nersen I wish you would read and understand what I was writing, rather than assuming you knew before you read it what it would mean. Don't ask questions of others which you are unwilling to answer youself. Perhaps you will respond to Stephen's truce thread, perhaps not. Hope Christmas catches your good side, whatever. I know that wasn't in the Bible ... Mark Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 22 December 2011 - 09:23pm Ah, Mark...you return with 'who knows what anything means' line to avoid answering the question, the same line which led you on another thread to ask how we can know if adultery is a sin..... logical conclusion of your line, but unconvincing. Below George argues we all know what sexual activity we are talking about so we needn't specify the activity and just talk of 'relationships'....while George's demand only to use the word 'relationship' assuming sexual activity is unacceptable, mainly out of respect to those people who are celibate in obedience to scripture, at least there is no unconvincing pretence that Lambeth 1.10 is not clear regarding what sexual practice it says is 'incompatible with scripture'.....I guess you continue to avoid the question because you cannot show any verse in scripture which blesses the sarme practice in any circumstances? Posted by: Mark Bennet Wednesday 21 December 2011 - 11:59pm Dear Nersen With the greatest of respect you have never answered the question as to whether your notion of "sexual activity" is sufficiently clear and coherent as a conceptual category to reflect the content of the scriptural material which you cite - by which I mean you continue simply to use the category in your assertions rather than engaging in any consideration of whether it is a category established within scripture, or a human construct imposed upon it. Vicki's last post provides a reading of Romans in which that challenge is particularly acute. Your assumption that language is a pure conveyor of meaning is biblically inadequate from Babel onwards. These are all points I have made before. You have answered none of them, ever, at all, in any adequate way. You simply repeat your assertions whisch are framed using what I regard as unbiblical language and concepts. You may disagree with Roger, but it is rather pushing the boundaries of language and meaning to suggest that he has not answered your point and engaged with it on many occasions. Mark Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 21 December 2011 - 06:06pm George, you and Roger never reply with any scripture to show the sexual activity you want condoned is ever, in any circumstances, blessed by God...asserting that you've responded is not enough, nor is a somewhat Orwellian attempt to make out I'm pushing a personal view and to force talk of 'relationships' rather than about the sexual activity which the ABC, not I, says 'the mind of the Communion', not I, and 'the church catholic', not I , calls 'incompatible with scripture'........sorry, the mere assertion that scripture is not clear does not give reason to ditch the view of the church catholic and thousands of years of our Abrahamic relatives' understanding of scripture.....but I'm open to hearing a case from scripture which shows explicit blessing in any circumstances for the sexual activity explicitly condemned elsewhere in scripture.... but you and Roger always ignore this question.....make the case from what scripture says, not what it does not say and what is incompatible with what it does say, I am quite happy to campaign to change 'the mind of the Communion'.... but direct answers never come to this simple question Posted by: George Day Wednesday 21 December 2011 - 01:17pm Nersen, of course not all relationships are sexual, but what we are talking about on this thread is same-sex relationships that are sexual. I am sure everybody else understands that, and realises that in the context in which we are speaking here there is no further need to spell out something so basic. As for myself and Roger, well I cannot answer for him, but times without number I have sought to show that what you so glibly assume the scripture condemns is far from clearly condemned. And if it is not condemned, then it is acceptable - as I said in a recent post, "innocent until proved (or shown with good reason to be) guilty". You may disagree with that, but kindly do us the courtesy of recognising that we have responded to your repeated point repeatedly. Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 21 December 2011 - 05:22am Vicki, again, thank you for your gracious kindness in engaging in this discussion. While all the contributions have been worthwhile, your own articulate candor has pushed it forward. If you do not mind a further, rather speculative query-- how do you see life in Christ informing relationships like your own? Presuming that you are an evangelical, I am sure that the Lord helps you to make sense of life's unfolding eventualities, including the love for a woman that you yourself once found surprising. If there are scriptures that have helped you to make sense of that along the way, I wonder what those have been, and what they have shown you. Knowing how you relate Christ to this relationship would help me to make sense of what seems to be a new intentionality bundling together and informing many behaviours, ancient, medieval, and modern. Clearly, we cannot make sense of our behaviours in isolation from the meaning we find in them. And for Christians, God's self-revelation is prior to these meanings, so that the more we think of Him and in Him, the more we manifest His will in what we do. So, quite apart from the low question of whether those now "accepted" in society should be accepted on the same basis in the Church as well, there is the high question of how any sort of Christian life belongs to the Church as a sign of the presence of the Kingdom. We know how St Paul answered the high question with respect to husbands and wives; how do you answer the high question for relationships like your own? My curiosity is not idle. Attention to the low question has often kept the high question from even being asked, let alone answered. The result is an unfortunate polarization in this and many other churches between those who are so accepting of changing mores that they never thought to ask it, and those so distrustful of changing mores that they assume that it cannot be answered. A strong answer to the high question, if it exists, challenges the evident defects in both positions. Therefore, please do not confuse the high question with the demand for explicit scriptural permission for women to have sex with other women. The real concern behind that seems to be that, if relationships without such permits are generally approved, then the scriptures will no longer be effective for some as an objective standard of morality, and that those who cannot exercise self-control without that standard will therefore do wrong (e.g. will steal Porsches). That concern is also timely and deserves its own serious consideration, but I myself am hoping that you can describe, not an ancient scriptural permit for what you do, but rather an understanding of your practice that is, not wholly dependent on our distrusted social milieu, but instead informed, more and more, by what God has revealed to us in Christ. In fact, Vicki, that is what I hope that our Lord finds in us all. Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 21 December 2011 - 02:01am "As I see it our consciences must be submitted to the Word of God and not the other way round." It would appear that Vicki has indeed submitted her conscience to the Word of God. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 20 December 2011 - 10:29pm Thx Vicki, would you argue that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in saying certain sexual activity is 'incompatible with scripture'? Would you refer to any scripture where the same activity is blessed by God? Posted by: Phil Almond Tuesday 20 December 2011 - 09:20pm Vicki In some posts to the thread ‘Presuppositions and Homosexuality’ starting 23 June 2011 I have argued that Romans 1:18 to Romans 3:20 describes the various results of Man’s rebellion against God and is about all of humanity since the Fall (except Jesus Christ), as we are by the nature Paul speaks about in Ephesians 2:3, and that changing or leaving the natural use of the man and the woman is one of the results or manifestations of Original Sin. I also argued that “Article 9 is right when it states ‘….And this infection of nature (Original Sin) doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated;….’. All the regenerate are called upon to put to death whichever of those results affect them particularly and especially, in a lifelong struggle. That struggle may involve eventually realizing or being persuaded that certain thoughts and actions which were not considered among the results of the Fall are among those results”. We all have this terrible and painful struggle in one way or another. As I see it our consciences must be submitted to the Word of God and not the other way round. Phil Almond Posted by: Vicki Monday 19 December 2011 - 10:22pm Hi Nersen, I think there is a problem here. What is it in Rom 1 that you believe condemns active homosexuality per se then? Is it that that we fit the description of the idolaters (though you have already said not) or is it that you are picking out the words ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ to mean that all homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong? To be honest, I think this would be misusing the text since it would appear, taking the context into account, that he is speaking of a pagan ritualistic orgy. Aside from this exegetical guess we don’t actually know what the people concerned were doing. Yes, it involved same-sex activity, but it is clearly meaning to convey something much more than two men (or two women) having sex within a committed and faithful relationship. With what support do you argue that Paul’s words about the Rom 1 situation can be can be transposed to, say, a faithful civil partnership? Yes, you are absolutely right that we should live a life different to that of Romans 1 and I believe my life is different. I cannot see anything of my committed, faithful homosexual relationship in Paul’s description given Rom 1, but this is what you have to argue if you are going to say mine is also condemned. Part of the difficulty is that the traditional view approaches this topic from an establishment position and only then looks at Scripture. As a result the references to same-sex activity, which are indeed condemnatory, are simply taken at face value because they seem to fit the desired answer, with no sense check of whether they should be applied to the current situation. This is no different at all to how slavery, oppression of women, racism and many other issues have been treated in the past (and indeed some still are in a number of Anglican communities around the world). However, as in those situations, when you take textual context into consideration, the character of God and the experience of fellow Christians around you it is clear the establishment has patently got it wrong. I believe that Scripture is essentially silent on the issue of homosexuality as we know it. Just as it is silent on many, many issues that face us today. I don’t think this should be a surprise though. I don’t believe God simply expects us to follow a set of rules, I believe he expects us to live out the faith that Jesus demonstrated for us in the situation we find ourselves. My conscience does not condemn my relationship. To the contrary, it is something I both praise God for and I know has made people look afresh at Christianity. Looking at the fruit of a history of condemning homosexuality reveals little but pain, fear and injustice. These are not traits of a true teaching of Christ. Yes, following Christ is fill of challenges, but I cannot see a single fruit of Spirit the church’s traditional teaching on this issue. Posted by: WATERANGEL Monday 19 December 2011 - 07:45pm You can have a porche 911 without giving in to sin nerson they sell them in the London model shops . I like classic MGs myself.Its an hard life self denial so as not to commit sin..lol I wonder what car Jesus would drive if he was here today? of choice rather than the bullet proof one he would be forced to have.Or maybe he would use public transport , imagine the loaves and fishes being transferred to to an airport or railway station, These places have been used by terrorist to attack, but see they are used to save, by transporting food and essential supplies. Jesus probably wouldn't go for a porche or an MG. He would of course go for a lorry , he would deliver food in the day, a place to worship in the evenings and a place to sleep at night..The disciples would be his drivers. he would turn water into petrol and drive to the nearest vineyard. he would eat his five a day from the fields and hand them out to millions on his farewell tour of the earth.. Waterangel Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 19 December 2011 - 03:05pm Hi Waterangel, I think Romans 6 gives us freedom to fight tempting sin. I really want a silver Porsche 911.....would've had it a decade ago if scripture didn't limit my desire to please myself. George, I hope in your experience, 'relationships' aren't always sexual, so no....it is not reasonable of you to demand that the word 'relationship' must be understood to include sexual activity. And, no...I'm not parroting any division between moral and ceremonial law but asking you as a person who claims to be evangelical for any support in scripture to show that activity only condemned in scripture, and understood as such by our Abrahamic relatives for thousands of years, is blessed in any circumstances.....but you and Roger never answer that question for some reason..... Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 18 December 2011 - 03:34pm Nerson hi Not sure? I think that our identity IS in what we do, whether what we do is just to be a human being with a purpose, or to be something some would consider greater (like you lol). John 11-35 Matt 4-2 Hebrews 5-8 are all verses showing human attributes that God shares with us in Identity.. Jesus identity was in (a) he was the son of God and is God with the task of "being the saviour of the world" Teaching and leading people to a biblical life which does not inhibit but frees those who follow it.. No i dont believe that because some men consider themself to be red blooded as a being they should be having multiple relationships, or affairs, because women have red blood too as we are all descendants from the same God. So i dont believe that anyone should have affairs and certainly do not believe that is any sign of identity. Having affairs destroys the soul, but being the "human being" which God made and created us to be first and foremost to "doing" the work of God ie sharing the gospel with the Spirit within us which he left untill the work is done. Why did God make human beings that are different in preference ? because Gods work is not yet done. " so Gods people can be unfaithful to him but he will never be unfaithful to them"When Gods work is done there will be no gender difference because we will be in his image as ONE .Also because God gave us free will, with the instruction that we should live Holy lives, I personally believe that the gender a person sits comfortably in is not unholy, but having multiple sexual relationships is less than holy and as i said destructive to their spiritual well being. It is all very deep and intense which might be a distraction from the real meaning of the Gospel which is about "compatibility" with Jesus and those whom Jesus came and died for and was ressurected , that we might know there was hope..Yes we could gain hope in other things like relationships and affairs but it is short lived, and we not only want and need to relate to people in a righteous and holy way in the short term, but we need to know that we can present ourselves as a person who values "the being" that jesus created that is the "being of the other" whether Gay ,Straight, Married Single Value does not come in that identity but simply in the identity of our humanity and our response to the call of Jesus at the point of need , response is a "doing " Now look what you have done Nerson i am writing about compatibility in alignment with you only i am on my page and you are on yours OR "you in your small corner and I in mine" Untill the time that people meet in eternity we need to try to be nice and accepting of one another, building one another up in Christ. which is also scriptural Waterangel Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 17 December 2011 - 03:16pm Thank you User 4238 for your helpful overview of our debate and its pitfalls, and your emphasis on the new creation and its relevance to our differences. Thank you too Vicki for your further posts. I greatly appreciate them, not least in your verse-by-verse reflection on Romans 1 for its candour, compassion and sheer good sense. For those with ears to hear you are offering a most helpful bridge between less reflective handling of the so-called 'anti-gay' texts and the day to day experiences of lgbt Christian women and men who seek to follow Christ faithfully. Thank you for moving our debate to a more honest and realistic level as to what it means to be 'evangelical and gay'. May those churches which exclude be ashamed! Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 17 December 2011 - 03:01pm Thanks for your reponse, Vicki. I am glad you do not see yourself in Romans 1 as it is describing people who do not know / reject Christ; however, I don't think it makes sense to say its condemnation of some behaviour only applies to those who do not know Christ, does it? Are we not, as post Romans 3 people, to live a life different to those in Romans 1? We all struggle with sin (Romans 7), but are we not, in response to the gospel, to fight our temptations (Romans 6) - out of gratitude, because there is no condemnation in Christ (Romans 8) through God's grace? As to whether we are seeing Paul's personal moral views or what the Holy Spirit has inspired in scripture, I take the latter view - particularly as what Romans 1 says is completely consistent with the OT and the rest of the NT. To make a positive case that Lambeth 1.10 is wrong in what it says is 'incompatible with scritpure', eg as with OT food laws which do not apply to us because of specific NT teaching which says so, is there scripture to which you would point that justifies sexual activity from scripture that Lambeth 1.10 says is not compatible with it? Hi Waterangel - is being heterosexual an excuse for sinful acts? I know some blokes who say they have affairs because they are red blooded men.... I don't buy that excuse for their immorality.... our identity is not what we do (as a job or in bed)....especially if we are in Christ. Posted by: George Day Saturday 17 December 2011 - 02:53pm Responding to Nersen’s post of Friday, 5.12pm. In my post to which you are referring, I specifically said "I assume that means same-sex relationships that include sex—I know that issue has come up before on one of these threads” and I had perhaps naively hoped that would make it clear what I (together with a good number of others on this and related threads) are talking about. I am not talking about isolated acts, as might be seen in e.g. cottaging. But neither am I talking about relationships that don’t involve sexual acts. The whole basis of the debate here is that we are thinking about people (like Vicki) who are in a loving and committed relationship that has as part of its content a physical sexual side. So, Nersen, I will go on talking about relationships, but having tried to spell it out as clearly as possible, would you please from now on take it that I mean relationships that include sex acts, (just as we take it as read that the marriage relationship includes sex acts, and don’t have to spell out every time we say “marriage” that we mean “marriage with sex”), but would you also please accept that I have no desire to talk merely about sex acts outside of a committed relationship. Two other points in your post: 1. You ask the question “were they [our Abrahamic brethren] all wrong” in being opposed to all same-sex sexual activity. Possibly. They were wrong in e.g. the attitude to slavery, so why not in this? 2. You talk of food laws being eradicated but moral laws reiterated. This sounds as though you are following the same line that I was taught as a teenager—that Jesus has ended ritual laws but not moral laws. But this distinction just will not wash: (a) there is no such distinction in the OT laws themselves, or in the way they are compiled together, or in the way they are described, and (b) there is no such distinction made in the NT, e.g. when the council of Jerusalem delivers its verdict in Acts 15:28-29, which actually mixes together what we today describe as moral and ritual laws. Posted by: George Day Saturday 17 December 2011 - 02:51pm Responding to Dave’s post of Thursday 1.54pm. You say, “Are you making your proposals a matter of logic or theology?”, No, not one or the other; I am looking at the logical structure of the theological and biblical arguments put forward. Any argument (whether in theology or just about any other subject) must have some sort of structure, and if the argument is to carry weight that must be a structure with a logical basis. So by looking at that basis I want to highlight what each side of this argument does or does not have to prove. In a sense though that is only the first stage, (but in order to avoid a very long post I was restricting myself to that first stage, the evaluation of relevant Bible texts and the arguments based on them). The second stage is hinted at in the rest of your post. If I am right in claiming the Biblical case against same-sex relationships is full of holes, then the Church has to decide what to do. Authorising the public blessing of the relationship of same-sex couples is going to have a number of consequences—social consequences, consequences for our relationship with churches that do not take such a step, as well as consequences for the people involved. All this would have to be weighed up before any decision was made. So you are right—the church would have to debate “Should the church approve same-sex relations which involve sex?” So, it seems to me that there are these two stages (or levels, or whatever) involved in the discussion—consideration of the relevant Bible passages, (but with careful attention paid to the logical structure of the argument), and then consideration of the best way forward in church and society. Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 17 December 2011 - 11:26am Oh Nerson ! There is one very important "act" in the Gospel under the definition of "act" ie a doing of rather than a "being" of. This distinction is very important. A person who is gay is a "being" a human being which is totally compatible with the Gospel. The act of "forgiveness" is a doing with a process, you have to think about "the relationship" of the doing of the act to the act of being.. The issue is that the being of the homosexual is not doing the act of "non/unforgiveness, they are just being. There is no ill intent in being unlike unforgiveness which has ill intent. This of course is about gay human being making decisions about relationship with gay human beings , and not about a human being planning or doing relationship to someone who is either too young , vulnerable or just nonconcenting. "Made in my image who is both male and female untill separation of the Woman from Adam"?? Posted by: Vicki Friday 16 December 2011 - 11:10pm Hi nersenpaul - I'm going to respond to your comment asking for more thoughts on, say Roman's, but I've approached it a different way to the usual. Instead of arguing over the Greek and the textual nuances, I've looked at it from a 'does this make sense?' perspective. Romans 1: 21ff 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. I do not believe this is a true statement of my state of mind or faith. Yes I have my times of doubt and struggle, but my aim is to glorify God and give thanks for the many blessings he has given me – including a lovely partner of (so far) 5 years, who I am constantly amazed to be with. Is my thinking foolish and futile? In many things most likely, but not through a desire to not glorify God. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Pretty sure I am safe on this one. Do I put myself and other people before God? Yes, because I am flighty and thoughtless, but I certainly don’t claim it is wise to do so. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. Being gay was never a desire of my heart, nor was sexual experience something I ever sought out. On the contrary, if anything, as someone brought up as a well behaved Christian who went to a Christian school I was fairly naïve. It’s more accurate to say it never occurred to me that I may be gay until I fell in love with a woman. Though it does explain why I never did quite click with a boyfriend… 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. See above. I admit I am a sinful person who needs God’s mercy and salvation, but I don’t think this is a fair statement about my faith! 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Tricky passage this as it says both a lot and not very much. Some more detail would have been helpful. Shameful lusts – ok, what does this actually mean? Women exchanged… natural… for unnatural – ok, again, something natural for unnatural doesn’t actually give us much to go on. Men… with women… inflamed with lust for one another – a bit more detail, clearly same-sex activity instead of opposite-sex, but inflamed with lust? Really? I doubt that describes your average homosexual relationship any more than heterosexual. I know it’s a bit radical, but although homosexuality is generally thought of as involving orgies and the ‘gay scene’, actually most of us are basically the same as straight couples. We watch films together, clean the house, go food shopping. Not much inflamed lust going on. This would be such ridiculous hyperbole it begs the question why Paul uses it. Or is he using it on purpose to describe something more than ordinary, stable, monogamous relationships between same-sex couples? It would fit much better if he was intending to describe an orgy. Perhaps a pagan one; which would also fit extremely well with the whole thing about turning away from God, idolatry and deliberately seeking sinful desires. And for cultural context – a fair amount of exactly that sort of thing was going on then… Due penalty – this little phrase is always ignored, but I think it is important. What is this penalty? Because if this passage does refer to all same-sex relationships, it must also be true of us so it should be pretty easy to simply point that out and win the case. A more debatable issue I think is raised here in that Paul does see male-female relationships as the natural one. The different route of questioning therefore goes down the lines of was this a ‘God-given’ opinion or his own (as he does sometimes in other places). We see same-sex activity throughout creation, so what does ‘natural’ even mean? How much of this choice of wording is Paul reflecting the social opinions of the day and how much weight should be given to it. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. Again, yes I make mistakes, but I, and my Christian lgbt brothers and sisters are quite the opposite of this statement. We want to retain and grow our knowledge of God and are often left clinging to little else but our trust in him, in the face of fellowship and church being taken from us (and believe me, it is sometimes a struggle to hold onto your trust in God when those who claim to represent God seem to make it their mission to destroy your faith). 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. They have become... – clearly referring to those who are partaking of the activities described above. Am I full of all these things? Or is that a fair description of all lgbt people? Actually, no, it clearly and blatantly isn’t. You see, you can’t just take that passage and read the same-sex paragraph and say ‘therefore homosexuality is wrong’ because it is a passage which uses a number of adjectives which in totality describe the people Paul was talking about. And, if you try to say that I and all lgbt people fit the 'They' profile, then I can with full and absolute confidence say I no more fit all of it than you do. Posted by: Bowman Friday 16 December 2011 - 08:41pm Vicki's relational question in this braid of strands-- some trading of texts, some metaethical reflection, and the field observations that follow Vicki's-- seem urgent because it offers a bridge over the chasm between two sides that we have been missing. To see why, consider the disconnected debates between those who favor the committed and blessed practice of homosexuality in the Church and those who oppose it. Over the years, the debates that I have heard viva voce have seemed to go like this-- Pro: In the context of the Church, sexuality is a new creation in Christ. There is no homosexual exception, and there cannot be one without undermining the whole Christian vision of new creation, since there is only one human nature, which Christ fully assumed. Contra: In the context of pre-Christian antiquity, God condemned a particular sexual procedure. (Texts.) Pro: We could quibble, but even if true, we are talking about a new creation-- homosexuality as practiced in the Church today, not as practiced by pagan sailors in ancient Corinth. Do you believe that sexuality is a new creation in Christ or not? Contra: In the context of pre-Christian antiquity, God condemned a particular sexual procedure. (More texts.) Pro: If all of human nature is recreated in Christ, and sexuality is a part of that nature, what else is the Church to do when 10% of confessing Christians have same-sex orientations that naturally incline to a particular sexual procedure? How is the Church to minister for them? Contra: In the context of pre-Christian antiquity, God condemned a particular sexual procedure. (Even more texts. Frustration that text-piling is not working.) Pro: However else one sees the Church, they are surely the people who will take responsibility to act in God's kingdom for the gospel. You are warmly welcome to join us when you are able to do that. (Back to the hors d'oeuvres table, and frustrated that those Contra seem unable to grapple with the dilemma itself, to understand what is at stake in it, or to stand up and be the Church when it really counts.) Doubtless, better dialogues are possible. And, emphases on different loci of Christian dogma drive different problems into prominence. It can take time on all sides to catch up to insights that come more readily to those who have different emphases. That is why Anglican comprehensiveness requires patience. When cornered between two such friends, I often point out that their disconnected discussion is disconnected because those Contra lack the personal confidence of the Pro that the experience of Church is anything at all like being in a new creation. It sounds good, but the Contra don't feel it. They rather focus on their personal path of right regulation of the old creation and value the objectivity of the scriptures as an aid to doing so. And when they see that those Pro seem to embrace a very dysregulated society so uncritically, the idea that there is a new creation in Christ seems implausible. Objectivity is simply being traded for credulity. But surely this is a bit too individualistic? Conversely, those Pro are persuaded by their own theological resources that the institutional life of the Church is the very kingdom itself. They do not worry so much about individual regulation of any kind, but they worry a lot about failure of a different kind-- the possibility that the Church, by remaining stuck in a regime of pain that most of their society now sees through, will again fail to be a plausible witness of the Kingdom to the society at large. But surely this makes the Christian heart captive to the frailty of every organization and the perceptions of an antagonistic culture? So, I say to my puzzled friends that what divides them is not sexual ethics, but their personal experiences of being the Church and the vision of Christ's work that gives those experiences meaning. They could probably have analogous quarrels about things altogether heterosexual, if some troublemaker could find a way to relate them to ordination. For shared orders, more than a shared configuration of doctrines and experiences, is what has brought them to the party. God gave us holy orders to teach us patience. What so interests me about the Vicki-following strand among these friends is that it seems to take the very responsibility for being the Church here and now that those on the Pro side of this debate so seldom see in the Contra side. In a group where many have read Tom Wright, that is an exciting development, since they are surely equipped to talk, as Vicki did, about how being redeemed in Christ should renew the mind and could make the inside of a church very different from the street outside. Those in the relational strand seem to be saying that, say, being married in the Church or being unmarried in the Church should feel different from marriage or singleness outside it, and that if there is to be a new creation that is it. Or perhaps I misread. Naturally, I wonder whether more about that might be said here. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 16 December 2011 - 05:12pm George, thanks .... we are getting somewhere now that we have more than just arguments from silence or no argument at all to justifiy behaviour 'incompatible with scritpure' according to 'the mind of the Communion' ....as mentioned, I am quite happy to agree if convinced from scripture (it would make life easier in this day and age!) As always, you and Roger want to talk about 'relationships' but the issue is about what acts the bible calls sin and what it does not....it is not about people or relationships but acts which are incompatible with scripture. You can have a relationship with a woman who is not your wife and that relationship can be pure and not adulterous.... but it would be hard to claim that was the case if it contained adulterous acts, would it not? Given scripture is very positive on some sexual activity (eg Song of Songs) but not all (eg Psalm 51 written in repentance), I don't find it convincing to claim scripture is not condemning acts which it definitely appears to be condemning without the specifics that some add to its meaning, and our Abrahmic bretheren with us have understood scripture to condemn the same acts for thousands of years... were they all wrong? Then, there is nothing in the new testament to say that any sexual activity banned in the OT is now just fine (food laws were eradicated but moral laws were reiterated, were they not?) I think this piece from Andrew Goddard (responding to James Jónes comments some time ago) is useful on these issues: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=518 Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Friday 16 December 2011 - 04:25pm Dave we have left Babylon ! maranatha Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Friday 16 December 2011 - 04:24pm A marvellous testimony in the 'House of Lords' to the grace of God. Well worth reading. Wonderful to ahve beleivers in public life : -- Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I rejoice that many Christians and some churches have acknowledged that for some men and women, a loving, committed, intimate, faithful relationship can happen only within a same-sex partnership. I want to delight in that. I want to celebrate it with ceremony and joy, and I want those couples to be encouraged to take their rightful place in creative responsibility and participation in all society. I also want to learn from them the things that God is saying about His grace being given to human beings who are made in His image in infinite variety. I am well aware that my theological viewpoint is vehemently opposed by many people, including many in this House, but it is a legitimate viewpoint that I could argue with many people. I hope today that while it is obvious that this legislation for registration of civil partnerships in religious buildings is permissive, I do not want it to be made obligatory but neither do I want it to be prohibited. Many churches have the right through their decision-making processes to determine their own theological position and to be able follow through with many people what is for them the root celebration of their whole being. Posted by: Simon Morden Friday 16 December 2011 - 12:59pm Dave - I agree (wholeheartedly!) that "there is something of an impasse on the matter of the scriptural evidence. You could call it a road block. perhaps even a pile up." And like a pile up, there are plenty of innocent victims caught in the wreckage. However, if my "strategy seems to be to set a detour and talk about experience" which it is, in part, you say "I do not believe that this will work." The thing is, this exact same strategy has worked and led us to new understandings on slavery, the role and status of women in society and the church, usuary, and divorce. To name just four areas. There is absolutely no doubt that a middle-ages Christian man would be horrified at our encouragement of usuary, our lax attitude to divorce and remarriage, and at letting women celebrate communion, while we would be shocked at his casual wife-beating and denigration of democracy. I genuinely hold scripture in high regard, but there are times - like this one, like the others mentioned above - when doggedly repeating the same verses over and over, just doesn't help. The Bible promotes a geocentric view of the universe: that doesn't help us in our understanding of astronomic observations. And neither do the 'clobber' verses regarding same-sex sex help us in our understanding of a monogamous homosexual partnership. In both regards, there comes a point when you just have to look up. Posted by: Dave Thursday 15 December 2011 - 01:54pm George, Are you making your proposals a matter of logic or theology. As a matter of logic I do not know how far you can go beyond saying that "all moral judgments require some justification". Thus the situation may be closer to a balance of probabilities than you suggest. I think the correct question to star with is "Should the church approve same-sex relations which involve sex?" If we had an answer to this i think the other questions would almost answer themselves. I wonder what morality you are proposing for homosexuals. Does your principle, removing the prohibitions, lead to complete liberty or does the teaching on heterosexual relationships need reinterpreting as applying to all relationships? Dave Posted by: Dave Thursday 15 December 2011 - 10:50am Simon, I would accept that there is something of an impasse on the matter of the scriptural evidence. You could call it a road block. perhaps even a pile up. Your strategy seems to be to set a detour and talk about experience. I do not believe that this will work. The story of the gay experience of the church has been told many times. mere repetition does not help. We need to clarify our moral principles to know how to respond. In this an understanding of scripture is vital. We may also need to look at tradition and philosophy for guidance. The arguments produced by Plato, Augustine, Aquinas and Kant may repay further study. Further study of David and Jonathan will not settle the issue for us. Dave Posted by: Simon Morden Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 09:12pm Dave - when you say "Michael Vasey of couse found what he wanted to find . He had no standing as an OT scholar", it's not that much of an assumption that you're dismissing his argument because of his sexuality. Yes, we could argue the points one by one, but that's exactly what Anon and Vicki don't want us to do. Instead, they want us to listen to their experiences, not rehash this and that, endlessly over and over. We could replay this using texts for male headship. Or for slavery. I readily admitted that there are verses in the Bible that you can create a cast-iron case against women's rights and women's ordination, against emancipation, and against gay rights. Where does that get us? None of us are as evangelical as that. All of us have come to an accomodation, to a greater or lesser degree, with these anti-scriptural concepts in a way that would have shocked our forebears of fifty, a hundred, two hundred and five hundred years ago. Because I'm writing a book which has medieval Jewish characters in it, I've had to do a fair amount of research. One interesting fact that's popped up is that Jewish wives could divorce their abusive husbands, demanding not only their dowry back, but compensation on top: meanwhile, their Christian neighbours could quite lawfully and biblically thrash their wives to within an inch of their lives. Some still do take the Bible as saying the husband not just could, but should, beat his wife and children. I don't think that's right, even if there is Biblical injunctions for such behaviour. Any of us going to admit to beating our wives here? Oh what bad evangelicals we are... Posted by: George Day Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 08:11pm Nersen, I know it is Vicki you have asked to provide scriptural evidence, and I am sure she can make up her own mind whether or not to respond, but as I see you repeatedly raising this question let me comment. First, a bit on the logical structure of the argument, using an illustration from a criminal law court. I take it that any action is morally acceptable unless there is proof, or at least good reason, for thinking it is not acceptable. If you like, “innocent until proved guilty”. This means that in judging the rightness or otherwise of same-sex relationships (and I assume that means same-sex relationships that include sex—I know that issue has come up before on one of these threads) the “prosecution”, i.e. the conservative position that rejects such relationships, has to prove its case (or at the very least make out a very convincing case, even if proof is not possible) whereas the “defence”, i.e. the position that accepts such relationships, simply has to show that the prosecution case does not carry the day. This means that it is not necessary for the “defence” to find Bible verses/passages that indicate the rightness of same-sex relationships; the “defence” simply has to test whether or not the “prosecution” case holds up. We can illustrate this by taking a hypothetical argument. Imagine we are living just after the Wright brothers have made their famous heavier-than-air flight. Somebody then advances the Biblical argument that it is wrong for us to fly. He says that in Genesis 1, which is of course one of the most important of all Bible passages showing God’s purposes in creation, it is clear that the birds were created on the 5th day, whereas the land animals, including man, were created on the sixth day. Therefore to fly transgresses God’s creation ordinance. Now I guess few if any people would buy that argument. But think for a moment as to how we should respond. Of course we cannot point to any Bible verses that show that it is right to fly. (If we try quoting Isaiah 40:31 our anti-flyer will quite rightly point out that that verse is metaphorical—there is no suggestion we will literally rise up like eagles). Instead what we will do is to say that the anti-flyer’s understanding of Genesis 1 is wrong—the division in the days of creation describes orderliness and progression, but does not indicate we cannot do something done by the creatures created on a different day. Indeed, we might point out that this anti-flying argument would also mean that we could not go swimming with a clear conscience! So the anti-flying argument is demolished not by positively showing it is right to fly, but by pointing out the weaknesses of the argument. So, in this area of the issue of same-sex relationships, as I have said before on one of these threads, it is clear that there are no Bible verses/passages that show the rightness of such relationships, but there are very serious weaknesses in the “prosecution” case, and although there may be debate about how serious those weaknesses are—to pursue the legal illustration, one can imagine a hung jury—to an increasing number of people they appear to be so severe as to render the prosecution case totally unproven. The weaknesses of the biblical case against same-sex relationships have been aired at length on these threads, so just a quick summary: Genesis 1 and 2. It is an argument from silence to claim the absence of reference to same-sex relationships here shows they are contrary to God’s plan and purpose. Genesis 19, Sodom. Clearly utterly irrelevant, as this describes homosexual rape (or the threat of it) and so no more shows the wrongness of same-sex relationships than Genesis 34 on heterosexual rape shows the wrongness of opposite-sex relationships. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, two laws (or one law repeated) on same-sex relationships. For me the key issue here is that there is no clear rule by which we can work out which OT laws still apply and which don’t. Jesus abrogated food laws (Mark 7:19), the early church set aside the circumcision laws for Gentiles, and we just ignore others, such as (in the same area of Leviticus as these two laws) Lev 19:19. Perhaps less damaging to the prosecution case here, but still relevant, is the fact that it is not clear in these commands whether committed same-sex relationships are being referred to, or whether it is perhaps some form of ritual prostitution. Romans 1 clearly speaks about people who have (1) rejected the Creator for the created, (2) have been given over by God, (which I take to mean they are in a sort of moral and spiritual vacuum), (3) are acting out of lust, and (4) are acting contrary to nature. It is absolutely clear this is poles apart from the sort of situation and people that are under debate in this issue—people who are in a committed and faithful and loving relationship, and who may well also have a deep and committed faith in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. What Romans 1 describes is lust-driven paganism, and we can all agree that is wrong. 1 Corinthians 6, the issue of who Christians should go to for the settlement of disputes, in the course of which malakoi and arsenokoitai are used to describe the sort of people Christians should not be going to, i.e. the same sort of lust-driven pagan context as Romans 1 describes. 1 Timothy 1:10 does not have clear context, but the prosecution will need to show that it is not the same as Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, and that anyway enough reliance can be placed upon the single word arsenokoitai to support its case. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution case at every stage is full of holes and questions and uncertainties. I remind you that it is up to the prosecution to prove its case; it is not up to the defence to prove innocence. I trust, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, that you will find committed, faithful and loving same-sex relationships not guilty! Posted by: Dave Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 05:46pm Charles, Which American college has offered you a job and why the "even". I thought there was something of a brain drain in theology. I do not know where you get the idea that anyone is being accepted as infallible. All I mean is that when I read a commentary, it is often summarizing the the research of others. when I find a consensus amongst commentators I may conclude they are probably right. So I might quite happily quote something from Tertullian I have read enough times in commentaries to remember and I may be wrong. I have seen experts being wrong e.g. confusing the 2 Henry Venn's. I am relying on the complex mechanisms of the academy and market when I choose an Anchor commentary to give an alternative view Dave Posted by: Dave Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 05:14pm DavidR I claim no weight or standing. I thought that was rather the point of forum. It is to your credit that you have not stood on your dignity and claimed the shadow professorship Charles thinks you deserve. I will admit some curiosity as to what your position is Dave Posted by: Dave Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 11:37am Simon, I have read "Strangers and Friends" and found it unconvincing. It is some time ago but if you care to use his arguments, I will attempt to refute them. I do object to the production of a theologians name as a sort of trump card. Often to appropriate an old joke, if you get 12 theologians in a room you will hear 13 interpretations. I certainly do not consider John Maynard Keynes' personal life in using his economics. The argument must be presented and not merely referred to. If theologians must be cited as authorities, their reputation becomes relevant . "Barth said" may evoke a different response than "Stott said" in different audiences. Dave Posted by: Dave Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 11:36am Simon, I have read "Strangers and Friends" and found it unconvincing. It is some time ago but if you care to use his arguments, I will attempt to refute them. I do object to the production of a theologians name as a sort of trump card. Often to appropriate an old joke, if you get 12 theologians in a room you will hear 13 interpretations. I certainly do not consider John Maynard Keynes' personal life in using his economics. The argument must be presented and not merely referred to. If theologians must be cited as authorities, their reputation becomes relevant . "Barth said" may evoke a different response than "Stott said" in different audiences. Dave Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 10:49am "opened my eyes to what i now know what to be the scriptures were getting at" That sentence tells us ALL the truth , "open OUR eyes lord WE want to see Jesus".. We can personalize it and we can share it as a common feature of our lives. What the scripture is "getting at" for us personally is a small part of what the scripture is getting at any given time Globally for we are only a small part.. As childish as it is i love the chorus Jesus bids us shine like a pure clear light , like a little candle burning in the night, to finish with "you in your small corner and i in mine" when i was a child i would be crouched in the corner probably under a table somewhere but now, now i know that from my small corner i can make a difference, just a small difference in some cases but a difference never the less, it is not organised, or even planned it just IS. You in your small corner and i in mine, corners give parameters, and shape it stops us going in circles. Jesus "bids" us shine he offers us the opportunity to shine. Are we willing to take up the challenge.. Just a quick plug here SHINE is the new name for the charity ASBAH (association for spinabifida and hydrocephalus) Waterangel Posted by: Dave Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 10:42am User 3664, 175 conversations! I do not know where to start. Perhaps you could give us you half dozen favorites Dave Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 08:59am Thx Vicki, it is refreshing to get an answer from scripture rather than arguments from silence which ignore a lot of scripture. I wish you would address Romans 1 and other key passages.....if the mind of the Communion in Lambeth 1.10 is wrong, we should ditch it.......if it is incompatible with scripture.....pls would you address the key prohibitive OT and NT passages and can you show blessing for acts the mind of the Communion say are incompatible with scripture? Posted by: Simon Morden Wednesday 14 December 2011 - 07:59am Nersen - I refer you to my previous comment about actually engaging with people. Scripture is alive, not dead, as it appears to be in your hands. Am I an evangelical? If you get to define evangelical, then clearly I'm not, because it makes everything so much easier for you if I'm outside the pale. Easier to dismiss, easier to ignore, easier to lump me in with the rest of the outcasts. A bit like being gay, really... fancy that. Posted by: Vicki Tuesday 13 December 2011 - 11:38pm nersenpaul - In answer to your post from Sunday; yes, I have changed my understanding of Scripture. I was brought up believing that the account of Sodom and that was reinforced through teaching I later received. However, even aside from the ridiculousness of trying to say their behaviour in anyway is representative of homosexuality per se (as well say that heterosexual rape is representative of people who are straight!), when you read the parallel passage in Judges 19, it is clear that this cannot be the case. The crime of Gibeah was the abuse of the concubine, not the Levite since they threatened him but did not actually commit a crime. It was for her rape and death; Judges 20:3-5 "And the Israelites said, "Tell us, how did this criminal act come about?" 4 The Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered, "I came to Gibeah that belongs to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to spend the night. 5 The lords of Gibeah rose up against me, and surrounded the house at night. They intended to kill me, and they raped my concubine until she died." These passages are about how you should treat the vulnerable/sojourners among us and how the depths of immorality made them forget even the most basic of kindnesses (though to reiterate, the 'gay-rape' of Sodom is no more representative of homosexuality than the 'straight-rape' of Gibeah is of heterosexuality). That is perhaps the more obvious of the texts of the issue, though I do not think any serious scholar would these days argue the 'old' position of either account being a comment about homosexuality. I had said I do not want to get into a discussion on textual interpretation and I stick to that so will not go into the more hotly debated texts. I merely give that example as a fairly uncontroversial example of how my view changed. I still uphold Scripture as the Word of God, however with finding myself outcast from the conservative-evangelical bubble, I also discovered the freedom to take a fresh look at Scripture. C-E churchs often pride themselves on their exegesis and having intelligent questioning congregations. From the outside, I now recognise that while they may encourage questions, there is only one right answer and one party line. They don't really do real questioning. Having the freedom to entertain the hypothesis that perhaps the party line was not all it cracked up to be, opened my eyes to what I now understand to be the real truth of what those Scriptures are getting at... and suddenly it makes far more consistent sense with the God who sent his son. Who calls us to "act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God"... not cast out and condemn others who are genuinely also seeking to serve the same God as you. I have got a lot wrong, perhaps I am wrong on this - I don't think so, but I have to concede I may well be, just as I now believe I was wrong before. I will rely on God knowing my heart. Posted by: WATERANGEL Tuesday 13 December 2011 - 10:37pm Another David Yes on one level you are right sharing time with families is one way for single people to not feel isolated, however being the outsider to other peoples relationships either family or couple can be difficult, and in someways more painful..Jesus dealt with his "aloneness" in much the same way. I think i might view "marginalisation" as slightly different from "aloneness, in fact i would say that the one way in which the marginalised are less so ,is in the fact that in that way at least there is no marginalisation. It is purely the method by which they resolve the issue of aloneness which becomes marginalising.. Helping ourselves or others with the issues which create marginalisation are much more complicated than any of us can anticipate..because in the attempts to enable people not to be marginalised often churches use the route of "detatchment" where no-one is directly responsible for the pastoral care of individuals, this is a way of doing things which has emerged over the last 20 years and it is not helpful. The consequences of marginalisation is lack of continuity and continuity is the base from which other relationships are formed, the detatchment in itself creates distance and the breakdown of real fellowship and relationship.This in turn creates mistrust. Trust is the first thing that has to be built if the issue of marginalisation is to be dealt with at all.. The church has to be a safe place, which it no longer is!! As soon as something becomes difficult the church tends to abstain in most cases from responsibility, the consequence of that is that people do not see that having a relationship first and foremost with jesus is the stepping stone to relating to others and therefore becoming less marginalized.. So the first port of call for the church is to be accessible to enabling people to do that.. From that place what is achieved is the centralisation and internalisation of the gospel. It is then the inner strength that leads to the resolution of "aloneness in Christ" to the "wholeness in Christ. In wholeness the world seems managable and great things can be achieved for God enabling people to reach their full potential requires fellowship and a person to have a place and an identity in it. If the marginalisation is a result of a behaviour which others feel they cannot cope with, then the church i feel does have a calling morally if not legally to put things in place to as you say enable people to deal with the consequence..However i am acutely aware that people can have self destructive behaviours as a result of being on the receiving end of other peoples destructive behaviour..It just gets ever more complicated, but if there is one thing that i do have faith in , it is the power of an individual or people who want to achieve positive change to do so with the right support at the right time in the right place, co-ordinate that put jesus in the mix and it is a force to be reckoned with. Another thing to consider is the relevance of the inanimate, the bible can be great company in the absense of humans, and accessible buildings have a constancy about them, having somewhere to "return to" gives a sense of belonging and lessons marginalisation.. Waterangel Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 13 December 2011 - 10:32pm Simon, so...you have nothing from scripture to show that actions the ABC, not I, says the mind of the communion, not I, calls 'incompatible with scripture' is in fact compatible with scripture....but you condone the same actions anyway? Are you an evangelical? Posted by: Simon Morden Tuesday 13 December 2011 - 08:46pm Dave - "Simon, I said "Reform type churches I have been to have not majored on homosexuality. They have majored on the gospel. If a moral message has been given undue prominence it has been something less controversial such as giving or chastity." I did not say "things don't happen to gay people in our churches" I would recommend St Ebbe's Oxford and St Mary's Cheadle to anyone. Dave" So, in my experience you're wrong in the first instance, and you're happy to deny the evidence from a reputable scholar because he was gay. You might be able to recommend St Ebbe's and St Mary's to anyone: why don't you find a gay Christian and see if they can? Posted by: Dave Tuesday 13 December 2011 - 12:30pm Mark, My apologies, I was responding to the turn this tread has recently take rather than you post at the end of mine. My post was a response to specific points in your post as separate points rather than steps in a defence of liturgy. I have nothing against liturgy and liturgists. I am making the point what was made against me in earlier discussion on evolution that he is the wrong sort of specialist. He does not bring to the OT the quality of insight that Kenneth Bailey brings to the New. The point I was trying to make from the liturgy was that the basis of you fellowship is that we are forgiven sinners. We are not good church members because of our thriving business, trophy wife and angelic children. When we come to church our pride, lusts, sloth must be challenged but so must inappropriate relationships. Our liturgy represents the movements of the spiritual life. this movement is denied if we fail to call sin sin. Thus proper exegesis is essential If you want to discuss Ruth or sexuality in general, I would suggest another thread is required. You can speculate on David and Jonathan relationship if you want to.Tthere is not sufficient evidence in scripture to show they were gay or that such a hypothetical gay relationship was approved of by God, the author, the court, Samuel or anyone else. Dave Posted by: Dave Tuesday 13 December 2011 - 11:44am Simon, I said "Reform type churches I have been to have not majored on homosexuality. They have majored on the gospel. If a moral message has been given undue prominence it has been something less controversial such as giving or chastity." I did not say "things don't happen to gay people in our churches" I would recommend St Ebbe's Oxford and St Mary's Cheadle to anyone. Dave Posted by: Simon Morden Tuesday 13 December 2011 - 12:32am Nersen - no answer, because, surprisingly, I have a life that doesn't operate to your timescale. Scripture - how about Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:27-37, and Matthew 25:31-46? Or do you think your verses trump my verses? Or can you finally acknowledge that simply trading prooftexts gets you nowhere and you need to engage both your brain and your heart on this issue? Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Monday 12 December 2011 - 10:17pm I believe these Bible resources will be welcome and useful to some here. http://sites.hrc.org/scripture/ Posted by: Another David Monday 12 December 2011 - 07:34pm Waterangel, It was not my intention at all to imply that only the single middle-aged are excluded, by no means. As you say, the church should be the place where the marginalised are accepted and loved. Vikki referred to the Pharisees, and Jesus' harshest words were for them. For instance, "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." (Matt. 23.4). What that says to me is that if we require that people behave in a certain way, we - as a church - should be doing everything possible to help people deal with the consequences. I'm suggesting that for single people, of whatever sexual orientation, that being included in families is one way of meeting their needs for affection and friendship. After all "God sets the lonely in families" (Ps 68.6). There is a risk of this being condescending. However, I suspect that once the relationship is established it will be found to be of mutual value. One value, I think, of considering the place of single people, is that this does not draw a line between the heterosexual and the homosexual, they can be treated equally and without distinction. Putting it another way, the church, as the body of Christ, should be a place which welcomes the weary and burden, and be a place where they can find rest. The experience of many gay people (and others) would appear to be contrary to that. Let's try to work out the practical ways in which we can change. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 12 December 2011 - 03:15pm Hi Waterangel, not sure John 3:36 or lots of things Christ said throughout the gospels are 'inclusive', are they? A Hindu friend of mine just read Matthew and was surprised that Christ was not cuddly and soft.... Simon, no answer...? If, your view conflicts with scripture, does it matter to you? Posted by: WATERANGEL Monday 12 December 2011 - 02:02pm What is Christlike ? What would Jesus do? What did Jesus do? He preached Love instead of Hate He entered into the lives of those he saved, those who accepted him, he laughed with them. he wept with them, he ate with them, He fed the hungry He healed the sick He let people feed him He let people care for him He gave people hope and vision The he let himself be killed and he died before being ressurected in the body for a short while to leave his spirit , that we might follow in his footsteps. I can do all of the above though i will probably be rejected as a poor substitute, the only thing i cannot do is be ressurected, so i can never be truly and fully Christlike... Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 11 December 2011 - 09:39pm Another David The church does not just exclude middle aged single men and women, as you state it excludes anyone who does not fit into the 2.2 family model and always has. It excludes slow learners, it excludes the minority of the time or it over includes them as a token gesture it excludes the disabled in fact i would go so far as to say, there is a Hitler mentality in some churches . No nothing is said, they are far too cruel and clever for that, they just nod or rock up and down on their toes or do a sarkozy a swift turn in the other direction..Because the church in some instances is a place built on years of history and generations of families and connections so if you are not born in it you are always playing catch up, unless you have the ability to be exceptional or the confidence to shout no matter what.. The church so often wants to do religion to a person rather than sharing a faith with a person. Inclusion is always done with a "you are so lucky we are allowing you to be with us" slant, not a we are so lucky to have you..Yes it rips peoples guts out stamps on them and puts them in the bin..But we are so lucky that they allow us to allow them to do it. So Jesus died for misfits if there was a place for us we would not need Jesus. I just got fed up with trying to fit in, now i don't care, i only value the clergy that live what they preach, i only value academics that learn through experience and don't leech off of everyone Else's experience, i don't value clergy that make you feel like the **** on their shoe, and i certainly do not value clergy who hurt people and don't deal with it year in and year out and i don't value the authorities in the church who use policy and procedure to protect abusive clergy in which ever way they abuse. I don't respect clergy who get you into their church purely to be a free helping hand whilst they would never be a friend of that person. Like i said the church is the loneliest place to be if you are perceived as being different in any way. It is very sad, that the place that was supposed to create inclusion has actually excluded many who they feel they cannot contain. Posted by: Fern Sunday 11 December 2011 - 09:05pm Evening all, I'd like to add my thanks to Vikki - how we treat each other is vitally important. My observation, for what it's worth, of conservative evangelical, Reform type churches is that they don't really 'do' pastoral care. Vikki, (and, I'm sure others participating on or just reading this thread) experienced much unkindness and harshness but I suspect many heterosexuals would have similar stories to tell of their treatment when they found themselves labelled as sexual outlaws for whatever reason. The attitude seems to be that those deemed to be transgressing need to have the error of their ways pointed out to them. God then either extends grace to the person who amends their behaviour in which no pastoral care is necessary or, alternatively, God witholds grace and so no pastoral care is possible. Either way, it's pretty chilly. And, possibly more importantly, it leads to an unbalanced gospel as too much weight is placed on sexual continence. Inevitably, those is happy marriages who have no problem upholding high standards of biblical morality tend to feel ever-so slightly superior to those who struggle. And you can, after all, live a life of impeccable moral rectitude and be ungenerous, uncaring and flinty-hearted. Perhaps we need to hear more in our churches about being morally proper and yet totally unChristlike. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 11 December 2011 - 08:46pm Simon...er...no...I meant only what I asked...does it matter to you if your view is backed by scripture or not? Posted by: Simon Morden Sunday 11 December 2011 - 04:04pm Nersen - what you mean is, I should subordinate God to your view of scripture. Wow. You do know that the Bible isn't in the Trinity, don't you? And there's a person sitting on the judgement seat, not a book? Also, isn't it funny (as in sad, not ha-ha) that those who insist on a strict reading of scripture found themselves on the wrong side of democracy, slavery, the Jim Crow laws, women's rights, apartheid, and women's ordination? And usury and divorce, except those are useful to white, straight evangelical Christians, so we give those a by. Dave - so, those things don't happen to gay people in our churches? And the Reform church I went to for twenty years certainly majored on the evils of homosexuality. They certainly threw gay people out. They denied them communion. They said they were unrepentent sinners and were subsequently not saved. Indignant statements like "You had better be careful throwing around words like prejudice without careful definition" only go to underline the suspicion that you have absolutely no idea what it's like to be gay and evangelical, and have no interest in finding out. So, yes. Prejudice. Own it. Be proud of it. Or you can go back and read what Vicky and Anon have written about their experiences in churches like the one I used to go to, and you probably still do, and try not to insult them further by calling them liars. Posted by: Mark Bennet Sunday 11 December 2011 - 03:14pm Dave You have completely misunderstood my last post - at least I cannot see how your last comment would relate to a proper understanding of it. But there we are. Just so you know, when I was much younger the confession and absolution came in an alternative position after the ministry of the word. Indeed the paradigmatic position for the Church of England Communion Service is that given in our normative liturgy - the Book of Common Prayer - where the confession, absolution and comfortable words come just before the communion. Evangelicals liked this - in my youth - because it meant that confession came as a response to scripture and preaching. And more generally ... To pick up a point of Vicki's, Charles Causley quoted WH Auden as saying that while there is no good poetry which is solely for children, there is poetry which can only be understood with the benefit of adult experience. The Bible is an adult text and our experiences enliven our understanding of it. Indeed some parts of the text which seem irrelevant to our lives can come into sharp focus as a result of the experiences we have. The Word of God, after all, is living and active. Posted by: Another David Sunday 11 December 2011 - 03:04pm I would like to thank Vikki for her contributions to this thread. I, too, would like to see a more constructive debate about how we treat people, rather than just a reiteration of established positions. For my part, what impresses me most about both sides is the weaknesses in their arguments. This impasse leaves my confused and befuddled. But that is a better state than that of those who are real victims of the atmosphere created. What Vikki's contribution and the original article by Anonymous have shown is that there is a real failure in Evangelical churches to serve and love some of our brothers and sisters in a way which is, shall we say, 'compatible with Scripture' (John 13 comes to mind). Some reading this will remember John Eddison. I recall a talk he gave over 30 years ago when he said that Jesus had much more to say about the dangers of money than the dangers of sex. I remember it partly because John was the very image of a respectable, establishment figure, but also because the talk was to a group of students, who have better access to sex than to money! (So, it is perhaps surprising that Reform in its Covenant has three items on relations between the sexes and sexual relations but nothing on our relationship to wealth). As a single (and celibate), middle-aged (heterosexual) man I have a tiny insight into the issue that faces those of same-sex orientation, knowing something of unfulfilled yearnings and desires. One thing I am aware of is how the social relationships within a church tend to exclude the older, single person. When you have an emphasis on family or, at least, marriage, that does put those not conforming to the norm on the outside. To use C.S. Lewis' four loves, I think those of us who are denied through choice, necessity or obligation 'eros' perhaps need more of the others, of 'storge', of 'philia', and of 'agape'. Actually, I think we all need these. Perhaps one of the ways we have taken too much of the world into the church is the view that all one's emotional needs are to be met in one life-partner. That expectation puts a great strain on that relationship. If we add into that the reduction in size of the group we call 'family', there is a malaise in our society generally. At a practical level, I think that this means families opening their doors to involve others. As a single person, it is great to be made part of the ordinary, day to day chaos of a family. And there have been times when it has been really theraputic. This is an area in which we have a real opportunity to show the world that we are the disciples of Jesus by the quality of our relationships within the church. And it can start with a simple invitation to lunch. Posted by: Dave Sunday 11 December 2011 - 10:12am Vicki. We argue about the cross as well. We argue about atonement when Steve Chalke writes about it. We argue about justification when John Piper criticizes Tom Wright. This is probably not noticed in the world. It does deepen our appreciation for what Christ has done for us. Archbishops talk about African or criticize the government. that goes down well. so how does an evangelical church treat you. It welcomes you and probably gives you weak coffee. It listens to you and probably explains why it does not agree with you. Reform type churches I have been to have not majored on homosexuality. They have majored on the gospel. If a moral message has been given undue prominence it has been something less controversial such as giving or chastity. Dave Posted by: WATERANGEL Sunday 11 December 2011 - 10:09am Mark B It is not insane to challenge corporate greed, but it is insane to destroy things rather than utilize them. For instance it would make financial sense not to destroy objects that have been gained through illegal activity and use them to the good of the genuine poor, i have never understood that part of the law. It is insane to throw food away when it can be used in the same way. It is also insane to reject and dispose of people who are different, rather than following the gospel instruction of a "time and a place" everyone has a use, and a value Gay or Straight is not the issue, evangelical or conservative is not the issue, balance is the issue , the right time and place for the right individual is the issue, you dont play football on the golf course it is possible but there is no goal post. But the time and place gospel analagy does not give enough space for instance to "difference" All this homophobic behaviour is about people being uncomfortable with difference and nothing else, people do not like what they do not understand. I am very sane though sometimes emotionally fragile, like a lot of people!! when we look at the gospel and its guidance, we have to be so careful in the "sharing of it" because from experience i can tell you that Jesus starts his work within us before we even know it, that work continues until we die, this we know as fact it is part of growing with Christ. Clear distinctions need to be made, for the sanity of the vulnerable, i am not putting a status or state on the word vulnerable, because there is no such thing. Being vulnerable is not just about being of a different sexual persuasion or being poor or disabled, its about being "different". Jesus was vulnerable and considered by some as insane. I am barren it is not my fault, though of course i often ask the question why every normal thing in life has been denied me. I just kept going to church, so i dont understand why i am barren. I dont understand why my husband died of MND when we were faithful to each other, like all couples we had our problems but we were faithful to each other and i am faithful now, because i understood that , that was what Jesus said , he told us to be faithful. The choices i made left me isolated If i had been more selfish maybe my life would have been better, but then i would not have been me.. You are right corporate heads cannot be left at the door of the church, you are who you are in Christ, It is no accident that the way people conduct their relationships is a reflection of how they conduct their business. If you are of the ilk that will overcharge people without concience , you are probably likely to overindulge in other ways, including sexual relationships, the entanglement of how people operate their business, and how they treat people cannot be seperated.. That is why it is so difficult, for the business brain and the pastoral brain fight each other all the time, but it is possible to operate fairly but only with like minded people. So corporately discernment is the best gift Jesus gave you and discernment can only be achieved if you are putting Jesus first, because Jesus only wants the best for you.. The parables are their for a reason they put in practical terms and financial terms the Spiritual lessons we need to live wholesome lives , heh but what do i know???lol BUT more importantly Jesus was different!! but he also makes a difference he makes things different, when we hear him that is!! Waterangel Posted by: Dave Sunday 11 December 2011 - 09:37am Simon, You write: "If you're going to deny people communion, fellowship and even salvation, at least be honest about it." I do not recall reading any such suggestion on this thread or elsewhere on Fulcrum. You had better be careful throwing around words like prejudice without careful definition. On your usage, any moral view could be called prejudice and I am sure that it is not your intention to do away with morality. Dave Posted by: Dave Sunday 11 December 2011 - 09:15am Mark, When we (as Anglicans), come to worship we come as sinners. That is why the liturgy begins with confession and absolution. The gospel demands not only faith but also change. This is not only a message for bankers or prostitutes or tax collectors, who were numbered amongst Jesus friends. It is a message to all of us with our pride, anger, bitterness, lust etc. Paul's list is longer. It is the greatest disservice to individual to excuse his sin. Thus the increasingly personal attacks on those who maintain a conservative understanding of scripture are misplaced. Dave Posted by: Mark Bennet Saturday 10 December 2011 - 09:06pm Thanks to those who have brought sanity back to this discussion - if we examine the parable of the "good samaritan" we see that the priority some give to conversion by persuasion was not what Jesus had in mind when he thought of the command "love your neighbour". If we conduct our corporte lives in such a way that we have to leave part of our identity at the church door, then we can't bring that identity into the place of judgment, nor can we express corporately the redemption of our real selves in Christ. Our liturgy does, or ought, to count for something in our corporate life - and our liturgical scholars help us to make real and to enact the fundamental truths of the Gospel. Dave - Paul says that sex with a prostitute means an indissoluble union (marriage?). Read the story of Ruth, where the "metaphor" is obviously used physically [otherwise Ruth would freeze]. Engage with the fact that consummation makes marriage even today (unconsummated marriages can be annulled, which is different from divorce), that proven fertility made marriage in some contexts (the tragedy of the barren wife is a resonant theme in scripture), and that Solomon (not so long after Ruth) had many wives and concubines. I could add more examples. Then start talking about sex, relationships and marriage with some sort of useful biblical literacy. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 10 December 2011 - 06:39pm Vicki, did you change your mind on what scripture says and means? Interested in why, if you did...I'm quite happy to ditch 'the mind of the communion' if it is incompatible with scripture. Simon, you seem to say you don't care if your view goes against scripture? Posted by: WATERANGEL Saturday 10 December 2011 - 02:54pm OR in other words! The gospel is a lonely place, It absorbs, fills and empties. displaying the shadows, where the son shines on our face. leaders and followers , of every persuasion colour and race. Precious people, Gods creations individuals no connections. But for the Spirit left for us , To show the way, or to make life worth living; just one more day. That we might hear What Jesus has to say... It was simple, I AM the Way.. All we need to know is Who is Jesus ?!! Jesus is the way, An absorbtion of all that is Good Giving peace and harmony, Like he said he would.... Waterangel Posted by: Charles Read Saturday 10 December 2011 - 02:36pm Michael Vasey was indeed a liturgist for most of his academic career but was appointed to St John's College initially to teach OT and took up liturgy on the side. Indeed you cannot be a good liturgist if you do not wrestle with scripture - but that's another story. I am not clear we know of his HIV status. He died of two heart attacks on subsequent days, which were brought on by liver failure, the result of a longstanding illness. He was open about being gay - and celibate. As Christians we need to be careful we don't malign a dead brother surely? The CEN ran a story about him being HIV positive - causing much distress to those of us who were his friends - but I do not know where they got that idea from. Plus - if we are saying that only OT scholars may be used as authorities in this kind of debate have we replaced the infallibility of the pope with the infallibility of the professor? I only ask because in the US I'd be a theology professor (as would be DaveR) and if I am to be infallible, even if only in the USA, I'd like to know. Posted by: Vicki Saturday 10 December 2011 - 12:54pm Dave - Fair points and I should amend my statement to "it is not just academic". I should not ignore the scholastic, and indeed legistlative, side to the debate in my desire to rebalance some weight towards the issue of pastoral care. nersenpaul - A little background. I used to be a very active member in a conservative evangelical church within the Reform group - signing up wholeheartedly to their position. I studied theology and was, I felt, made stronger by the constant and challenging liberalism there (as I saw it). From witnessing to my school friends by the age of 10 (how obnoxious I must have been!) through to the age of 32, I held a conservative view, and did not think that a million years would ever get me to abandon the Scriptural position that I believed was so clear on many of these things. No liberal could 'turn' me and few could best me in an argument on the Scriptural justification of my position - which is why, incidentally, I have little hope of this current debate changing people's entrenched views as it would never have changed mine. Only when it became personal did I finally catch on. Many lgbt perfectly understand the traditional position as that used to be their own view; but actually this particular challenge is for you. How to juxtapose what you see as God's condemnation of our behaviour with his offer of salvation to all who sincerely ask (do you believe that being gay negates our trust in the cross?) How to treat those you view as dangerously undermining Scripture when they also claim to be genuinely seeking the truth of the Word. Is this issue of more importance than preaching the Gospel (because currently the non-Christian world hears far more about the church agruing over being gay than about the cross!) There is is also a serious reality that in being passionate to pull up tares, wheat will also be lost. Hence why Jesus says to leave the judging to God. So, the short answer - apologies for my longwindedness - How do we want to be treated? Just the same as you want to be treated. With humble listening, respect and an acknowledgment that every one if us is like a child before God; with our flaws, mistakes, misunderstandings, misplaced pride, but also that in our stumbling way we are also trying to please him. I don't believe anymore in a God who is so bound by the law that he cannot respond with grace to those who are 'sincere but wrong'. I don't believe Jesus came so that we could simply have another shot at meeting the requirements of the law, I believe he came for those who are sincere but wrong. I won't take pride in my wrongness, but instead of focussing on the law, I am going to focus on my sincerity, because I think he considers that more important. Posted by: Simon Morden Saturday 10 December 2011 - 11:55am Vicky - blessings to you and yours, and to Anon. Cards on the table. I don't care what 'the mind of the Communion' or 'the plain reading of Scripture' says, if it gets in the way of behaving like a decent human being. As is all too painfully obvious from some on this thread, people will excuse their own inexcusable behaviour by (literally) hiding behind the words of others. We have a litany of good evangelical Christians refusing to own their own behavior - refusing to even acknowledge the hurt and pain they inflict on other people who, most hurtfully of all are only allowed to 'claim to be homosexual'. If you're going to deny people communion, fellowship and even salvation, at least be honest about it. Don't hide the fact that you are prejudiced by saying that's the traditional teaching of the church. Say you are prejudiced because of what the church teaches. By deciding that that's the line you're going to toe, by repeating those words, you own them. They're your prejudices. You may feel entirely justified in having them, but that's what they are, and it'd be brilliant if you admitted it. Unfortunately for me, I can't do that any more. I know and am friends with too many gay people, Christian and non-Christian, to be able to sustain that prejudice. My experience of them, their friendship and the fruit of their lives has challenged me and changed me. They are not some acadmenic argument to be made, but friends of mine who'd just like to go out for a drink without getting beaten up, or go to a hotel without being turned away, or take their kid to football practice without being called a 'f*cking paedo', or even go to church without being chased back out the door. If you think that makes me a bad person (certainly a bad evangelical), then I'm genuinely glad, because I don't seek approval from you. The right thing to do in this case is not the traditional evangelical thing to do. I'm not sorry that I try and treat everyone decently. God will be my judge, but I'm absolutely certain that won't stop some of you getting your ha'pennyworth in first. Posted by: DavidR Saturday 10 December 2011 - 10:21am Dave (Not sure this this will have already posted - it suddenly vanished off my screen half written .... ) You write: 'Michae Vasey as a litugist, not an OT scholar. Thus his academic standing does not give wight to his views.' Well let's pause there - what are your credentials for judging Vasey or for offering any opinions of your own on this thread? What is your weight and standing? You also previously asserted that 'Michael Vasey found what he wanted to find'. That is nothing to do with academic qualifications. You presumed to stand in judgement on the whole integrity of fellow Christian and their faith. Well even if it is true he finds plenty of good company on this thread. Let those without guilt cast the first stone. Shall I go first or you? Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 10 December 2011 - 09:07am Hi Waterangel, you are right, and my gay friends would agree that I am not as caricatured by some when they fail to give anything from scripture, not silence or going against scripture which suddenly doesn't mean what it says or has been understood to mean for millennia but they know better, for their revisionist position ..... I understand the honest revisionists rather than those who assert compatibility with scripture but end up arguing from silence to ignore scripture and tradition. Most importantly, if God says we should not do some acts, is it kind at all to teach anyone that God does not mind? Posted by: WATERANGEL Friday 9 December 2011 - 07:15pm Vicky The views you have expressed, align with my own, I understand very well the points you are making, it is not just about whether a person is Gay though. The views are views that look at the Gospel and see black and white print , words passed down through the ages, some of those words neither express the emotion felt when they were written, some do, they are contradictory words, and they are words given to enable "individuals" to relate to God and to work their own journey with God on the earth, and when they make that journey they make it in the shadows/or light of the journeys made before them.. I find the attitude of some people who have an inability to empathise and sympathise as a long term issue a problem..YET they are often chosen as leaders because they are unaffected by the strength of critisism that comes there way. Its a bit like poor Nerson he always gets it in the neck, i am sure he is not as hardlined as he likes to portray and that he is probably a closet nice person, he just hides it well (lol) sometimes.. It seems to me that some academic theologians and those who aspire to be academic theologians are more disaffected by the REAL emotion , and COMPASSION that Jesus most certainly had..It seems to me to be like "the parable of the son" dilemma, I think some people really struggle to understand that whether you are a diligent student/tutor and follow the words of the gospel literally in every sense and spend a lot of time in prayer and worship, that when they stand before God alongside the person who has broken every biblical rule in the book , they will not burn in hell, because they will often have already lived it, God will not reject them in the last days, he will continue to offer them the opportunity to recognise him as Lord and Saviour until their last breath.. God will Love them because he created them, and he will Love them more if the world persecutes them and keeps them from their rightful place where they can worship him, serve him and be what God intended them to be.. For we are told if you have everything but "not love" you have nothing. Strange how they always miss that one!! Waterangel Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 9 December 2011 - 12:38pm Vicki, how do you want people to be treated if they teach that behavior incompatible with scripture is fine? If they claim to be evangelical, is it not fair to ask for a case from scripture? Mark, context is the key....scripture says don't do x, you can't show David and Jonathan did x ......no scripture based challenge to the mind of the Communion from you or Roger, just arguments from silence which ignore lots of teaching where scripture is not silent Posted by: Dave Friday 9 December 2011 - 11:15am Vicki, Homosexuality and assisted suicide are academic issues. They are also legal issues and matters of church polity. However you view the doctrine of "double effect", I trust you agree that we need to be cautious in any reduction in the protection for the vulnerable. Dave Posted by: Dave Friday 9 December 2011 - 11:09am Mark , Fine, produce your evidence. My apologies if I have missed something you said before. More important, what is your conclusion. If all you are saying is we don't know as much about this relationship as we think, a may agree. The reference in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel show that the covering with a cloak was a metaphor for marriage. Dave Posted by: Dave Friday 9 December 2011 - 10:56am DavidR Michae Vasey as a litugist, not an OT scholar. Thus his academic standing does not give wight to his views. antoyher of his students, David Philips writes as follows: Michael was my tutor at theological college and I was grateful for his help but saddened by what happened to him and by what felt like an attempt to cover up the fact that he was HIV positive when he died. It is hard to think of others who claimed to be evangelical who were publicly arguing as Michael did a decade ago, but now there are increasing numbers of people doing so. Again the arguments from Scripture are feeble and it is hard to understand why people are so taken in by them but we also see that for many when they have friends or family who claim to be homosexual this seems to cloud their judgement and their reading of Scripture. http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_121_EvangelicalDrift.pdf Dave Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 9 December 2011 - 09:48am Thank you Vicki for your heart-felt posting. It is so easy to forget the deep pastoral implications in our discussions in this area and to be waylaid by textual analysis while forgetting the heart-ache of lbgt people. I'm grateful that you have brought us back to Anon's original plea to understand something of what it means to be 'evangelical and gay', to be part of a church that is often excluding and lacking in empathy and, at times, downright rejecting. This is where the 'letter of the law' blinds us to the reality that we are all beloved by God. Posted by: Vicki Thursday 8 December 2011 - 07:09pm I've been interested to read this thread, though it is a shame that the discussion has, as ever, ended up in an argument over interpretation. Odd words from a professed evangelical you may think, but there is another issue here. One of the key issues drawn out by Anon is the treatment of gay (and lgbt) people by the church. Sadly, I do not think the theology will be resolved for several generations because there are too many hangovers which currently impede a change of heart. Not disimilar to slavery, racism, oppression of women (a husband having chattel rights as the 'head' for example) and other instances where the church has been so appallingly wrong, it takes time for people to be willing and able toeven entertain the idea that perhaps what they were taught is wrong. One day future Christians will look back on today's church in horror as wonder how we ever justified our behaviour. That's not to say I don't think discussions are important. They are - enormously. Personally, I have no desire to enter into the hermenutics debate here, for the simple reason of the point I think Anon was drawing attention to. While those who argue against do so about something that is academic, albeit often passionately, for those of us who are lgbt it is personal, painful and concerns our very selves. It is not disimilar to discussing the academic Scriptural interpretation of 'do not murder' with someone whose father is dying slowly and painfully of a terminal disease and whether the large quantities of morphine which relieve his pain is actually commiting murder. (Yes, I have also had that experience). I have come to the conclusion that as evangelicals we have become overly proud (arrogant?) of our Biblical heritage. The importance we place on our understanding of Scripture has left us oblivious to the damaged souls we leave in our righteous wake. I think we have become Pharisaic in our attitude, sadly like many Pharisees, with the best intention of keeping God's followers on the 'straight and narrow'. This is not an academic subject. Take whichever viewpoint you wish, but please express it with the knowledge that you are debating one of the deepest, most personal aspect of someone's life. Some may have tried to commit suicide or self-harm, others hate themselves and pray in anguish to be rid of this 'disease' within themselves, some are clinically depressed. Others, like me, are exhausted but have found new churches to make home - though after being publically thrown out of my church of 12 years (which was basically also my family, my friendship group, my housemates and much of my identity), it has taken over a year before I could hear the words 'This is God's food for God's people, no one is turned away' said at communion where I now am, without weeping at the contrast to my old church where as a parting shot I was forbidden to take part should I ever wish(!) to return. Yes, there is a debate to be had about the interpretation, the morality and the right and wrong. But if this is to get anywhere, those of you on the traditional side of the fence must learn to first treat us as people, not as academic texts or pet projects or amoral deviants. Treat us as brothers and sisters with whom you disagree, but as brothers and sisters nevertheless. This is why Anon feels he has to be anon, and that is very, very wrong. Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 8 December 2011 - 05:38pm Dave So most OT scholars have not addressed themselves to the aspect of the text which is now in view - I do not think there is much to be concluded from that, and it does not prevent me from addressing myself to that aspect. "I see no evidence" is a very different statement from "there is no evidence" and I want to pick up the evidence and test it. I note that John Goldingay cannot exclude a sexual aspect - so overstrong statements that it isn't there, which are frequently made in these discussions, cannot be justified even on that basis. As to the Ruth passage, I am at a loss as to how you think that the references you have given are supposed to help me. Ezekiel, in particular, is centuries later. And about your comment on Michael Vasey - my fundamental question is precisely how you know that you are not just finding what you want to find? Whether I am not just finding what I want to find? And I think that requires a deeper engagement with the text than anyone, on any side of this debate, has yet achieved (and I include myself in that). Mark Posted by: DavidR Thursday 8 December 2011 - 04:42pm Dave - glad you liked Goldingay. A few comments. You did claim that 'reputable' commentators do not support any notion of homosexual allusions in connection with David and Jonathan. But you now agree with me that what commentaries we have between us do not actually discuss it at all. I have to say I am fully with Mark and his line of conversation and the discussion he is exploring. He is rightly urging care in the way we approach the text in the first place - the presuppositions and culture we bring that shapes what we think we find there. I note Goldingay says neither side can draw conclusions on this debate from the text. So it is just as much 'idle speculation' to claim that there is no possiblity of homosexual content to their friendship here as to claim there is. You write: 'Michael Vasey of couse found what he wanted to find. He had no standing as an OT scholar.' Dave, Michael was a friend and a very careful, widely read scholar and an evangelical Christian of deep biblically based faith. You clearly did not know him. Please - we can strongly disagree with people without insulting their basic integrity or faith. 'the meaning which you want is not in the text' Posted by: Dave Thursday 8 December 2011 - 11:20am DavidR. My reference to reputable scholars was made as a challenge and my search of the commentaries gave much the same result as yours. Thank you for drawing my attention to John Goldingay who is correct in saying " If that means ‘did they have sex?’ the story neither says they did nor says they did not, nor does it offer any pointers in either direction, so the question is a pointless one." Michael Vasey of couse found what he wanted to find . He had no standing as an OT scholar. The meaning which you want is simply not in the text. If Mark had any real doubt as to the meaning of Ruth 3:9, he should consider Deut 23:1, 27:20 and Ezek 16:8 Dave Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 7 December 2011 - 07:33pm I don’t know which scholars Dave is calling ‘reputable’ (perhaps he could tell us). Most of the commentaries on 1&2Samuel on my shelves don’t even discuss the question. But then I don’t really expect them to. Evidence is the mind trained in close textual analysis does not seem to move easily within the subtle spaces where sensitive reflection on relationships can happen. These commentaries are also nearly all by men and I am not convinced we men approach this kind of reflection easily at all (try comparing commentaries by men on the story of Hannah. They are often embarrassingly patronizing). But one exception, who should be on Dave’s list, is John Goldingay. I have already quoted him on this thread. On the relationship between David and Jonathan he writes: ‘The question has been raised whether the relationship between David and Jonathan was a homosexual one. If that means ‘did they have sex?’ the story neither says they did nor says they did not, nor does it offer any pointers in either direction, so the question is a pointless one. The story’s significance in the context of contemporary same-sex relationships surely lies rather in pointing to possibilities and raising questions for men to think about as we look at relationships with other men. Gender myths (or cultural truths) say that women are better at relationships than men, and specifically at same-sex relationships. If so the story encourages …. men to believe in the possibility of friendships with each other and with women. ‘ (Men behaving badly p150) The tragedy is that when any community is deeply anxious about homosexuality as an ‘issue’ it has the effect of undermining the whole possibility of deep, nurturing, committed same-sex friendship at all. The cost of that in terms of human isolation is constantly underestimated. So it is no idle speculation to want to explore these questions. Posted by: Mark Bennet Wednesday 7 December 2011 - 07:23pm Dave - there are scholars such as Michael Vasey who have found homosexual allusions in the David/Jonathan narrative - what does your word "reputable" mean in this context? I am not so much interested in what "reputable" or "disreputable" scholars have said - I am backing my scholarship to ask questions and seek answers in a context in which those answers bear more weight than in the past. SPOILER ALERT Let's look at another text - Ruth 3v9 - what do you make of that verse? There is a song based on it "cover me" which seems to read it entirely innocently. But is it innocent? How do we know? I did think of starting a new thread with this (heterosexual) question - because we see in this thread a typical digression from the original question together with a predictable reversion to inherited evangelical tradition rather than principled study of the text. Mark Posted by: Dave Wednesday 7 December 2011 - 02:24pm Roger, My reasoning is that these homosexual allusions have not been found in the text by reputable scholars. They are idle speculation. You could pick on anyone and find some spurious reason to suggest that they may have been homosexual. However Scriptures does not teach that David or Jonathan was homosexual. It certainly does not approve any such implied relationship. Dave Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 7 December 2011 - 05:06am Roger, more word games? If an activity is only ever condemned in scripture, it's not an argument to ignore those prohibitions and then try to read into scripture blessing for the same....perhaps evangelicals might stick to what scripture actually says rather than ignoring scripture (and tradition) and arguing from what it does not say ....? I'm quite happy to agree with your revisionist view if you make a strong case from scripture. Posted by: Roger Hurding Tuesday 6 December 2011 - 05:12pm Dave Mark is right. Language is a slippery thing. If we were to read in a newspaper today that Kevin loved Jason with a love 'passing the love of women' (cf. 2 Sam. 1:26) many would infer a homosexual relationship. Your reasoning seems to be along the lines of: 'The Holiness Code forbids sexual intercourse between men, therefore David and Jonathan could not have been in such a relationship'. That may be so, but how can we be sure? After all, the Ten Commandments forbid adultery and yet David didn't score (forgive the pun!) too well on that prohibition. Of course, the bible is clear on the latter but less than clear about David and Jonathan's relationship. As Mark asks, 'how would we even know that there were homosexual allusions there to be decoded? I'm not trying to prove that they are there, but I am asking how we can know for certain that they aren't. And I'm doing that because I think the case that they might be deserves a proper hearing.' Posted by: Dave Tuesday 6 December 2011 - 12:54am Mark, Was Jesus homosexual as well? After all John was the disciple he loved? If you can convince me that David did not have intercourse with Bathsheba, i will accept he did with Jonathan. If Solomon was not David's biological son why is he mentioned in the next sentance. You present no evidence for this speculative reinterpretation David Posted by: Mark Bennet Monday 5 December 2011 - 06:45pm Dave At times in our society heterosexual relationships have been more explicitly described in polite society than homosexual ones, so your point would go nowhere, even were it valid. 2 Samuel 11:2-5 in the NIV has David "sleeping with" Bathsheba. As one cleric said in my youth "it's what they did when they weren't sleeping which caused the problem". Or a reported conversation between 16-year-olds at a girls school "have you slept with any boys" "yes, my brother" - which was innocence rather than incest. We can decode that language - but how would we even know that there were homosexual allusions there to be decoded? I'm not trying to prove that they are there, but I am asking how we can know for certain that they aren't. And I'm doing that because I think the case that they might be deserves a proper hearing. Mark Posted by: Dave Monday 5 December 2011 - 02:49pm Mark. There is no coyness or ambiguity in the accounts of David's sins with Bathsheba or the rape of Tamar. As the Bible tells us little of the relationship between David and Jonathan it is clutching at straws to find in this passage a justification of homosexuality. It is even weaker than finding homosexual temptation in Romans 7, even though this has been suggested by a TEC bishop (Spong) Dave Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 2 December 2011 - 12:01am Psalm 51 might be a natural place to see David's attitude to sin....no excuses, Jo ignoring prohibitions in scripture....no word games eg asking if we can be sure things only condemned in scripture are not in fact blessed ....psalm 51 is very illuminating....if people want to talk about what David did actually say.... Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 1 December 2011 - 10:43pm Erasmus, you are entitled of course to the point of view you express. It is my experience on this forum that engaging in a long discussion of it would add little to the sum of human understanding. I would like, though, to put on record that I don't think that you have dealt with the point I raised. To dismiss an attempt to read what the text actually says, and to locate how certain we can be as to the conclusions we reach, as "eisegesis" is simply wrong. My example of the "gay party" might suggest that it could be rather easy to miss what is there, as well as to read in what isn't - that is a fault in reading too. As I said, simple assertion will not do for me. I would also suggest that you have not justified the hermeneutical principle by which the texts in Romans govern the David/Jonathan ones rather than the other way about - and have assumed that they are talking about the same thing when this is far from clear - your argument is essentially circular. I would further suggest that the conceptualisation we may have of homosexual relationships and acts is based on categories which have developed in society subsequent to the fixing of the Canon, and we all need to take some care about imposing unscriptural categories on scripture. On the positive side, there are clearly notions of intimate/affectionate friendship in scripture which I believe we fail to develop as we should because we are a little afraid that they might transgress the boundaries we imagine under the heading of sex and sexuality, and this failure dangerously impoverishes our ideas about the meaning of intimacy with God in ways which have not always been the case. Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus Thursday 1 December 2011 - 08:49pm It is wonderful that Anon has written this and got this going and that Fulcrum published it -even with their Health Warning / Disclaimer - better than many an Evangelical group or Church group for that. Also very touching reading Ed and Michael's personal, honest and brave testimony. I wish the discussion well. But even though there are wonderful voices like Roger and Mark- forgive me I can't remember them all and not well enough tp leaf back jotting names down- many lovely voices and witness--but even here are the nasty voices -they can t let up for a minute can they? NO WONDER the opening piece was Anon -- from dire necessity. I am glad one friend here has discovered the disicipline and Witness of the Friends of Christ's Light in all. I had to distance myself from organised Evangelicalism in my late teens to save my sanity, as I received no help, as I realised I was gay at early puberty (no word for it in the late 50s and early 60s of course). Aversion 'therapy' at the pyschiartic out-patients didnt help at all -- as you can imagine. It is amazing that I was not successful in attempting suicide. I have since found in my experience that the liberal and catholic expressions of Christianity also betray lgbt folk. The Word of God is not a high priority in the offical corrdors of Evangelical power -- what an indictment. There is no word in Bible Hebrew and Greek for 'homosexual' or 'homosexuality' - could that be a clue ? I strongly recommend The Queer Bible Commentary (SCM) and now reduced to just under a tenner. It is largely written by international evangelical scholars and pastors. It is the least the anti-gay writers here could do, under God. Caritas Christi urget nos. A hundred years or less from now the offical Church leaders will be aplogising to all the lbgt people the Church wronged - great ! -- but those wronged down the centuries are dead - we too will be dead - so it is urgent for the leaders of Evangelcalism at all levels to make a change for gay people NOW. Teens and others as we heard here, are being hurt, isolated and even destroyed all the time by the effects of homophobia so there's little time for sedate parlour-game theological disussions and saying "both sides are valid". Anti-gay teaching has no validity and is vile before God. It is murderous. Dismiss me as extreme? Too unseemly? You can't say you didn't know now - can you ? Laurence Roberts Posted by: DavidR Thursday 1 December 2011 - 07:02pm It really oversimplifies the matter to point out David was very attracted to and attractive to women as if that proves he was not sexually attracted to Jonathan. In fact he clearly had difficulty relating with any real intimacy or commitment to women. He used them. He could not relate to his children either and that nearly cost him his throne. The problem with David’s extraordinary power and attractiveness as a personality is that he seems to be curiously unaware of it. Twice David asks ‘What have I done?’ at moments in the story when the answer is perfectly plain to anyone watching (1 Sam 17.29 & 20.1). He seems bewildered here, baffled at the effects of his actions and unable to make the relational connections. ‘The fact that he apparently lacked the capacity to commit himself in the way people commit themselves to him would be unsurprising if the whole business of the way he won people’s love was mystery to him.’ (see John Goldingay's Men behaving badly 2000:139). David is someone who inspires love rather than gives it; the object of love while appearing to do nothing to encourage it. Note that he never actually declares his love to anyone in return. But David’s friendship with Jonathan was clearly the most significant relationship in his life. The two are famously described as making a covenant together and much has been made of this on all sides of the sexuality debate. But the English translations conceal an essential detail in the story. There were different forms of covenant in that ancient world and the Hebrew here makes clear that in this covenant the initiative is with the first named person: Jonathan. David accepts the covenant but does not reciprocate (20.16). Only at one of their last meetings does he show a dawning realisation that he can trust this friend, and in that moving scene both weep, but ‘David wept the more’ (1 Sam 20.41). ‘Jonathan took David as close to loving someone as David could go, and he did so by being like him and loving him. Perhaps David thereby almost became able to love himself and therefore love someone else.’ (John Goldingay 2000:136). At the very least David's patterns of relating (or not relating) suggest a man who was sexually and emotional very complex. So perhaps it is misleading to use any supposed heterosexual or homosexual attraction in David's relationships a a sign of anything in particular in terms of the present debate? But nor should we simplistically separate friendship and sexual attraction to protect a preferred standpoint on the latter. Human beings are much more complex than that. Posted by: Erasmus Wednesday 30 November 2011 - 10:15pm 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. Posted by: Mark Bennet Wednesday 30 November 2011 - 01:44pm MK - if you were responding to me, you have missed my point. I am not speculating about what is, or is not, in the Biblical text - rather I am trying to read it accurately. Eric Jay in his "New Testament Greek An Introductory Grammar" says in the introduction "It is easy for the beginner to delude himself into a false optimism when he acquires a certain ease in translating Greek into English. Facility in translating English into Greek, however, is a better sign of progress." The reason is that to translate the "wrong" way requires an understanding of the idiom, expression and range of meaning in Greek - how shall I express this idea which I can explain perfectly well in English in Greek, so that I shall be saying to a Greek person what I intend, without ambiguity? In the David/Jonathan story, how do we know that there is no homoerotic aspect there? You see, you put forward quite strongly a universal statement about scripture which encompasses the interpretation of this story amongst others. Until you have done your exegesis on this passage, you cannot conclude your argument. And the exegesis ot the story is more complex than you seem prepared to admit. Consider (this is an example I have used before) the problems faced by a future student of English Literature faced with the apparently simple statement "I went to a gay party last night." This could mean anything from "I had a good time" to "I went to a homosexual orgy" - but a translator or interpreter who was not alert to the issues involved could simply get it wrong either way without realising, and read on having missed the point entirely. How do we avoid that danger in reading the story of David and Jonathan? It isn't obvious how we avoid such mistakes iin English, so it will take more than a mere assertion of clarity to make the argument. Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 30 November 2011 - 11:13am Degrading perversion?? Hitler thought that being a Jew was a degrading perversion!! Twisted Theology ?? you mean like thou shalt not judge" and each individual is responsible for themselves before God.. I am a straight married person but i would never say that same sex couples were perverted..Paedophilia is perverted, prostitution is a pervertion of loving relationships, group sex and swinging is perverted, in fact i would say that anything that does not value relationship is perverted, and masterbation is just selfish it means you cant be bothered to share it..Or that you have no-one to share it with and cant make a healthy relationship or you are confined in someway.. Jesus most certainly offered friendship to all. His frienship was not conditional, the woman at the well is an example of that. I really believe that if you need to express a view which is destructive and detrimental to other human beings, you need to ask the question of yourself, am I a true representation of Jesus..Jesus came to stop all that barbaric behaviour and it starts with changing the views.. I find the issue of homosexuality difficult, on one level i think its got nothing to do with me, and on another i think but some people are not able to choose. But on all levels i know that Jesus would support them, some of Jesus last words on the cross was "father forgive them for they know not what they do" ..When all of our journeys start and we are shaped physiologically, psychologically and spiritually, we have in some ways only the choice of ability emotionally as to how we respond to that.. Have a heart MK you never know you might find Jesus in there.. Waterangel Posted by: MK Tuesday 29 November 2011 - 08:58pm Trying to specuate whether there was any homoerotic feelings in particular biblical characters is pointless and irrelevant. The important things is that nowhere does the bible do anything other than declare sexual activity between people of the same sex to be a degrading perversion. Revisionists who seriously try to claim biblical warrant for their position cannot do so by a twisted theology of friendship, anymore than they can by a twisted theology of marriage. Posted by: Mark Bennet Tuesday 29 November 2011 - 06:33pm On whether we are about friendship or not, we are in complex territory. Of course it is not every friendship which is sexual or in which sexual feelings are either experienced or expressed. On the other hand we should not separate sex from friendship in the way that the world does, which leads to the commodification of sex outside relationship, and the reduction of relationship to value-laden transactions. Heterosexual intercourse between named individuals (Abraham and Sarah, Ruth and Boaz, David and Bathsheba etc etc) is invariably described in its narrative context by euphemism, which we have to decode if we are to understand the narrative correctly. In the early 20th Century, when homosexual acts between consenting adults were illegal in the UK, the sexual content of eg male friendships was rarely made explicit in literature, even though known to those involved - there was an underground understanding and language, and a social code, by which such things were understood. Even the law was euphemistic. We spoke of "confirmed bachelors" and "people who never married". Suppose the relationship between David and Jonathan had been a sexual one, or had an erotic content, how would the biblical narrative be different from the one we have? Given that the translations have been done, on the whole, by people who might have a motivation to portray the relationship as "innocently" as possible (in spite of David's more obvious transgressions), can we trust their emphasis? Would the suspicion of erotic content (whether or not well-founded) have explained Saul's attitude and behaviour better than alternatives? Personally, I don't think we have the material to answer such questions conclusively either way, except that I do think that Saul suspected the relationship, and I can't myself see an adequate alternative which would make sense of the narrative. Unless we can confidently say how a sexual relationship would have been differently portrayed, we cannot, in my view, conclude with any confidence that there was not sexual content to the relationship. Posted by: Erasmus Monday 28 November 2011 - 10:48pm 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.. Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 28 November 2011 - 06:40pm Roger, agreed re friendship in scripture, eg David and Jonathan....but friendship is not the issue, is it? Posted by: DavidR Monday 28 November 2011 - 01:25pm I couldn't agree more Nersen. That 'elephant in the room'. And whatever room you go to he turns up crowding everyone out and trumpeting endlessly. Maddening. Posted by: Roger Hurding Monday 28 November 2011 - 11:57am Thank you DavidR for your corrective for us to keep to the theme of 'evangelical and gay' and to you Anon for your wise and gracious response to User 4228. I agree with what you say about marriage. I too regard its institution very highly but feel that its centrality in Genesis 2 and elsewhere through the sciptures does not exclude the comparable but distinctive value of friendship. I greatly appreciate your view that 'the best starting-point for thinking about gay relationships' is ' a theology of friendship'. That I feel is a rich relational model, neglected by many but with much biblical support, and helps to establish that committed gay relationships have a value that is distinctive from marriage with, as User 4228 emphasizes, its potential for procreation.
Posted by: Jody
Monday 28 November 2011 - 11:14am
Dear Friends, I am copying to you a reply from the author of the article...blessings, Jody _________________________________________ 'I am pleased to respond to User 4228 because I think his charges are serious and weighty. It is curious that the respondent argues that ‘Marriage is part of God’s revelation of himself in creation’, but then uses Barth in order to justify the position. In Church Dogmatics III.4, Barth uses the language of ‘command’, but not the language of ‘revelation’: revelation, for Barth, is necessarily divine Self-Revelation in Jesus Christ. As it happens, I agree with much of Barth’s teaching on the subject, and have sought neither to redefine marriage nor to assert the equivalence of same-sex relationships with marriage. The best starting-point for thinking about gay relationships is not a theology of marriage, which in its correspondence to ‘the relationship between Yahweh and His people…and between Jesus Christ and His community’ (Barth) is unique, but a theology of friendship. That does not mean that a theology of marriage will not inform our understanding of gay relationships, but it does indicate that what is being considered is something distinct, and not a mere imitation. It is this mere imitation which is rightly rejected by Barth. The charge that I emphasize the love of God at the expense of his holiness is a stark one. It is also, for me, a new one! I firmly believe the whole of humanity to be under the judgement of God. Those of us who use the Lectionary will know that the feast of Christ the King in Year A demands a sermon on the separation which judgement entails (Matthew 25.31 ff.). I preached one myself. That said, an Anglican preaching on Matthew 25.34 will want to allude to Article 17: ‘Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God…’. This election of humanity in Jesus Christ is the context in which the law of God is declared and received. Our God is indeed a consuming fire, as the respondent rightly reminds us from Hebrews 12.29; and this fire will destroy everything that spoils the goodness of God’s world, including the prejudice which gay people suffer in our churches. Our Orthodox brothers and sister would take issue with the respondent’s claim that ‘we do not become divine’. I suspect the apostle Peter would, too (2 Peter 1.4). That does not, of course, undermine the need to live responsibly in the light of the word of God. In fact, it reinforces it. I am, therefore, pleased that our attention has been drawn to the peril of idolatry. Where a marriage has been abandoned in order to start a homosexual relationship (Romans 1.27), the charge of idolatry is rightly made. But I reject the suggestion that all homosexual relationships are necessarily idolatrous: the very notion of a homosexual relationship seems not to have been envisaged by the biblical writers. For a Puritan, with his or her ‘regulative principle’, this may sound the death knell for a respectable theology of gay relationships. For an Anglican, this is ‘a dangerous extremity’ (Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 2.VIII.7). An Anglican theology of gay relationships will be supremely Scriptural, but it will not be solely Scriptural: it will listen to the voices of the Church’s tradition and of human reason. Before the nineteenth century, it seems this led to a degree of uneasy toleration. Since then, it has led to proscription. The question before us is whether God’s blessing may be known beyond the Church’s sphere of control. Since the Reformation, evangelicals have liked that idea. In conclusion, I wish to make a pastoral observation. 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. I am sure that was not User 4228’s intention, but perhaps it is good to remind ourselves of that from time to time.' Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 28 November 2011 - 11:00am David r....it would be pointless to avoid the elephant in the room, wouldn't it? Listening to experience is worthwhile...but doesn't answer the question re whether the 'mind of the Communion' is right or wrong re what it says is incompatible with scripture...if its wrong, I'm quite happy to agree with Roger et al Posted by: DavidR Monday 28 November 2011 - 09:03am It would be very disappointing if this thread became another place for lengthy contributions on the theological and biblical issues at the heart of debate about homosexuality. This is happening in exhaustive detail elsewhere (and it is important - though these discussions always leave me with theological tinnitus for several days afterwards). In any case Anon and others like him will have long experience of evangelicals telling him what he should be thinking, feeling and doing while being offered no hospitable place or contribution in the discussion himself. I think we are being asked to listen to what it feels like to be evangelical and gay. Can we stay with that a bit longer? 'All theology, properly so called, is written in blood' (Harry Williams). There is a way of insisting on theological principle that actually dehumanises - an attempt at biblical purity that requires exclusion and silence to sustain it. 'The letter kills' said Paul. It still does when theology is attempted at any distance from the raw dilemmas of seeking to be faithful and human. Posted by: User 4228 Sunday 27 November 2011 - 10:11pm Although one may have sympathy for the author's desire to draw attention to the failure of evangelicals always to understand those with homosexual feelings, the author allows personal experience to unduly shape his interpretation of Scripture. It is not that evangelicals fail to interpret the Bible correctly as a consequence of our subjective experience, as implied in the author's comments, but rather those who adopt a 'revisionist' approach to Scriptural teaching about same-sex relationships that do so. This mistake arises from a poor understanding of the theology of marriage, an emphasis upon the love of God but neglect of His holiness and a failure to identify the association in Scripture of all homosexual relationships with idolatry. Augustine identified three goods of marriage: procreation (the prime good), mutual support (entailing a legitimate context to express the sexual drive) and its sacred nature (being allegorical of the relationship between Christ and the Church). Those who argue that loving, life-long and exclusive same-sex relationships are equivalent to marriage are stating, in essence, that mutual support is the sole purpose of marriage. This has never been the position of the Christian Church. Since the time of Augustine, the Church has considered procreation to be the first good of marriage and all three goods as being essential components of marriage between Christians. It is important to understand that marriage is not only for procreation and the mutual support of spouses but is also revelational and prophetic. Marriage is part of God's revelation of Himself through creation. Karl Barth argued, that marriage reveals God's desire for fellowship. He argued that marriage between a man and a woman entails both complementarity and differentiation. In contrast, homosexual relationships entail rejection of the other (including their complementarity and differentiation). They are an attempt to replace this complementary and differential relationship with the other sex with self expression and a substitute of the same sex. It is the desire to rise above our creaturely nature (with its dependence on the other) and to become autonomous 'gods' in our own right. Arguably marriage also reveals other aspects of God's nature. Love and unity are the characteristics of the relationship within the Godhead. These are paralleled in marriage. Other characteristics of God (such as faithfulness, self-giving, order, covenant making and the creation of new life) are also revealed in marriage. Marriage is prophetic also of the relationship between Christ and the Church and of the Kingdom of God. It is not a relationship between equals, but rather between distinct and different partners. Christ is the head of the body. The arms and the legs are not the head. Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is His bride. The bridegroom and the bride are distinct. The endorsement of same-sex relationships expresses a desire to re-write the moral law of God. This is evidenced in the current debate over the redefinition of marriage to include those in same-sex relationships. One of the theological arguments against the UK and Scottish Governments’ proposals to redefine marriage is that in seeking to do so the state is acting in a tyrannous manner. Marriage is defined by God and it is not within the legitimate authority of the state (or indeed of the Church) to redefine it. To seek to do so is to act in an antichristic way. This is especially so as marriage is revelational of the character of God and prophetic of the work of Christ. A full understanding of eschatology recognises that the references to the Church as the bride of Christ and to the wedding supper of the Lamb are allegorical statements that reveal the central theme and end of history. The prophetic nature of marriage relativises not only earthly sexual relationships, but also the power of all human governments. The proud boasts of antichristic civil authorities and their attempt to be like God (as Adam sought to be) by redefining the moral law are revealed as useless in providing access to the tree of life. The tree of life can only be accessed by relationship with Christ. Holiness is intrinsic to this relationship for "Without holiness no one will see God" (Heb 12:14) Both marriage and holy celibacy are vocations. Some people are called to one of these and others to the other. However, both estates bear witness to the triumph of Christ and His eternal kingdom. Those called to celibacy are asked to be wholly devoted to Christ and, by being so, to relativise earthly relationships. Those called to marriage are to bear witness of Christ to their children and to the world. In Scripture, homosexual relationships are clearly identified with idolatry. Those in such relationships are not necessarily more idolatrous than other people. Rather such relationships are the natural consequence of the judgement of God on an idolatrous society. What are the identifying characteristics of such a society? It is a society which has rejected natural revelation of the Creator. As marriage is a key aspect of such natural revelation, it is to be expected that marriage will have been rejected in such a society. However, other characteristics of such societies are pride, worship of created goods, materialism, social injustice, a failure to recognise and respect the image of God in other humans, oppressive social and economic relations, an unwelcoming attitude to strangers, exploitative relationships with those who are marginalised in society, large disparities in the distribution or wealth and a distorted attitude to property. There is Scriptural evidence to suggest that these were characteristic of Sodom. Similarly on those occasions when Israel adopted the fertility cults of neighbouring peoples, such characteristics were evident (see Isa 1: 1-17 and Ez 16:49-50). How much does our own society share these characteristics? The UK has had a social experiment for the last 40 years during which sex has increasingly been disassociated with marriage. In Scotland, 20% of households are headed by a single parent and 52% of children are born out of wedlock. In the UK about 90% of couples cohabit before marriage as compared to approximately 10% during the early 1970s. With such a revolution in sexual morality it is to be expected that enormous social consequences will follow. These include poorer health and education outcomes for children brought up by cohabitees as compared to those brought up by married couples. Another outcome may be an increase in the occurrence of homosexuality. This is not only because society is more tolerant of such relationships, but also because some of the causal factors of homosexuality may be (for boys) a distant (or absent) father figure and (for women) a poor experience of relations with men. In other words, the increase in marital breakdown and/or serial cohabitation may have a direct effect in increasing the incidence of homosexual relationships. The natural consequence of the rejection of marriage as the norm for sexual relations by society may, therefore, be an increase in homosexual relationships. This gives an interesting insight into the phraseology in Rom Ch 1 that 'God gave them over'. The judgement of God is the inevitable consequence of the rejection of natural revelation in general and of marriage in particular. Our human nature is created to be fulfilled sexually within the context of marriage. Marriage is one expression of the image of God in created humankind. God imparted His image in humankind both as male and female and in relationship with, and contradistinction to, each other. The distortion of the image of God in humankind and its substitution with self-idolatry, worship of materialism and exploitation of others inevitably results in God's judgement in the form of giving human beings over to the natural outcome of sin. This line of argument poses a serious challenge for those who seek to accommodate same-sex relationships within the Church. Arguably to equate same-sex relationships with relationship between Christ and the Church is heretical and idolatrous. Human beings are not equivalent to God. In Genesis chapter 3 we discover that Adam and Eve’s desire to acquire the knowledge of good and evil and to be like God led to their downfall. Their attempt to transcend their creaturely nature, to become divine and to redefine the moral law resulted in judgement and exclusion from fellowship with the Creator. This relationship is restored only through the work of Christ and entails a response on the part of the believer of repentance, submission to the will of God and holiness of life. It is not a relationship of equivalence. Although Christ calls us his friends, we do not become divine but remain redeemed humanity. Marriage reflects order in creation, the self-giving love of God, the unity of the Godhead and the relationship between God and His people. In contrast same-sex relationships reflect the desire to become ‘gods’, to redefine the moral law and a rejection of God’s vocation for our lives. The calling of Christ on our lives is for absolute surrender to His will, to take up our cross and to follow in His footsteps. We do so without fear because our focus is on our eternal home and the promise of Christ that His kingdom cannot be shaken. The author of Hebrews advises us in chapter 12 vs 29 that “our God is a consuming fire”. Those who rush to praise the author of the article which stimulated this debate and endorse his argument should reflect upon that description of God. Posted by: User 4236 Sunday 27 November 2011 - 09:02pm I have stumbled on both this article and this web site, and I have joined Fulcrum as I too want to listen, with respect, to both sides of the debate. I should introduce myself…I grew up in an Evangelical church,, and until a year ago I attended an evangelical church. I am also bisexual (by orientation) but I have never felt it to be God’s will for me to explore the same sex side in me. And I am a transvestite, exploring my femininity. The ‘Gay debate’ seems to me to have been going on for years (and years…now that I am sixty four). For the last six months I have been what the Quakers call ‘an attender’, sitting in on the Sunday meetings (in silence) for worship. One of the things that impress me, about they’re teaching, is the idea that there is something of God in all of us. Would it not be helpful, though respecting that people do have really strong opinions, on both sides, to ALL accept that there is something of God in all of us? That the Gay person we disagree with, theologically, is still our Brother or Sister in Christ….and vice versa? Only from some sense of mutual respect can any progress be made. And I add my name…at my age I can’t cope with anything but! Michael Searle. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Sunday 27 November 2011 - 05:09pm I'm pleased, Ed, if you feel less lonely. However, you don't know who he is. To me, that's still being lonely. There are many people like you, but they hide away anonymously. This is the result of the evangelical ethos, and especially that part that can only play the broken record over and over again. The reason many have argued against the Anglican Communion Covenant is that it will bed in precisely this ethos of hiddenness and loneliness, of duplicity and people in darkened corners. Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 27 November 2011 - 12:12am Roger, once again you assert that you take scripture seriously but you never show that the sexual activity you condone but the ABC says 'the mind of the communion' (not I) says is 'incompatible with scripture' is ever, in any circumstances condoned by God in scripture. Why not? As Ive said before, I'm quite happy to agree with you...if you show where scripture condoness the sexual activity in question. Not an unreasonable request to an evangelical, I hope you'll agree. Posted by: Ed Saturday 26 November 2011 - 10:56pm I guess a forum like this is going to go over all kinds of things. We've been over lots of them before. We'll go over lots of them again. I am enjoying that this time round there is more grace around, and that's got to be... more Christian. But what really excited me was not the forum. It was the article. I'm heart & soul evangelical. I love the church, and cut me I bleed evangelical. In my younger years the Soul Survivor stuff fired me up in the Summer, and then I got involved in New Wine. My heart has been blessed and shaped by people who have taught me to lead worship and love Bible study. And I'm gay. I didn't know there was anybody else like me. I don't know who you are mate, but God bles you. I feel less lonely today. Posted by: David Baker Saturday 26 November 2011 - 05:49pm There is an interesting article related directly to this discussion by another gay evangelical in this week's "Church of England Newspaper" here below: Standing against oppression “..these things some of you were” Mike Davidson Church of England Newspaper November 25 2011 Stuart Walton (CEN November 18) believes science has shown that “sexuality is mostly, perhaps even wholly genetic”. By contrast, the best Anglican survey prepared for Lambeth (2008), The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, Philip Groves (ed) says (p281) that the impetus behind the search for genes associated with homosexuality “has lessened with the weakness of genetic links to HS implied by recent twin studies.” The more recent (and most reliable) twin studies suggest a much lower genetic influence in homosexuality than earlier studies – the better the study the weaker the linkage. In Bailey et al [2000] the doyen of twin study practitioners, Michael Bailey, says, “Although prior twin studies have been generally consistent in indicating a genetic contribution to male and female sexual orientation, they have also been rather consistent in their methodological limitations. Most importantly, all sizable twin studies of sexual orientation recruited probands by means of advertisements in homophile publications or by word of mouth.” This distorts the results. Bailey found that of twenty-seven pairs of identical twins of whom one was gay (at least 2 on a Kinsey scale of 0 – 6), in only three cases was the co-twin gay. In other words, if one identical twin was gay, the other rarely was. This makes a ‘gay gene’ improbable, invalidates the racial analogy and suggests the influence of psychosocial factors. Thus the Anglican book is justified in referring to “the weakness of genetic links”. Twin studies point us away from ‘nature’ causes in general, and it finds little support for other popular ‘nature’ theories such as the gay brain or maternal hormonal influence. Clearly, if science is to explore all the options, it must look at ‘nurture’ as well as ‘nature’. This was the original intention for the book, but (perhaps in the rush to complete it for Lambeth?) the nurture dimension was overlooked. Thus, the scientific exploration is seriously incomplete. But what might ‘nurture’ tell us? In some cases, what psychotherapists refer to as trans-generational trauma might account for various ideas and behaviours that appear completely normal to an individual, but which originate somewhere outside of the gene pool, and yet present themselves as natural and intrinsic. More generally, perhaps the most dramatic statement is found in a study of two million Danish people who had undertaken heterosexual or homosexual marriages or civil partnerships. The title of the study is itself startling: “Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages” [2000]. It found evidence that “childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.” Children’s life experiences may be so powerful as to influence whether they will ultimately marry a man or a woman. The implications of this are profound indeed. For Stuart Walton, a disapproving church must explain why gay people should not “accept and enact the sexuality that the Lord God … has bestowed on them.” But science does not say that God made them that way. This accords with my own sense of being. I have lived with a homosexual drive for as long as I remember, but enactment of this experience of sexuality is not something I look for given the findings of science and the teachings of Jesus. This would hardly honour the loving marriage and family my wife and I have built. The church owes it to people like me to do good science Of course the church should move away from oppression, discrimination and ungraciousness towards gay folk but an inclusive agenda will test itself against an unchanging call to holiness: “come out and be separate”. And it will respect those who journey out of homosexuality because of their own reading of science, scripture and conscience. It might give renewed attention to Jesus’ failure to change the rules when his Jewish hearers would without doubt have understood active homosexual expression to be forbidden. The Anglican Communion needs to make a major investment in looking at the ‘nurture’ side of the debate. At present, this aspect has gone by default, but the evidence cries out to be heard. Until it is heard, the ‘inclusive’ agenda will continue to devalue the experience of people like me who choose to walk a different road. Mike Davidson CORE ISSUES TRUST www.core-issues.org Posted by: George Day Saturday 26 November 2011 - 05:10pm I would like to join the other people posting who have thanked the author of this article for contributing it, and the Fulcrum team for publishing it, even when they do not agree with the position stated. What I find so sad (but so understandable) in the article is the sense of fear expressed by the writer: "it is a sign of how badly evangelicals treat gay people that I feel constrained to write anonymously. I hope you will understand." Down through the centuries the Church at times has had a glorious record of bringing peace, healing, love etc, and at times an appalling record of bringing hatred, oppression and fear - sometimes it may just be the fear people have of being in a minority, (and there is often nothing much that can be done about that sort of fear, as most of us hate being the odd one out), but at times it has been far more serious forms of fear, which the Church has fostered through persecution, etc. Currently gay Christians may not have to fear outright persecution and death (at least not in this country; they do in some other countries, sometimes at least partly at the instigation of the churches there), but they do have a very real fear of being abused and derided, and perhaps for clergy a fear of finding their ministry callously destroyed. The difference of opinion on this subject will of course go on, but surely in the church that claims to live out the love and light of Jesus we need to seek to move towards a position where people do not need to be fearful of declaring their position. There are some optimistic pointers in this direction - more open and generally non-abusive discussion, as here on Fulcrum, and an increasing number of committed evangelicals being willing to openly advocate the acceptance of committed gay relationships. But equally one can find forums where abuse is the order of the day. Surely, whatever our views on the rightness or wrongness of gay relationships, we all need to speak/pray/ work for an end to a climate of fear that too often is present at various levels of church life. Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 26 November 2011 - 04:17pm Ah Nersen, you give me a sense of deja-vu! You've produced once more your three-fold litany on this subject: The absence of a quotable scripture to back my argument or confirm my questions; A view that it is contrary 'to the mind of the Communion'; A view that it challenges '2000 years of tradition'. In fact, if you check on the close-on 500 postings on the previous thread you will find robust engagement with scipture on both 'sides' of the debate. Broadly, on the one hand we have those, including yourself, who hold to the so-called 'anti-gay' texts and take them at face value, seeing them as without doubt condemning homosexual relationships. On the other hand, we have a number of us who take the bible seriously and yet, from contextual and cultural viewpoints, raise questions over the 'surface' interpretation of such texts. Further, the latter group engages with scripture throwing light on scripture where specific texts are seen as hermeneutically probematic. Being contrary 'to the mind of the Communion' and challenging 'years of tradition' has happened throughout church history, not least in the last two centuries or so. At times, as with questions of slavery, usury, contraception, women's ordination, etc., that 'mind' has become realigned through revisiting scripture and the Spirit's promptings. That realignment may or may not be happening within Anglicanism in the present debate but at leat we're talking! So Nersen, do enter the spirit of this discussion, listening to 'Anon's' cri du coeur, disagreeing graciously where appropriate and respecting the views of your brothers and sisters in Christ where their prayeful engagement with scripture reaches different conclusions to your own. Solent makes a similar point well when writing, 'Is it too much to hope that we might move away from confrontational stand-offs about biblical authority and move into more fruitful discussions about biblical interpretation? Or is the Reformation mindset that the bible speaks plainly and requires no interpretation too strong?' Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 25 November 2011 - 04:34pm Roger, you're keen on discussion but on the other thread you mention, you've never replied with any scripture ever saying the sexual activity you want to condone is in any circumstances condoned by God..... any scripture to back going against prohibitions in scripture against the sexual activity in question, 'the mind of the Communion' and church catholic today, and 2000 yrs of tradition? Posted by: Erasmus Friday 25 November 2011 - 02:09pm 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." Posted by: DavidR Friday 25 November 2011 - 01:28pm Erasmus, I think you miss the point when you assume it is matter of 'control'. This very moving article made me more aware of how the demand gay Christians receive is not actually the demand to control - but to actually deny, suppress and stay as far as they can from somehting they find core to their identity identity. As a married heterosexual man my hope and intention is to be responsible, disciplined and celebratory in the way I express my sexuality and longings. (I still don't like the word 'control' to describe this vocation). But I simply can't imagine how I would begin to live a life of any meaning, honesty or hope if I was required to suppress, deny and keep secret such a vital part of my identity and humanity. Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 25 November 2011 - 09:52am Many thanks to Fulcrum and the writer of this piece for their courage in being open to discussion on this important matter. That there are a number of us who challenge the traditional interpretation of scripture on being gay is clear already from this thread and from the extensive postings we had recently on 'Presuppositions and Homosexuality'. Let the discussion continue in a spirit of love and patient listening. Posted by: Solent Friday 25 November 2011 - 09:37am Thanks for this thoughtful and careful article. I am struck, once again, that this issue is not really about biblical authority at all - it is about biblical interpretation. As evangelicals, we too easily slip into confrontation and accusation: "You don't take the bible seriously!" In most cases, the person on the end of the accusation does take the bible seriously, but they interpret it differently. Certainly when I was at college biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) was taught very badly. Is it too much to hope that we might move away from confrontational stand-offs about biblical authority and move into more fruitful discussions about biblical interpretation? Or is the Reformation mindset that the bible speaks plainly and requires no interpretation too strong? Posted by: Erasmus Thursday 24 November 2011 - 11:32pm Isn't the author making the classical mistake of confusing categories? We all have to control our sexual desires to some extent.. The inherent biblical question for evangelical Christians, regarding different sexualities, is whether they fit the created order and fulfil God's intentions for making two one (Gen 2:18-24, Matt 19:5).... not just whether people feel love and are committed, or even whether the relationship can be recognized as marriaged by society. NB There are plenty of other sexual attractions (and historical forms of marriage) that cannot be legitimately fulfilled according to the biblical writers (and current society still agrees that many are illegitimate) even in the context of a loving relationship. Posted by: Marcus Thursday 24 November 2011 - 08:22pm Thanks - to Fulcrum for putting this on the site, and to the author for writing it. As evangelicals, we unite around the cross of Christ and under the banner of his Lordship; we honour in one another a commitment to his word, but understand that this commitment does produce different responses. I recall Bishop Tom Wright discussing this in his farewell address to Durham diocese; actually, it was one of the very few times I disagreed with his judgement, but I enjoyed the disagreement. Modern evangelicals are after all the equivalent of the old Jewish joke - put two of us in a room, get three opinions. And so on the issue of Christian responses to homosexuality, evangelicals ought to freely debate and disagree and challenge one another - not on the basis of prejudice or "we've always done it this way" or fear or competitiveness (reasons that often fuel us!) but simply because we love to talk about the Scriptures. I think there are three unreasonable propositions in this general debate for evangelicals: first, that there is enough material in the Scriptures for whatever is there to be called a major theme; thus for it to become a major point of division is unfortunate and not terribly good handling of the word we love. Secondly, it's unreasonable to say that the parallels of context between "then & now" are sufficiently clear for the translation to be a perfect one to one match up; we look for apples, we find oranges, they may be fruit, but... We love the word. We should work harder for better answers. Third unreasonable proposition: that to change an attitude we have held for centuries is automatically to give in to the 'spirit of the age' and we simply shouldn't go there. Wilberforce, anyone? So I love to hear an evangelical, committed to the word, loving the church, with different experiences and a genuine heart for Jesus, put forward alternatives for us. Thank you. People are involved here, and last time I checked, Jesus is kind of keen on people, so we need to talk about this issue (as all issues) as evangelicals - looking at the whole weight of Scripture, with generosity and care and - - and my only sadness is that the author feels (and I understand perfectly) that he should be anonymous. That's a terrible stain on us. Have we so created love in the church that it stops here? Dear author of this piece, thank you. Write again. I'd love to hear more of your understanding. Evangelicals need more viewpoints here. My experience is that most people under 40 don't believe what they are told from the pulpit on this issue because it doesn't match the people they know at work, in their families, as neighbours. I don't for a moment believe the Bible is in error; I do believe our understanding of it may be. And I am keen to learn from those who may have the perseverance to talk with grace and freedom and biblical commitment until we all learn more. Posted by: Jason Thursday 24 November 2011 - 07:55pm I think this is a very useful article. Traditionally there have been many hierarchies in the Church, sexism, racism for example yet Christians have often been at the forefront of the struggle against this injustice pointing out that the Gospel is one of love for all people. Judge not that you be not judged. A possible resonse can be to love our lgbt brothers and sisters whilst still advising against sinful acts but I am not sure there is any place in the New Testament that condemns loving faithful relationships between man and man or woman and woman. In spreading the good nes about eternal life through Christ let's also spread that through that redemption we should challenge all oppression. Posted by: noblescholar Thursday 24 November 2011 - 07:45pm Dear Colleagues and Fellow Readers, I write chiefly to applaud Fulcrum for having included this article, which in very personal terms describes the plight of others in the Church, a good many of whom have little voice in the evangelical communities of which they are members, often to the detriment of their full participation in the life of the the churches where they belong, and to their mental health. I also want to thank the writer for having offered this contribution. Courage and blessings and peace to you! The Rev'd Prof J M Day, Honorary Ass't Chaplain: Pro-Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, Brussels Posted by: Phil Townsend Thursday 24 November 2011 - 07:38pm Thank you to the person who wrote the article on Being Evangelical and Gay. I am truly sorry that the church is making your life so difficult. I would like to add some thoughts re an evangelical perspective: Homosexuality and St Paul: An Evangelical Perspective From the Biblical witness of Genesis 1-3, it may well be argued that heterosexual marriage was God’s original plan for mankind. However the question that now remains is, can a faithful, life-long, covenant relationship between two people of the same sex be accommodated today within the life of the church, through the grace of God in Christ? A comparison might be made with marriage and divorce. Divorce was not part of God’s original plan for mankind; Jesus makes that explicitly clear. But divorcees are welcomed in almost all churches today on the basis of God’s grace in an imperfect world. Should there be a similar accommodation for faithful gay relationships today - or is all such behaviour proscribed for ever? Some of my conservative colleagues would argue that the Bible states unequivocally that all same-sex relationships are wrong; I would disagree with their reading of Scripture, for the following reasons (albeit within the limits of a 15 minute paper! The emphasis therefore will primarily be on the teaching of St Paul.) One of the main NT texts cited to support the proscription of all Homosexual activity is Rom 1.21-32 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is for ever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them. The argument is that the homosexual behaviour described in vv 26 & 27 as an example of degrading shameful lust and perversion, demonstrates for all time God’s censure of all Homosexual activity per se. Yet, from the context alone, this is not clear. Prima facie, all the sinful activities listed by Paul in this passage are conscious and deliberate acts of perverse rebellion. Indeed homosexual behaviour is singled out as a particularly heinous act – emphasising that this is a perverse exchanging of natural relations for unnatural ones, related to the exchanging the glory of God for man-made images, exchanging the truth of God for a lie, exchanging the worship of creation as opposed to the creator. (vv 22-25). Thus from the context alone, it is at least possible that the homosexual activity that Paul is referring to is of a perverted kind, such was prevalent during the period in which Paul wrote his letters, viz. temple prostitution, man-boy pederasty, or the wilfully perverted homosexual sexual activity of men and women who are naturally heterosexual – as might take place at an unbridled Roman orgy. Such homosexual activities would indeed be a conscious and deliberate act of perverse rebellion – and those behaving in this way well deserve being listed with all the others described in Romans 1, viz. those who "become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice." That said, it is then difficult to include within such a profane list, the sexual love between Christians of the same sex, conducted faithfully within a lifelong covenant relationship. The more so if the people doing so sincerely desire to be at peace with God (and believe they are) and in every other aspect of life are known to be of exemplary Christian character, devotion and life. As mentioned above, does it not seem, prima facie, that the homosexual activity that Paul is referring to in Romans 1 is more likely to be a perverted kind, such was prevalent during the period in which Paul wrote the letter to the Romans? Indeed, is it not at least possible, if not likely, that in both the other New Testament passages where homosexual activity is proscribed - with severe warnings - by St Paul, that he also has in mind homosexual behaviour that is wilfully perverse? For instance, a) 1 Cor 6.9f Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. b) 1 Tim 1.8f The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine… Again the immediate context in both cases suggests that the type of sin Paul is warning against is sinful action which express a conscious and deliberate attitude of perverse rebellion. It is argued, however, that homosexuality is a special case here, since, unlike the other sins listed in Romans 1, it is intrinsically evil due to its perversion of God’s created order. Such activity is intrinsically an ‘abomination’ to God irrespective of any loving feelings, or any motive, good or bad. In support or this reading, it is pointed out that in the Old Testament, there were various holiness laws which could be transgressed irrespective of the attitude of the person. A person was made unclean, for example, simply because of touching an (intrinsically) unclean object (eg a dead body), or by having some kind of bodily emission. This uncleanness, this unholiness, would be the case irrespective of any good or bad motivation. No such unclean person could, for instance, enter the Temple, no matter how sincere they might be. Against this, it could be argued that such intrinsic uncleanness of actions, irrespective of moral motivation, was a characteristic of the Old Covenant, not the New. Viz: 1) In New Testament, the requirement to obey such ‘purity’ laws was repealed, both by Jesus himself, such as his teaching in Mark 7 regarding unclean vessels, and also in the vision granted to St Peter in Acts 10, as well as St Paul in Romans 14.14. 2) Even if it is allowed that the abolition of certain food and ceremonial laws does not necessarily include intrinsic moral laws, it is difficult to see why in the NT, Homosexuality alone belongs to this category of intrinsic evil, uniquely deserving such universal proscription, and excluding all practitioners from the Kingdom of God eternally. It might be argued that there is one other NT example of intrinsic evil - incest. Indeed it is argued that this is cited as such by St Paul in 1 Cor 5.1ff. However the case of the man having incestuous sex with his step mother is not necessarily a proscription on the basis that it is an intrinsic moral evil: according to historians, incest even in the 1st Century pagan world would have been morally proscribed by most people. Thus it may be presumed that both the man and the woman involved believed that what they did was wrong: it was a conscious and deliberate act of perverse rebellion. This is sufficient reason for it to be proscribed as sinful by St Paul. Thus the case of incest cannot be cited to support the view that St Paul considered certain sins to belong to a category of intrinsic evil which also included homosexuality. 3) Later on (Rom 14) Paul demonstrates the primacy of motive in assessing the righteousness of an action: v1. Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. In the church at Rome it is evident that there were disagreements about what is the will of God concerning at least two controversial issues. These disagreements were heated and unpleasant arguments. Each group believed that their position alone was in accordance with the will of God, and passed judgement on those who believed and acted differently. There was a real danger of division within the church. Apart from saying that Christians are in no position to judge others (v4), the fundamental principles that he teaches is that what is most important to God is the attitude of heart rather than conformity to any particular Law (v6). God alone is able to judge people's hearts - not us. This emphasis is not surprising. In the first 11 chapters of his letter, St Paul has been at pains to point out that it is not obedience to the Law by which a man or woman is justified before God. A person is justified by faith in the grace of God alone; faith which trusts in God's forgiveness, faith which enables a person to yield their life in complete obedience to what they believe to be the perfect will of God. God's primary concern for what you believe to be true, rather than what is objectivity the case is confirmed later in the chapter (14.1 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. In other words, conformity to external laws is not what counts for God - but a clear conscience towards Him; a person may be doing what is objectivity right in the eyes of God, but if they believed that it is wrong in their heart, they sin. The only obligation is to love God with all our heart, the best way we know how The same applies to our relations with people. Thus in Romans 13.8-10, St Paul writes, Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow-man has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law. The argument here is that the primacy of being motivated by love, over conformity to rules, as taught by St Paul in Romans 13 and 14, mitigates against the idea that he believed that any actions were intrinsically evil, irrespective of motive. Bearing this in mind when we look back to the proscriptions against Homosexual activity in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Tim 1, it is at least possible that St Paul had in mind acts of wilful perversion, prevalent at that time, not what we are often dealing with today, viz. love between Christians of the same sex, conducted faithfully within a lifelong covenant relationship. From this I would argue at the very least that firstly, there is a legitimate element of doubt regarding the security of the position of those who claim that St Paul teaches universal proscription of all homosexual activity, and secondly, by the same token, that others can hold a different Biblical position on this issue with intellectual integrity and good faith, and should be respected as such. The recognition of authentic doubt is important here, because it effects how we behave towards those who sincerely hold different views. There is danger on both sides which ever view is wrong. But I would argue that we should follow the principle set out by St Paul in Rom 14, regarding how we should behave towards people when we do not agree with their moral conclusions: each person must accept that those who come to a different moral conclusion, are just as acceptable to God - if their heart is right. That is the Biblical justification as to why we at St Tims have opened our doors to Christian couples of the same sex who are in faithful, lifelong covenant relationships, and would encourage other (evangelical!) churches to do the same. Phil Townsend, Vicar, St Timothy’s Church, Sheffield, November 2011
Posted by: Jody
Thursday 24 November 2011 - 07:05pm
Dear Friends we have just published 'Evangelical and Gay'. please use this thread for discussion. blessings, Jody |
LATEST
|
When I was in the sixth form, there were a few people who were a bit of a puzzle. They were the people who were doing English, History and Chemistry for A Level, or Mathematics, Physics and French. They defied categorization not because they belonged to no tribe, but because they belonged to two tribes which we had always thought were mutually exclusive. In the Church of England, there are a few people who are doing the equivalent of History and Chemistry in their walk with God and God’s people. They tend to be less open about it, because, unlike at school, the tribes don’t even pretend to get on. They are the people who are evangelical and gay. I am one of those people, and it is a sign of how badly evangelicals treat gay people that I feel constrained to write anonymously. I hope you will understand.