Over at his superb Titusonenine, Kendall Harmon is busy blogging the events taking place in Nottingham, England, this week. The Anglican Consultative Council is meeting there to discuss many issues, chief among them homosexuality. The American Episcopal Church has been asked to explain its inclusive position, a stance that has led the church to embrace same-sex unions and to consecrate an openly gay man as bishop. Among those leading the delegation from the States is Susan Russell, president of Integrity and a priest at All Saints. Progressive Episcopalians from across the country have been praying for the delegates to Nottingham, who are making their main presentation to the ACC today.
On Monday, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed the gathering. It was a fine homily indeed, one that has given both those who support and those who oppose full inclusion for gays and lesbians much to think about. Archbishop Williams’s address is up in full at Kendall’s place, and it’s worth blogging about here.
For starters, the good Archbishop summarizes the two positions deftly and fairly. The traditionalist stance he summarizes thus:
One story is this. The churches of the ‘North’ are tired and confused,
losing evangelistic energy. For a variety of reasons, they have been
trying to reclaim their credibility by accepting and seeking to
domesticate the moral values of their culture, even though this is a
culture that is practically defined by the rejection of the living God.
A history of over-intellectual approaches to the Bible and the
communication of the faith has led to a disregard of the Bible’s call
to transformation. The revolt against the plain meaning of Scripture’s
condemnation of same-sex activity is a symptom of this general malaise.
That’s good. I can’t imagine any serious conservatives quibbling with that. The progressive, inclusive view is then described:
Another story is this. The churches of the North have been made aware
of how much their life and work has been sustained in the past by
insensitive and oppressive social patterns, with the Bible being used
to justify great evils. Whether they like it or not, they inhabit a
world where authority is regarded with much suspicion; it has to earn
respect. In recent decades there has been a huge change in the general
understanding of sexual activity. Can the gospel be heard in such a
world if it seems to cling to ways of understanding sexuality that have
no correspondence to what the most apparently responsible people in our
culture believe? It is not enough, some have said, to stick to the
words of the Bible; we have to go deeper and ask about the logic and
direction of the Bible as a whole. And when we do that, we may find
that it is not so impossible to reach a position that can be taken
seriously in contemporary culture.
This liberal is quite satisfied with that summary.
At All Saints, we talk weekly of acting "prophetically." Williams reminds us of just how problematic it is to describe one’s teachings and one’s actions in that way:
It is said that there are times when Christians must act prophetically,
ahead of the consensus, and that this is such a time for some of our
number. We should listen with respect to what motivates this
conviction. But we also have to say that it is in the very nature of a
would-be prophetic act that we do not yet know whether it is an act of
true prophecy or an expression of human feeling only. To claim to act
prophetically is to take a risk. It would be strange if we claimed the
right to act in a risky way and then protested because that risky act
was not universally endorsed by the Church straight away. If truth is
put before unity - to use the language that is now common in discussing
this - you must not be surprised if unity truly and acutely suffers.
Bingo! He nailed exactly the reason why I, as a progressive, have no problem seeing the Anglican Communion fracture over just this issue. I am interested in putting truth before unity, especially if maintaining unity is at the price of denying full inclusion in the body of Christ to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters! At some point, focusing relentlessly on "staying together" (in the Anglican Communion or in a marriage) becomes idolatrous. We are reminded by Christ that to follow Him is more often to choose the path of division rather than unity. Rather than asking either side to sacrifice their own perception of such vital and important truths, is it not far better to honestly and amicably sever the historic bonds that have held the Anglican Communion together for centuries? Rather than seeing schisms as sinful or tragic, might we not see schism and divorce as an opportunity for new beginnings? If all the energy expended on staying in relationship with those whose views we find unChristian were instead expended on the poor and the marginalized, could we not do far more good for God’s kingdom? These are the questions that this Episcopalian is asking himself this week.
I think the Archbishop is aware that the Anglican Communion is about to founder over the issue of homosexuality, and he’s not willing to see endless attempts to patch holes in a ship that ought to have long since slipped beneath the waves. The most moving part of Monday’s talk was his suggestion for a way forward, after the separation has happened:
But if there is no easy solution, and there is not, we can at least
think about this simple suggestion. If it is difficult for us to stand
together at the Lord’s Table as we might wish, can we continue to be
friends? Its sounds so weak, doesn’t? But, I actually think it is of
great significance. It is a way of saying that we do not know how to go
on being visibly full brothers and sisters, that we can find no clear
visible way of expressing any sense of being together in the Body of
Christ. But this is the case already with a number of other Christian
bodies, and several other Christian bodies view us in this way, notably
the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. And yet we maintain respect
and often something more than respect. Friendship in Christ, it seems,
is possible even when sacramental communion isn’t.
What would be the defining qualities of this future friendship? Williams is magnificent here:
Friendship in Christ is a willingness to share prayer, to listen
without rancour to each another, to respect and even enjoy difference,
to be patient with each other, not expecting quick healing of divisions
but not walking away every time difference raises its head. Friendship
in Christ is best and most creative when it is linked with sacramental
fellowship; but if that fellowship is hard or controversial, we need to
remember from our ecumenical experience that this need not and should
not mean a spirit of bitter contempt towards each other. It has taken
the great churches of the world centuries to make this sort of
friendship a routine matter, but, thank God, it is so now for the most
part. Can we make a resolution - not pass but make a resolution – that
it will not take so long to confirm these bonds between us? Of course
it is harder in some ways: direct conflict and even rivalry darkens the
sky so much. But when we cannot witness together as fully as we long to
do, this is something of real witness nonetheless. We can look at and
listen to the language we use about each other and watch how easily we
are ready to let it slip from proper and honest disagreement towards
contempt and mutual exclusion. Yet as baptised believers, we still have
something to offer each other; and the friendship of the baptised
should remain, whatever else divides.
Bold emphases in this and earlier sections are mine.
All my life, I’ve been interested in those who work at building bridges across ideological and theological divides. To stay in friendly relationship with those with whom one disagrees mightily –without ignoring those disagreements — is vital. Far too many of my friends surround themselves with those who share their world view. (I remember a friend of my mother’s, years ago after the 1984 election, express disbelief that Reagan had been reelected. "But everyone I know voted for Mondale", she said, with a tone that implied that Fritz’s overwhelming defeat must therefore have been due to fraud.) Lord, save us from only being in relationship with those who know you as we do! Save us from only breaking bread with those who understand your word as we think it ought to be understood; save us from our hubris and our petty certainties, and save us from isolation into intellectual and theological ghettoes where we are always surrounded by "our kind of people." But save us also from false unity with those with whom there can be no real agreement! Archbishop Williams wants a third way , and he calls that third way neither unity nor division, but friendship.
“To act prophetically is to take a risk.”__ If a union regarding this issue never existed in the first place, how can there be a division? In order to establish any type of union, you must first be willing to open yourself to the views of the other side, whether you agree with them or not. Then, and only then, can honest commun ication begin in order to establish agreement.
Well, mercedes, that’s not how the Anglican Communion came to be. It evolved slowly, in an era where issues of human sexuality were not open to debate. The Holy Spirit moves the church to take on new things in new ways, and new issues arise to divide old friends and fellow communicants.
Blame the Holy Spirit. How original.
I do think this address was excellent, and it increased my respect for +Cantuar markedly. I cannot pretend to be sorry to lose Jack Spong, Frank Griswold or Louie Crew, but I am sorry not to be in Communion with you any more. Not to mention several other wooly C of E friends who can’t see what the fuss is about, provided Great-Aunt Agatha’s pew isn’t moved. Let us pray that what is broken will soon be mended.
Thanks Hugo for your thoughtful reflections. ++Rowan’s address was indeed something that has caused many of us on both sides to pause and try and get beyond our preconceived ideas about what should happen next.
I appreciated his call to humility, and his restatement of something he stressed at Dromantine — how much we need one another.
And yet as I commented at Titusonenine, the one thing that troubled me seemed to be the underlying theme that our actions and decisions in this crisis should be shaped by what others “the world” will think. I think that’s not something to ignore entirely, but I believe we are first and foremost called to be “God-pleasers” and focus on His standards and commands. If we’re living a life pleasing to Him, the world will want to know more about the life and joy we find in Christ.
Anyway, just my $0.02
Hugo,
I also very much appreciated the Archbishop’s comments. It’s a wonderfully convicting, humbling speech. I do take issue with his saying that conservatives view progressive thought as “over-intellectual,” but that’s a minor point. :)
“At some point, focusing relentlessly on ’staying together’ (in the Anglican Communion or in a marriage) becomes idolatrous.”
I can’t go with you here, Hugo, at least in the most general sense. Yes, there are times when “staying together” does become idolatrous, but I can’t agree with you that such a “relentless” focus INEVITABLY becomes idolatrous. Using your second example of a marriage, I remember how my parents went through extremely hard times in which they treated each other abominably, yet they stayed together. Was it hard? Yes. Was it awful? At times, yes. But did they do right to stay together? Unquestionably, yes. I have no hesitation in saying that in staying together they did what God wanted them to do — and at the time, they were only nominally Christian and didn’t think of their marriage in the context of God’s will.
To make it more personal: In my own marriage, I plan and hope, by God’s grace, to stick it through no matter what. Will there be temptations to do otherwise? No question. Will it be very hard at times? Certainly. But would God ever want me to separate from my wife? No. Again, I say this knowing full well how sinful I am and how there surely will be times when I question my commitment.
“Rather than seeing schisms as sinful or tragic, might we not see schism and divorce as an opportunity for new beginnings?”
Our divisions inevitably involve sinfulness and tragedy, Hugo. That’s true even if good comes out of them and even if one side in the conflict is right. I cannot see any sundering of the body of Christ simply as “an opportunity for new beginnings” because of the fact that we’re talking about Christ’s body, the church that he loves and for which he died. On those infrequent days when I gaze longingly across the Tiber at Rome, it’s usually because I think that the Roman Catholic criticism of Protestantism as inevitably leading to more and more schisms is accurate, and even damning.
Just as you believe that the progressive side is faithful in this case, I believe that the orthodox side is faithful. However, I’m still aware of how sinfulness inevitably is present in our divisions. I think of how if or when we leave, there will be little to no theologically orthodox witness in ECUSA, and that causes me to grieve. (There’s historical precedence for this result: The vast majority of evangelicals left ECUSA in 1873 for the Reformed Episcopal Church, and there were few evangelicals in ECUSA from then until the charismatic renewal movement started bringing them back in the 1960s. The growth of evangelicalism in the Church of England beginning after World War II, as exemplified by theologians such as Packer and Stott, also encouraged the rise of a new ECUSA evangelical movement.) With your concern for “full inclusion” of LGBTs, you should grieve that a split would mean that the orthodox are even less likely to move in that direction.
Yes, Jesus inevitably brings division as well as peace and love, and there are times when the church must make stands that will promote division (e.g., against heresy). But any division is not a cause for rejoicing in “new beginnings.” Rather, we are to stay sober-minded and still remember that Jesus prayed for the unity of his church. It’s a unity that is to be founded in truth, to be certain (and there’s no way that both the orthodox and the progressives can be right about what constitutes faithfulness in this case), but even given that stipulation, any division (even if it’s necessary) involves sin and wounds the body of Christ in some manner. So I don’t believe in unity at all cost, but it’s too flippant to me to rejoice in “new beginnings.”
Peace of Christ,
Chip
The Holy Bible can never be at fault. The Holy Bible categorically and unambiguously says that same sex unions are a perversion and a sin. Believers ought to keep this in mind. It is more important to win the Lord’s praise than the empty certificate of ‘progressiveness.’
Sam, we all breathlessly await: where, chapter and verse please, does the bible describe same sex unions?
Chip, perhaps I was too flip. Divorce can be two things at once: tragic and sinful on the one hand, a glorious opportunity on the other. Another both/and, not an either/or.
I will miss the presence of traditional evangelicals in the church, but I am confident that their influence will yet be felt through what will now be friendly, warm, ecumenical dialogue.
I’m very curious/confused, why the English branch would split from the American branch. I mean I know rather little about the issue, or what the figures are for opinions in actual congregations and not just the heiararchy. But why would most English congregations side with Africans when it comes to the various issues that are at stake.
In the general sense, England is much less conservative than America. Attacking gays is enough to get you kicked out of the Conservative cabinet, less people believe in the Devil, less people go to church, etc. Adding in the shared culture, how is there a split between English and American congregations? Is there some huge selection factor for why Anglicans are more conservative than American Episcopalians, that I’m not aware of?
Hugo, while you’ve certainly had experience with divorce and I haven’t, I hesitate to call anything that God hates “a glorious opportunity.”
But back to ECUSA: I fear that without an orthodox evangelical/Anglo-Catholic witness, over time (maybe a long time, but over time nonetheless) the following things will happen:
*The “new paradigm” of Christianity outlined in Marcus Borg’s book The Heart of Christianity will become the “gospel” for the progressive church. (Progressives in ECUSA are practically there already. Borg is much more descriptive of ECUSA today than someone like Spong.)
*Belief in Christ’s substitutionary atonement essentially will disappear. (Some individuals might hold to it, but it will not be the theology of the church.)
*Jesus will not be considered “the way, the truth, and the life” — and ECUSA’s changes here will go way beyond Lewis’ position.
*Faithfulness in polyamorous relationships will become the new frontier for blessings. (That won’t happen for a few decades, I’m sure, but I believe it will come.)
*You’ll probably still have the creeds, but the recitation will more and more be a form without substance.
I hope I’m wrong. But that’s what I fear.
Peace of Christ,
Chip
Tony, it’s not the English branch and the American branch. Rather, it’s the more progressive branches of the Anglican Communion in the First World (North America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa) in conflict with the far more traditionalist branches in the Third World (the rest of Africa, Asia, and Latin America). The American church is ahead of even the English church on issues ranging from homosexuality to women bishops, but England is coming along. Of course, even in the USA, we have a significant minority of traditionalists who strongly oppose the direction that we progressives are taking the church. It’s complex.
Chip, did God hate the Protestant Reformation? Did God hate when England turned its back on Rome? From an RC perspective, one can argue against schisms, but it doesn’t make much sense to see nothing glorious in our church’s own history. The 16th century can’t be the only time in the history of the body of Christ when a split was a good idea!
I understand that the real divisive lines are anything but neat, and stretch into America and include other countries. But this doesn’t really answer my question of if a split were to happen, who would go where.
Is it just ECUSA that gets kicked out, or will Western European churches go with them? If ECUSA gets kicked out, will the US southerners flee the ECUSA and be accepted by the Primates as the new ECUSA in communion?
It’s more, if gay marriage is worth severance over (or all the other related issues), why on Earth would any Western European churches find themselves on the anti-gay side?
Hugo,
OK, I was talking about divorce in the marital, not ecclesiastical sense, in the first paragraph of my last response.
To answer your question, though, I’ll walk on a tightrope. I believe that the Protestant Reformation absolutely was necessary. I’m also mindful of the fact that Luther, Calvin, etc., desired to work reform the church from within rather than to separate from it. At the same time, however, they were in many ways forced to leave.
Was the Protestant Reformation necessary and did it have beneficial results? Yes. At the same time, I do believe that our divisions are tragic. I believe that Christ’s high priestly prayer is for visible, not just invisible, unity among believers. And yet we are not to have unity at the expense of truth!
I see this in many respects the same way as I view war. I believe there are times when war is (tragically) necessary. However, even when the cause is just, war inevitably has detrimental and tragic effects. So I think it is with divisions among the body of Christ. They are necessary at times, yes, but still away from the ideal that God desires for us. Someday we will grow up fully in the truth and will see that awe-inspiring church that Lewis alludes to in The Screwtape Letters. (I think that Screwtape calls the church “great and terrible down through the ages.”) But for now, we’re in that inbetween place and still yearning for the fulfillment of all things.
Peace of Christ,
Chip
Change happens. People change denominations or start new ones for any number of reasons. The Catholics have the Latin-Mass schismatics who don’t accept the pope, and are thus outside the fold (papal authority more important than most points of theology). Some Anglicans reject the updated language of the Prayer Book and object to women priests, and leave for less intelligible (for those not native Greek or Russian speakers) and more sexist Orthodox denominations. A gay Pentecostal defrocked minister started a new church in his living room a generation ago, and it grew into a multinational denomination attracting people who hadn’t set foot in church since childhood. Latter Day Saints president wants statehood for Utah territory, and he changes basic LDS doctrine re: polygyny to fit the political reality - and polygynous schismatic LDS denominations arise. 18th-century African-Americans get sick of being treated as second class by the white mainstream churches of the day, so some founded the African Methodist Episcopal denomination. And so on.
I’ve reread the Archbishop’s statement and have to concur with the judgement expressed here that it’s “magnificent”. If there is a split in the Anglican Communion, this statement will be a foundational document in future ecumenism between the churches that the schism produces. He’s expressed with an accuracy that’s almost poignant my own “conservative” position and presumably the other position as well. There’s not much listening going on in the Anglican Communion, but if we all listen to Rowan (who’s clearly been listening to, and understanding, everyone) we can at least start to hear each other.
Hugo,
thanks very much for posting this, both the quotes and your insightful commentary.
At times like this, I’m drawn to the inspiration of Brian Eno’s Long Now project - http://www.longnow.org/ - essentially a series of events and programmes to help us to think about things in the long term. The centrepiece is a clock that will run unaided for 10,000 years.
When thinking through the arguments and arising at conclusions, I’m reminded that such things take time. A lot of time. I was at one point fairly entrenched in a conservative reading of homosexuality and the bible, and it took a lot time and a lot of heartache (and no small amount of study of bible and culture) to arrive at a place where I could see permanent, stable, faithful gay relationships as God-ordained and God-blessed.
But even that time was tiny in the grand scheme of things.
Seconds, Minutes, Hours, Days, Weeks, Months, Years, Decades, Centuries, Millenia - while we search for a way forward, we need to work out the correct unit of time to use to measure the speed with which the discussion moves forward. And friendship is the perfect framework within which to explore without looking at our watch. I never tire of spending time with friends, whether they are loosely conservative, liberal, agnostic, athiest, wiccan, taoist, buddhist. Friendship doesn’t own a watch. :)
Hugo,
Turn to the Book of Romans Chapter 1 Verses 24 to 32. “….. the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the DEGRADING of their bodies with one another…..even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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…….they have become filed with every kind of wickednes…DEPRAVITY….they invent ways of doing EVIL…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.
When the Holy Bible condemns homosexual acts in such clear words how can same sex marriages be condoned by the church. It is the duty of every Christian Believer to condemn homosexual acts and provide counselling to those who indulge in such depravities. The Church has to stand by certain core principles. If homosexuality is accepted today, then tomorrow it will be the turn of adultery, and the day after it will be idolatry.
You may approve of homosexuality but the Holy Bible doesn’t and therefore God doesn’t. Accepting homosexuals as priests is a rebuke to the Body of Christ.
Sam, Romans 1 is not about sex. It’s about idol worship, and promiscuous homosexual sex is written of in the context of the worship of false Gods. To take it out of that context is dreadful exegesis.
Sam–keep readin’into Romans 2,and stop mutilating the body of Christ to suit your perversity (v.1):
“Therefore anyone of you who judges is without excuse. For when you judge another,you condemn yourself,since you,the judge, do the same things.”
And more (v.3):
“But because of your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgement is revealed.” (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
If you “condemn” you call down the wrath of God on your soul. If you could but read the text before your face, you would see Romans 1 and 2 together,instead of trying to usurp God’s place with your febrile pronouncements.
Is there some huge selection factor for why Anglicans are more conservative than American Episcopalians, that I’m not aware of?
I would think that there is, actually, some selection factor. After all, in the UK, the C of E is the main church, of which most people are members and which most people don’t bother to attend. While the ECUSA is one of the churches to which liberals flee from other denominations. So, while you have plenty of liberals in both churches, the conservatives in the C of E may have more incentive to stick to their guns, and less to leave for some other church.
Also, there’s the matter of difference of role. Given that Canterbury’s in England, the C of E winds up with more of a role of trying to keep everyone together.
It’s more, if gay marriage is worth severance over (or all the other related issues), why on Earth would any Western European churches find themselves on the anti-gay side?
Well, being on the anti-gay side does suck in terms of getting Western Europeans back to church.
Hugo,
Good try! What gave you the idea that Romans 1 is about idol worship only? V.21 says that men, though they knew God, did not glorify him and were not grateful to him. V.23 says that men worshipped images.V.24 and V.26 say that God therefore gave up men to unclean practices. Nowhere is it mentioned that these practices are unclean only in the context of idolatry.
V.24 reads “Wherefore God also gave them up to UNCLEANNESS through the lusts of their own hearts, to DISHONOUR their own bodies between themselves.â€
V.26 reads “ For this cause God gave them up into VILE AFFECTIONS: for even their women did change the NATURAL use into that which is AGAINST NATURE:
V.27 reads “ And likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is UNSEEMLY, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.â€
A simple plain reading of these verses suggests that God considers the acts described above as UNCLEAN and a DISHONOURING OF BODIES. Homosexual feelings have been described by God as VILE AFFECTIONS and lesbian acts as AGAINST NATURE. Homosexual acts have been described as UNSEEMLY. It would be ridiculous and perverse to state that God has castigated homosexual acts only in the context of idolatry. Are you implying that God approves of the acts described above if taken out of the context of idolatry? Going by your reasoning the forms of unrighteousness like fornication, wickedness etc described in V. 29, 30 and 31 are also unrighteous only in the context of idolatry and righteous in any other context. No matter how hard you try, the simple plain truths contained in the said verses cannot be diluted, altered or reversed. Any attempt to distort the Scriptures to suit your convenience will fail.
The Anglican Scotist:
You have accused me of mutilating the Body of Christ to suit my perversity, having a hard and unrepentant heart and also trying to usurp God’s place with my febrile pronouncements. You have already judged and condemned me. Thus as per the Chapter and Verse you have quoted for me, it is YOU who will call down the wrath of God on your soul. How strange that you have chosen to disobey and disregard the Texts, which have been before your face and which, you are trying to teach me. Romans 2 teaches against hypocrisy. If I am guilty of a particular sin and if I judge another person guilty of the same sin, then my action is inexcusable because I do the same things. BUT I am not a homosexual and I abhor homosexuality because the BIBLE abhors homosexuality. Therefore I have nothing to fear. But you have accused me of being judgmental when you yourself are the same. Therefore Romans 2 appears to be applicable squarely to you.
Further, you have not explained how and where I have mutilated the Scriptures to suit my perversity. The verses I have set out are exactly as they appear in the King James Version. You have also not shown where I have shown hypocrisy or what led you to believe that I have a hard and unrepentant heart.
I have said that sinful acts should be condemned. I stand by my words. I cannot suspend my sense of discrimination (the inner voice of my conscience coupled with the Scriptures I have read), which tells me that certain acts are right and righteous whereas certain other acts are wrong and sinful. If I were to stop categorizing the things I perceive as right and wrong for fear of being called judgmental, then I would be a vegetable and not a thinking man. I am a layman but it is the duty of the Church to promote righteous behavior and denounce ungodly unclean and unrighteous acts.
Hugo & The Anglican Scotist:
I have produced before you Scripture readings which unambiguously denounce homosexual acts in clear and strident terms with strong language.
I invite both of you to show me Scripture readings wherein God or Jesus Christ have admired, praised, encouraged or promoted Homosexuality. I will be satisfied even if you show me Texts where God or Jesus Christ has advocated tolerance of homosexuality or acceptance of the same as a way of life. JUST ONE VERSE OF ONE CHAPTER WHEREIN HOMOSEXUALITY IS ADVOCATED AS A VIRTUE.
Hugo,
Good try! What gave you the idea that Romans 1 is about idol worship only? V.21 says that men, though they knew God, did not glorify him and were not grateful to him. V.23 says that men worshipped images.V.24 and V.26 say that God therefore gave up men to unclean practices. Nowhere is it mentioned that these practices are unclean only in the context of idolatry.
V.24 reads “Wherefore God also gave them up to UNCLEANNESS through the lusts of their own hearts, to DISHONOUR their own bodies between themselves.â€
V.26 reads “ For this cause God gave them up into VILE AFFECTIONS: for even their women did change the NATURAL use into that which is AGAINST NATURE:
V.27 reads “ And likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is UNSEEMLY, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.â€
A simple plain reading of these verses suggests that God considers the acts described above as UNCLEAN and a DISHONOURING OF BODIES. Homosexual feelings have been described by God as VILE AFFECTIONS and lesbian acts as AGAINST NATURE. Homosexual acts have been described as UNSEEMLY. It would be ridiculous and perverse to state that God has castigated homosexual acts only in the context of idolatry. Are you implying that God approves of the acts described above if taken out of the context of idolatry? Going by your reasoning the forms of unrighteousness like fornication, wickedness etc described in V. 29, 30 and 31 are also unrighteous only in the context of idolatry and righteous in any other context. No matter how hard you try, the simple plain truths contained in the said verses cannot be diluted, altered or reversed. Any attempt to distort the Scriptures to suit your convenience will fail.
The Anglican Scotist:
You have accused me of mutilating the Body of Christ to suit my perversity, having a hard and unrepentant heart and also trying to usurp God’s place with my febrile pronouncements. You have already judged and condemned me. Thus as per the Chapter and Verse you have quoted for me, it is YOU who will call down the wrath of God on your soul. How strange that you have chosen to disobey and disregard the Texts, which have been before your face and which, you are trying to teach me. Romans 2 teaches against hypocrisy. If I am guilty of a particular sin and if I judge another person guilty of the same sin, then my action is inexcusable because I do the same things. BUT I am not a homosexual and I abhor homosexuality because the BIBLE abhors homosexuality. Therefore I have nothing to fear. But you have accused me of being judgmental when you yourself are the same. Therefore Romans 2 appears to be applicable squarely to you.
Further, you have not explained how and where I have mutilated the Scriptures to suit my perversity. The verses I have set out are exactly as they appear in the King James Version. You have also not shown where I have shown hypocrisy or what led you to believe that I have a hard and unrepentant heart.
I have said that sinful acts should be condemned. I stand by my words. I cannot suspend my sense of discrimination (the inner voice of my conscience coupled with the Scriptures I have read), which tells me that certain acts are right and righteous whereas certain other acts are wrong and sinful. If I were to stop categorizing the things I perceive as right and wrong for fear of being called judgmental, then I would be a vegetable and not a thinking man. Going by your reasoning, all priests would henceforth have to avoid all references to sinful people and acts because the very mention of such things would render the priests guilty of being judgmental. I am a layman but it is the duty of the Church to promote righteous behavior and denounce ungodly unclean and unrighteous acts.
Hugo & The Anglican Scotist:
I have produced before you Scripture readings which unambiguously denounce homosexual acts in clear and strident terms with strong language.
I invite both of you to show me Scripture readings wherein God or Jesus Christ have admired, praised, encouraged or promoted Homosexuality. I will be satisfied even if you show me Texts where God or Jesus Christ has advocated tolerance of homosexuality or acceptance of the same as a way of life. JUST ONE VERSE OF ONE CHAPTER WHEREIN HOMOSEXUALITY IS ADVOCATED AS A VIRTUE.
I am extremely sorry. I sent my message twice inadvertently. Sorry everybody.