I am looking forward to all those bishops who support a moratorium to take up their part in shaping the future and tell President Museveni that his views about homosexuality are not scientific.

He can remain anti-gay but he should at least be aware of the truth about the people he wishes to exclude.

That is the very least bishops in the West are now required to do if their call for a moratorium is to have any value at all.

Can we expect to hear their voices in the next few days?

Substitute "Jewish" for "homosexuality" and you have Hitler's position. (And indeed, since homosexuals were targeted by Nazis also, you don't even need to stretch to make the connection). Can we see the evil that is being perpetrated here? I am sorry, dreadfully sorry, if it comes from Africa, a place that has seen and still sees more than its share of oppression. But it is evil nonetheless.

England ordains partnered gay men and lesbians as priests and gay men as bishops, at least one of whom lives with his partner, but the conservative narrative continues. TEC and Canada alone stand condemned.

Orombi repeats the myths about Lambeth 1.10, Biblical authority and interpretation, the myth of homosexuality being unknown in Africa, the myth of the authority of the Primates.

Against such a constant and deliberate false narrative, the voices of those who attempt to speak to the Communion honestly and truthfully about the holiness of LGBT Christian life and vocation will be drowned out.

The deeper challenge is not to argue back against false teaching and ideas. The challenge is to survive this period of false teaching and chip away patiently at the myths from an awareness of God as infinite and intimate love and goodness. Jesus saves through teaching us to love.

Archbishop Henry Orombi isn't a bad man. But his narrative, repeated across the Global South/FoCA axis, is not honest and will not achieve what he hopes. LGBT Christians are a reality in Uganda.

It's amazing that Orombi thinks he and his allies have not been heard...to those of us on the other side of this issue, it seems as if they are the only ones who HAVE been heard.

Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi said in an article published in The Times of London last week that the “spiritual leadership of a global communion should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government.” New Vision article.

From the above, it seems clear that Archbishop Orombi spurns the present leadership of the world-wide Anglican Communion. His reason? The ABC's restraint in the matter of issuing edicts against the provinces which have ordained a gay bishop and have countenanced the blessing of same-sex unions. But it is patently much more than these matters that are exercising this Ugandan prelate.

It is noted that he is 'at the forefront of the African Bishops' opposing homosexuality in the Church. This seems to be a not-so-subtle move away from Abp. Akinola's ambition. Will there be a struggle among the G.S. Primates about who is going to assume leadership of the dissident Anglican cabal? When can we expect a GS 'palace coup' to happen within the Communion?

It is surely time the Canterbury-oriented Leaders of our Anglican Communion took issue with those of the Global South who wish to subvert the mission and integrity of our provincial Churches, by undercutting the declared intention of Lambeth 1998 to 'listen respectfully to the homosexual community' - before condemning them to hell?

From the absence of Orombi and co. at Lambeth 2008, it should have been obvious that there was than sexuality at stake. A clandestine political movement seems to be afoot to realign the centre of the historic Communion from Canterbury.

The majority of the bishops who attended the Lambeth Conference were intent on trying to wrestle with matters of concern - other than those highlighted by the absentees - which should be at the apex of the agenda for mission in and to the world at this time. Sadly, the Global South bishops - most of whom would have benefitted from discussion with their peers on matters of poverty, hardship, and injustice in their own countries. Instead, they chose to absent themselves on an issue they consider to be moral irresponsibility on the part of their peers in other provinces. Does a breaking in fellowship give any evidence of Orombi and Co's desire to remain Anglican? Already he has decided he will not withdraw from his pastoral 'rescue' of those he sees as threatened by 'moral laxity' in other Provinces of our Communion. So no moratorium for Orombi, then?

Colin, people with all sorts of sexual attractions and desires are a reality in every country.. but that doesn't mean that every attraction and desire is good, or healthy... never mind holy.

Many people experience changes in their sexual orientation in adolescence (~10% experience some same sex attraction in adolescence but only 2-3% experience them as adults) and many people experience changes in their sexual orientation as adults (more women than men in their twenties, quite a lot of men in mid life). A recent famous example being the late great George Melly.

LGBT describes the sexual attractions or identity you perceive, not what you 'are'. To that extent 'LGBT people' is inexact terminology - on which liberals are trying to build a whole edifice of false teaching.

Colin
"The deeper challenge is not to argue back against false teaching and ideas. The challenge is to survive this period of false teaching and chip away patiently at the myths from an awareness of God as infinite and intimate love and goodness. Jesus saves through teaching us to love"

While that it true, the period of false teaching will only end if and when more and more people point out, loud and clear, that it IS false teaching. And there, those who now call a moratorium on gay inclusion at all levels, have a special responsibility.

Yes Phylis, some of us know where that pink triangle came from, and also remember about another horrific dictator from a certain part of Africa. And I'm sorry Colin, some of us will not take this nonsense from societies with a background of violence and injustice, not to mention historical amnesia, sitting down. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, s***s like a duck, then it darn well is one.

Where are your friends when you need them? Now you know. Remember the joke about the priest and bishop going to heaven together and the priest being upset about his room being less lavish than the bishop's? "But we get so few of them that make to heaven" Peter was rumored to say.

"For more than ten years we have been speaking and have not been heard"

Excuse me!?!?! And precisely how much have you listened to gay people? There's a word for this.

"the authority to discipline that erring province? We in the Global South believed the Primates' Meeting had this authority"

And you were wrong. Sorry, but your mistaken understanding of the authority structure of the Anglican Church does not give you the right to slander those who do understand that structure. Indeed, such a power sturcture is not part of our tradition, it was what the English reformers were most concerned with, actually, since they were pretty conservative in other areas, at least before they went to Geneva and got infected with Calvinism.

"Describing homosexuality as mtumbavu (Swahili for stupid)"

"It is bad if our children become complacent and think that people who are not in order are alright.”"

Just to make it clear, this is NOT a cleric in the Anglican church saying this. I know that. Yet he was there. I still call him homophobic though. No, I am not making him responsible for someone else's words. He idolizes Lambeth '98 1:10. Well, part of that is that this kind of thing is not part of the Gospel. He has a duty to confront this kind of hate speech, especially when it is spoken in his presence. He did not, thereby implying that he actually supports it. It is not what someone else said that makes the bishop homophobic. It is that he allows the perpetrator to get away with it. Now, I'd like some conservative to tell me how I, a gay man, am supposed to feel a bishop who lets this happen right under his nose "hates the sin but loves the sinner". Please! I'm not that mtumbavu.

Erika Baker is making the same type of connection that Colin Coward accuses of Orombi,namely repeating a myth. There is no established scientific link that is proven, certainly no gay gene. The argument for the recognition that is sought for the gay connunity will have to be won on other grounds.

"SO much money"! Dancing away with them what brung him.

And now they are dragging out Francis to justify hatred and schism. Every time I think that these people can't get any lower, they prove me wrong.

It gets harder and harder every day to recognize anything even marginally Christian, much less Anglican, about the so-called "orthodox."

So he stayed away. Then what? Does he now say the silence of absence was very loud and join in again, or does he carry on staying away? I think we know, because there will soon be a Primates' Council and it will soon approve a new province of GAFCON. And it won't be the only one...

The relationships of these bishops to the state is chillingly like that of Pius XII to the Reich.

Hmm, isn't this pretty much the article he wrote for The Times during Lambeth?

So Orombi and the AngChUganda are praised by the President of Uganda.

Funny, I haven't heard TEC's stand in favor of LGBT inclusion praised by President Bush!

Who's "captive to culture" here?

Nice to see Canterbury speak up against the ignorant bullies.

Of course LGBT people and christians are a reality in Uganda. The blindness of these pastors is pitiable. They are probqbly totally out of touch with their long-suffering flock.

Peter James: "There is no established scientific link that is proven, certainly no gay gene."

That it occurs in most animal species as a natural phenomenon is a fact that science is trying to discover. Science also recognizes that there is more than we know, is your Christianity ready for that Mr. James?

Davidwh:

"Many people experience changes in their sexual orientation in adolescence (~10% experience some same sex attraction in adolescence but only 2-3% experience them as adults) and many people experience changes in their sexual orientation as adults (more women than men in their twenties, quite a lot of men in mid life). A recent famous example being the late great George Melly."

All of which merely reinforces the fact that sexual orientation is not an "either-or" choice made consciously, but a spectrum, influenced by nature and nurture. The majority feel such a strong pull in one direction or another, so early in life, that it is clear whether they are gay or straight well before puberty. A very small minority have doubts and experiment to find their way.

None of this changes the fact that, for the vast majority of both straight and gay human beings, there is no conscious "choice" made to be one or the other. It simply is what they are.

There's one problem with those (arch)bishops who constantly use 1998 Resolution 1.10 as a sword and shield: The only part they seem to read is the first clause, and only the first clasue, of 1.10 section (d). They completely ignore the rest of (d) and the whole of (c). They don't respect the humanity and Christianhood (if that's a word) of LGBT believers, and they certainly don't "listen" to LGBT Anglicans. Their ability to listen to or read from Resolution 1.10 doesn't start until the beginning of (d) and ends with the comma after "incompatible with Holy Scripture". They have eyes but see not, they have ears, but hear not, they have mouths, ... and speak plenty.

"people with all sorts of sexual attractions and desires"

The first same-sex couple married in California in June, were Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons.

They have been together *55 years* DavidWh. Del is now in a wheelchair. Do you honestly believe that any two people could stay together this long, if all that united them were "sexual attractions and desires"? Get your mind out of the gutter already!

Lord have mercy...

For me the issue is not whether people chose to be gay or not. Think about it. People can also be born with all kind of handicaps and defficiancies just as they can get them anytime during the time of their life.

So is the attitude of Jesus? He loves them and heal them. He restore them to what they are meant to be.

The problem we have today is that people seem to forget that we are sinners in need of repentance and healing. Our sins can have various consequences for all kind of our orientations not just sexual orientations. Jesus response is the same. His love of us does not stop to accepting us. His love wants to heal us if we want. He want the best for us. And I think the real issue here is that many people will never get the opportunity to even ask for it if they are told that they are normal they way they are.

We have all been corrupt by sin from the beginning. People can look at a blind person and play some philosophies on him. "since he was born blind should we leave him as he is since he has never known 'light' anyway, or should we get him treated so he can get sight'. What does he want, can he want what he does not know? Is it morally good to 'force' him to seek sight?

Should we teach our childreen that being blind for example is simply an other way of being (it is normal). Or that it is a problem that the Lord would surely fix to make us as he meant us to be?

Perhaps we have become so blinded with sins that we have riched a level where we don't see any think 'better' in having sight. So those who are blind may remain blind as well. Is it climate changes and pollution?

I think our sexuality has become so corrupt that we don't see any special thing straight people may have over gay, so we can't see why people can't be left they way they are!

And those who are against homosexuality are against it for the wrong reasons. To me most of those african bishops don't really have any good argument beside that it is going against their 'old' tradition. This is not a valid argument. What they are really saying is, we can't adjust our attitude so quickly...we need time to assimilate it and our people.

What people need to present is, What does God want and why? What is the purpose of sexuality in God's plan? How fondemental is sexuality in doctrine and in eternal matters?

God bless

God bless

Choirboy. there are plenty of things going on in the animal kingdom,do we approve of them all,even more celebrate them? No,of course not, humankind has evolved beyond these behaviours. Again look at the science,it does not help. All I was seeking to do was to point out that the cause will not be won in this area

Peter James
I'm not making any comments on the science of homosexuality. Actually, that doesn't interest me at all.

My contention is that there is sufficient good and deep pro-gay theology to make it at least possible that God has no problem with faithful, committed, loving and stable same sex relationships, whatever their root cause may be.

And my contention is that these relationships are lived out exactly like straight marriages, with the same challenges, the same ups and downs, the same responsibilities.
Their participants are as faithful or faithless as straight people. They may be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or of no faith.

And the false teaching I'm referring to is the slandering of lgbt people as faithless, deliberately immoral, ignoring Scripture to suit their own selfish wants, of being sex obsessed, a danger to society, certainly to be kept away from children, to be rotten parents, to undermine marriage.... all that nonsense. They’re also not satanic, don’t cause floods, are not possessed by demons, do not require to be jailed or even executed.

You can believe that being gay is against what God wants for us.
We believe it isn’t.
End of story. Slandering, misinformation and dehumanisation have no place in this debate.

Pointing that out, again and again, loudly and firmly, is the task of those who want us to accept a moratorium.

"None of this changes the fact that, for the vast majority of both straight and gay human beings, there is no conscious "choice" made to be one or the other. It simply is what they are."

And those who are truly bisexual make their choice depending on the one person we fall in love with, as completely, deeply and lastingly as any completely straight or gay person.

It's about individuals and about love, not about body bits and sex.

Nab
and what, please, is the special thing straight people have over gays?

I live in a loving same sex relationship, we are both committed parents and grandparents, we have many friends, a deep faith, a wonderful church community, we work, we pay taxes, we cook dinners, we take out the rubbish, we cut the grass, we even remember to feed the guinea pigs and walk the dog..... what is that special thing you have that I don't?

Nab wrote: “Should we teach our children that being blind for example is simply an other way of being (it is normal). Or that it is a problem that the Lord would surely fix to make us as he meant us to be?”

How b l i n d is this?
How narrow a definition of “normal”??
How narrow a definition of “fix”???
How narrow a definition of meant to be????
How narrow a definition of the Gospel?????
How narrow a definition of the Lord??????

: - (

Think seriously for just a moment you nay-sayers on the question of whether a homosexual person can be capable of loving both God and same-sex persons at the same time, and be advised that there have been many priests, monks and nuns who have subjugated their same-sex feelings - simply because they have been taught (by the Church) that abstinence is the only possibilitiy for them.

No-one could be quite so stupid as to think that all religious vocations have happened because of the willingness of a heterosexual person to surrender their 'right' to spouse and family. There are many priests and religious, of both types of sexual orientation, whose lives of dedication and service to Christ are exmemplary.

However, there are also those, of both types of sexual orientation, whose lives have been blighted because of their religiously-inspired conviction that any sort of sexual expression with another person is contrary to what God and the Church require of them. Many of us remember the sanction against what were called, in the old days 'Special Friendships', which were routinely anathamatised in Religious Communities. - This is precisely why so many have abandoned their original vows of celibacy and left.

With a more humane and Godly understanding of the place of sexuality in the lives of everyone, the Church now needs to gear its theological thinking to the problem of 'how best do we deal with the reality of sex in the life of the Church'. Until that question is sincerely and honestly faced, there will still be a great deal of hypocrisy about the relative merits of gay and straight expressions of human sexuality within the Church and the world.

For our Church to go back to the attitudes of Lambeth Resolution 1.10, is no different from the Roman Catholic reversion to pre-Vatican II theology and mind-set. The Bible tells us that nothing that God has made is evil. Science and social observation is telling us homosexuals, too, are 'made in the Image and Likeness of God'.
The question here is, does the Church want to bury itself in the past on this issue, or do we go forward with 'What the Spirit might be saying to the Church'?

"10% experience some same sex attraction in adolescence but only 2-3% experience them as adults"

Interesting. Last week we had robroy claiming, accurately, that results from non-anonymous polling are not to be trusted. Yet, here is another person who argues against gay inclusion claiming that only 2-3% of adults "experience same sex attraction", a statistic that comes from non-anonymous polling! I also appreciate the deftness with which you produce an unsubstantiated statistic about adolescents to subtly underline the point that we wickedly choose our sexuality in open defiance of God! Of course, you didn't come right out and say it this time, much more effective to not directly make that link when you first start the argument. But then, you are talking about people I do not know: those who "experience same sex attractions". We are not talking about such people, I've certainly never encountered such people. Gay people, now, I know a lot of them. I also don't know anyone who experiences heterosexual attraction, but you seem to have more experience than me, so I won't deny outright that such people exist.

Conservatives always have answers to put glbt people down.
If we argue nature, they argue people are apart from and better than animals.
If we argue social norms and laws, they argue "natural law", but see the sentence above.
If we try to marry our same-sex partners, they argue we're destroying Western Civilization, and possibly, the entire planet.
If we stay single they argue we're immature and promiscuous.
We can't win arguing with them, they'll always insist they're right, and we're wrong.
Nab reminds us we've all fallen. But I guess some of us have fallen less than others, Nab?
Erika, the special thing that some heterosexuals have is that they know they're better than everyone else.
Me, I'll stick to Genesis 1:27. We are all made in the image of God. All of us. No exceptions. No bible translation I've ever seen has a footnote saying "Homosexuals need not appy".

"Science and social observation is telling us homosexuals, too, are 'made in the Image and Likeness of God'."

That strikes me as an observation both strange and illustrative of these conversations.

Of course homosexual people are in the image and likeness of God. That is the teaching of scripture and of all Christian bodies. It is a religious and theological proposition, with ethical implications.

But to say that science tells us that is puzzling. How does science establish what God is like, and how we are similar? What has science to say at all about how we ought to live?

"The question here is, does the Church want to bury itself in the past...?"

This also strikes me as somewhat symptomatic of the underlying issues. The question is ultimately cast in terms of the value of tradition, "tradition" being, very broadly, what we have received from the past--the life of Israel, the work and teaching of Jesus, the heritage of the Church. Some think it a great gift to be confessed, lived, and passed on. Some think it superceded, to be sloughed off as, at best, an embarrassment, at worst, an active obstacle to progress. No none wants to preserve or jettison everything, but most will either smile or wince when "tradition" is appealed to.

"Should we teach our childreen that being blind for example is simply an other way of being (it is normal). Or that it is a problem that the Lord would surely fix to make us as he meant us to be?"

Speaking as an educator, I absolutely teach my students that being blind is another way of being (not so sure about the "simply" part). What would you have me do - continually remind seeing students that their blind friends and family members cannot see? Punish blind students for using Braille, or for not reading what I write on the board? Insist that one's being able to see is the most important mark of being a whole human?

And since the Lord so often sees fit not to intervene in people's problems, does that mean that he doesn't love them, or that they are somehow to blame? The Lord didn't make Helen Keller physically perfect - is that proof that he didn't love her? Does God really have it in for Stephen Hawking?

While all of this is secondary to the issue at hand, I think it underlines the discomfort that some "conservatives" have with difference of any kind. If physical difference causes such problems for you, no wonder more intangible differences freak you out.

"10% experience some same sex attraction in adolescence but only 2-3% experience them as adults"

Oh, well, in other words, if it's only 2-3%, then surely it's okay to discriminate agdainst them!?

Dear me!

Nat

The question is ultimately cast in terms of the value of tradition, "tradition" being, very broadly, what we have received from the past.... Some think it a great gift to be confessed, lived, and passed on. Some think it superceded, to be sloughed off as, at best, an embarrassment, at worst, an active obstacle to progress."

I think if you stop a minute and consider the things that most are saying, you'll find that those who support gay inclusion consider themselves to be standing just as solidly in the Tradition we have received as those who oppose it believe of themselves. What's more, the majority of that group of Anglicans who oppose gay inclusion come from the Evangelical wing of Anglicanism. Not all, but the majority. The style of Christianity they practice is no more than 500 years old, and came out of a radical reassessment of Christianity, jettisoning a sizable chunk of what had been considered the faith once and for all delivered to the saints for the previous 1500 years. While I strongly believe many of their ideas are wrong, that isn't the point, they may well be right, but that doesn't change the fact that much of what they believe is a radical redefinition of the faith. How does someone who denies baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence have the nerve to condemn as reassessors and innovators people who seek gay inclusion?

""Science and social observation is telling us homosexuals, too, are 'made in the Image and Likeness of God'."

That strikes me as an observation both strange and illustrative of these conversations.

Of course homosexual people are in the image and likeness of God. That is the teaching of scripture and of all Christian bodies. It is a religious and theological proposition, with ethical implications.

But to say that science tells us that is puzzling. How does science establish what God is like, and how we are similar? What has science to say at all about how we ought to live? "

Science tells us that homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals in that their sexual orientation is established without conscious choice on their part. In that they are just like everybody else...and if "everybody else" is made in the image and likeness of God, so are they.

Nat, Erica, CBfH,

My point was that sexuality is not fixed - so there is no such thing as "LGBT people" in that sense. For instance you aren't "born gay" in the sense that you might be born male. Even if one of a pair of identical twins experiences same-sex attraction as an adult the other one is 50-80% likely to not experience SSA. So it's not just genetics, womb environment or family environment - though all three seem to play a role (The identical twin of a gay man is more likely than average to experience SSAs too, and women in SS "marriages" in Denmark, for instance, are much more likely to have lost their mother before the age of 10...)

Furthermore, just because SSA, at least in young adults, has little to do with personal choice doesn't mean that it is not evidence of a problem - as could be the case with same sex behavior in animals which some people alluded to; is such behavior in animals evidence of a natural benefit or a problematic disfunction? After all, sex has a range of functions, not just pleasure, intimacy and relationship forming - some of other functions can't be fulfilled by SS sex. And the sex organs we have are perfectly compatible only for opposite sex sex.

Liberal wouldn't consider it "discrimination" to suggest that some sexual attractions and desires are wrong and should not be acted on. The question is whether same-sex sex should be in that group or not? If it is dis-ordered it should be a met pastorally with sensitivity, compassion and support - but not with approval!

DavidWh said: "My point was that sexuality is not fixed - so there is no such thing as "LGBT people"

... in that case, DavidWh, there is also no such thing as "straight people" - you might yet be gay! However, current research points to brain differences that occur within the womb, so you are plain wrong on the nature side. Of course, scientific research is always open to new insights, but the important point is that no research, anywhere and at any time, indicates that homosexuality is a choice.

DavidWh also said "is such behavior in animals evidence of a natural benefit or a problematic disfunction?"

Current research shows the collective benefit, to the species where it occurs, of such behavior in animals (see Roughgarden and others). Next question.

DavidWh finally said "Liberal wouldn't consider it "discrimination" to suggest that some sexual attractions and desires are wrong and should not be acted on" (sic).

Yes, we would draw the line where it was not adult and mutually consensual. Furthermore, in the context of our common Christian perspective, we would expect faithful commitment. Which shows that your point has nothing to do with the debate.

There is nothing to fear in love, DavidWh. Go in peace.

"sexuality is not fixed - so there is no such thing as "LGBT people" in that sense. For instance you aren't "born gay" in the sense that you might be born male."

But you are "born gay" in the sense that you might be born heterosexual.

"it's not just genetics, womb environment or family environment - though all three seem to play a role3

And should we be thinking in these etiological terms at all?

"And the sex organs we have are perfectly compatible only for opposite sex sex."

Nature is rich in variants; and variety is the spice of life.

"Liberals wouldn't consider it "discrimination" to suggest that some sexual attractions and desires are wrong and should not be acted on. The question is whether same-sex sex should be in that group or not? If it is dis-ordered it should be a met pastorally with sensitivity, compassion and support - but not with approval!"

And again I ask, are these the terms in which we should be thinking? What bearing do they have on the witness and experience of happy gay couples, or of zell-adjusted gays in general?

Where do you get your facts to support your twisted logic davidwh? Is it out of an accepted university textbook for psych majors? Back up your pronouncements with hyperlinks.

"The question is whether same-sex sex should be in that group or not?"

I believe it should not. My back up is my life, my experiences, and my belief in Christ.

You can disagree, but the minute you try to split a faith community, I'll fight you tooth and nail.
To say that a couple that have loved and lived together for fifty plus years are living in sin is absolutely stupid. And to hound those on this blogsite is an exercise disproportionate obsession with something that really doesn't matter to the un- (or over more accurately) churched, is utter nonsense. You are driving away more from Christ than you are attracting, and that is the most damaging thing you can do, and YOU know it!

Now who's the sinner? Go and confess your own most grievous faults.

" Nab reminds us we've all fallen. But I guess some of us have fallen less than others, Nab?
"

Well, what do you think?
Well, in any case I am not sure what you mean by 'level'.

Sin have consequences on both our spirits and our bodies. Alchol abuse can cause a simple dispute, an organ defects, a divorce, a terrible accidents, or ....

If I call the Lord will to my rescue after the incident, I am sure he would heal me and say something like this "you are made whole, go and sin no more..." Even if I may have not confessed publicly my particular sin behind my broken bone.

He is the one who searches the hearts and nothing is hiden from him.

About sexuality...well, there is such thing as abuse of sexuality as well. There is such thing as sexual desorder...

It all comes down to how our understanding of God is. Our concept of God is the basis of everything we believe to be true and just.
And the sad thing is, this concept of God can itself be darkned by sin.

And it seems to me that everyone never take into account that his concept of God could be corrupt to begin with (well this is for all of us, but how far for me? do I ever wonder?). When we all consider that we are 'good' enough to understand truth as it is, we can't help but be in a situation like the one anglicans are particularly in today...

Love recognizes us as we are in accordance with our dignity as human being. But it does not recognize our imperfections, it makes us perfect. It does not recognize our disorders, it heal them and put us in order. It does not recognize our impurities, it is the fire that purifies us.

So Jesus would eat with sinners but to his marriage supper, he will only accept those who are 'properly dressed'.

Our Father is perfect, so we must be perfect. Nothing imperfect will enter heaven. So why should it be wrong to say that a particular situation is not perfect, and does not lead to perfection? Is it intorrent to say that a blind person is not 'okay' as blind? that love should push us to work on means to help him recover sight?

We must seek to know God so we can know his will and plan for us. Otherwise, we are simply worshiping a 'God' made in our image.

Philippians 4:8

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

God bless

DavidWH.

Can you tell us - are you a scientist working in the intricate fied of sexual attraction? Somehow I think not - simply because of your dismissive attitude towards the word 'discrimination'.

Your statement that: "just because SSA, at least in young adults, has little to do with personal choice doesn't mean that it is not evidence of a problem" betrays some trace of naivete, in that most SSA people are already aware of the very considerable problems associated with being gay. One of these is the official attitude of the Church, which is prone to consider all such attractions as 'sinful'.

The sooner gays themselves are invited to share their experience of SSA with reputable theologians who are not 'automatically' biassed against their very existence, the sooner the problems of discrimination against them can be addressed.

Only SSA people know the veracity of their own experience in this important area of their lives, and this is still not being taken seriously by Church Leaders - escept in those places which have already accepted the reality.

"And the sex organs we have are perfectly compatible only for opposite sex sex."

Phhhhhttttt!!!

This is so laughably pathetic: DavidWh, PLEASE quit while you're behind!

And when has it been met with sensitivity, compassion, and support by the leaders of the Global South? By leaders such as +Akinola or +Orombi? Or by the leaders of the secessionist movements within TEC? These people can't stand to be in the same room as an openly gay bishop.
Furthermore, as far as I'm concerned, all too often "sensitivity, compassion, and support" seem to come across as paternalism, condescension, and pity.
"Oh, look at me, see how noble I am to treat and counsel that man who is seething with vile sinfulness, how well I minister to him."

Ford Elms wrote: “I think if you stop a minute and consider the things that most are saying, you'll find that those who support gay inclusion consider themselves to be standing just as solidly in the Tradition we have received as those who oppose it believe of themselves.”

Moreover, the anti Moderns into American (1970ies) and Roman (1966) social politics are traditional i s t s, not traditional. A radical redefinition, precisely. That is a whole lot different.

DawidW wrote: “Even if one of a pair of identical twins experiences same-sex attraction as an adult the other one is 50-80% likely to not experience SSA”

According to what I have read is considerably less, these identical twin surveys say some 50%, which is much to low according to your line of reasoning (= re-hashed Dr Fraud cum cum naughty bits ;=)

"If it is dis-ordered..."

The American Psychological Association decided some time ago that homosexuality is not disordered.

"My point was that sexuality is not fixed..."

It is truly your own experience that you yourself could have chosen another sexual orientation if you had decided to do so?

David Wh
You seem to be making the same comments every four weeks or so, using almost verbatim the same arguments.

I suggest that for our response you trawl the TA archives.
This is just too boring for further words.

If it is dis-ordered it should be a met pastorally with sensitivity, compassion and support - but not with approval!

How does your approach work in practise? Tell people they should have no sex (including autosexual behaviour)? Hardly a healthy choice - and the benefits of regular sex are well documented.

From today's Church Times, a report about Todd Bentley, the re­vivalist behind the Florida Out­pouring, who has resigned from the Board of Fresh Fire Ministries and agreed to “refrain from all public ministry for a season”, after it emerged that he has had “an inappropriate relation­ship” with one of his staff.

Commenting, a Dr Stibbe said: “The most important thing to say is that Todd’s marital difficulties in no way undermine the integrity of the outpouring of the Spirit at Lakeland, nor the salvations and countless healing miracles that have happened there and in many other places since April of this year. God uses imperfect vessels. Todd has never hidden his weaknesses, both past and present. He has given hope to literally thousands of believers all over the world who don’t feel per­fect, but who want to be used by their Heavenly Father.”

I'd like to know whether those who write here on TA with such confidence about the Bible and God's will for human sexuality think this response to Todd's human failing is too generous and 'liberal'. Shouldn't he and his ministry be ruthlessly and unequivocally be judged and condemned as not Christian and failing to communicate the Gospel because of his sexual failings? And if not, why is there such an obsession with gay people and the fact that we also enjoy sexual intimacy, as often as heteroseuxals, within a faithful relationship, and sometimes, like revered Christian leaders, outside? One law for heterosexuals and another for LGBT people, it seems to me.

Me, I'm with Dr Stibbe on this, I'm for the integrity of gay relationships in Christ, showing forth the fruits of the Spirit in love and creative Christian ministry.

Father Ron, disapproval is not discrimination - I thought it was only teenagers that argued "you don't love me" when adults won't let them do what they want.

Paul H, Thanks for addressing the issues I raised. In response:

I agree, there is no such thing as a "straight" person- sexual orientation is not an ontological category of the same type as sex or race.

Current research has speculated that same-sex sex may occur where there may be some benefits to species - that is not proof. The existence of occasional SS behaviors (eg in a pair of captive penguins) may just be evidence of an occasional disfunction!.. especially as one "went straight" the following season when a female was available.

Finally, you admitted that you too would "draw the line" - where sex was not adult and mutually consensual, and that you would expect faithful commitment (I notice you didn't say "exclusive" commitment - which is the biblical concept of adultery). My point is that you have categories, however minimalist, that define what is unacceptable behavior. So does biblical Christianity. They just happen to be much more restrictive. The question is, which are God's categories?!

Colin

Sorry to hear that Todd Bentley has "fallen" (don't we all!). It sounds like he is already repentant and acting responsibly. Of course God forgives repented sin, and restores the fallen!

In your posting it seemed that you were actually admitting an equivalence between adultery and same-sex sex - ie that both are sexual sins. I would be delighted if you now accept that... and would be very supportive of people who have repentant of their same-sex sexual relationships being fully included in the church. In fact I know several who already have, and are!

Colin

The thing that interested me about Todd Bentley was that he was calling out words of wisdom for homosexuality to be healed. It is of personal interest to me be because I am bi-sexual (celibate 7 years) and the homosexual feelings are something I would be happy for God to heal

Nab wrote: “When we all consider that we are 'good' enough to understand truth as it is…”

This is a Platonist Gnosticist idea, Nab. Now go and Repent!

David W wrote: “(I notice you didn't say "exclusive" commitment - which is the biblical concept of adultery).” “So does biblical Christianity. They just happen to be much more restrictive. The question is, which are God's categories?!”

Didn’t you read what I said? Moixoì does not at all mean “adultery” but dis-loyality towards the House/Group. The sexualization is Carolingian-Scholastic.

"Love recognizes us as we are in accordance with our dignity as human being. But it does not recognize our imperfections, it makes us perfect."

Makes us perfect? Good luck with that...

"After all, sex has a range of functions, not just pleasure, intimacy and relationship forming - some of other functions can't be fulfilled by SS sex."

The only such function that leaps to mind is procreation (which isn't even a factor in many heterosexual marriages). Have you discovered a new one?

"And the sex organs we have are perfectly compatible only for opposite sex sex."

Hhmmm...and not all opposite sex sex, at that. Would that mean that heterosexual non-vaginal sex is against God's will, too?

The only thing worse than when davidwh attempts to play theologian is when he goes to his toy box and takes out his scientist costume.

As Erika said, David, this is too boring for words. Posting the same stuff over and over, making no effort whatsoever to engage what people here are actually saying, is nothing more than trolling.

DavidWh:

It seems that your appreciation of irony and science are about equal. I don't think I can advise you on the former, but on the latter point, there are plenty of substantial scientific observations (not merely speculative theory) in 'Evolution's Rainbow' and the human sexuality research referred to by other posters.

You are also on a slippery slope with your challenge to ontological understandings of orientation - I don't think the weight of research sees this as a social construction.

Indeed, If you could bring yourself to look at the relative levels of evidence, debate and contestation you would find that orientation is a much more stable category (more defensibly ontological) than notions of, for example, what 'biblical Christianity' might mean for various communities at various times. Yet you offer THAT social construction as if it was a concrete reality!

And 'exclusive' SSRs? Yes, I would add that too; but since David and Jonathan's love for each other* which 'surpassed the love of women' didn't stop them having wives on the side, I'm not sure it's biblical.

*[This story convinced the conservative evangelical Bishop of Liverpool to change his mind about SSRs - so despite the ironic comment, I think that it merits serious reflection.]

I probably won't be inclined to add further, but I hope that you may eventually find difference less difficult to cope with, and so find love in more places. God be with you.

"Didn’t you read what I said? Moixoì does not at all mean “adultery” but dis-loyality towards the House/Group. The sexualization is Carolingian-Scholastic."

Oh, he read it, Goran. He just rejects it as an argument. I've never met a conservative fundamentalist who thinks there's such a thing as a mistranslation of scripture. If it's in a version that received approval from some church or other, it's just got to be infallible.

"the homosexual feelings are something I would be happy for God to heal" - Posted by David W

I have to ask: has it ever occurred to you, that the reason you haven't received the healing you ask for, is because you're asking for the wrong kind of healing?

Nevertheless: inscrutable are the Ways of God. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away---blessed be the Name of the Lord."

You have my prayers, David W.

David Wh: ". . . and that you would expect faithful commitment (I notice you didn't say "exclusive" commitment . . ."

David, one of the plants in my office is a bit sickly. I was thinking of getting some fertilizer for it. Thanks for saving me the trip to the garden centre.

This is another typical tactic by dishonest "conservatives:" take the plain sense of what their opponent has said and then twist, distort and lie about what was meant.

There is no point discussing this with you, David, if you are so patently dishonest.

David Wh
I feel very very sorry that you are battling so very much with your sexual orientation, especially seeing you consider it to be so sinful.

What I don't understand is why you pray to be delivered from bisexuality. Even according to your very rigid church interpreation the orientation is not sinful, only acting on it would be. As you are celibate, or if you were married to a woman, the bisexual aspect of your orientation manifests itself no differently than for anyone else who is tempted outside the nest. It's sinful only if you give in to it.

Of course, stories like yours make me seethingly angry with those who brainwashed you into believing that you are sinful in the first place.
If only you could shut your ears to the clamour and open your heart to let God get a word in edgeways and show you just how much you are accepted and loved as you are!

"I have to ask: has it ever occurred to you, that the reason you haven't received the healing you ask for, is because you're asking for the wrong kind of healing?"

Or why not just "healing" and let God decide? "Oh Lord, who knoweth our needs before we ask, and our ignorance in asking,....."

Paul H, I've posted other comments on the new thread Simon has created (the RSP submission to the ACC). However, to pick you up on the point about David and Jonathan's "love"; Love doesn't have to be sexual - it could just have meant that the intimacy of their relationship was greater than with their wives(s). [And even if there was a sexual relationship, it doesn't mean that God approved - as per David's adultery... and his polygamy - which is specifically forbidden to Israel's Kings (in Deuteronomy I think)].

ps I always smile about western liberals' reactions to the word "love" in the Bible. eg when folk argue that Jesus was gay on the basis of John 13:23 "the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him" [probably John himself]. You could also point to John 11:36: "Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him [Lazarus]!".. which would justify a relaxed attitude to sexual exclusivity.. AND then John 11;5 states that "Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus." :-o

Gay, Bi, Poly?... I think that the explanation is that Bible's writers were living in societies that were somewhat less sex-obsessed than ours!

David Wh

I have no interest in responding to remarks about things I did not say.

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree somewhat with davidwh's take on the liberal party line about David and Jonathan. I think that to assume that the relationship was sexual is a terrible indictment of our society's approach to love between two men. In the United States, any sign of affection or love between two men is popularly labelled as proof of being gay, because we expect men to be stoically removed from positive emotions; love for another male is suspect as a sign of weakness. And our quickness to identify emotional intimacy with sexual intimacy, I fear, keeps a lot of straight American men locked in a lonely and emotionally stunted state.

BillyD

It was *DavidWh* that made observations about David and Jonathan's relationship being sexual - I said nothing about it. It seems to be on DavidWh's mind at the moment.

I am sure DavidWh will be most distressed to find that he is accused of promoting the 'liberal party line', as you put it. I choose to think, however, that he (and all of us) are probably more multi-dimensional than that.

As for associating affection in an SSR with being gay, that is your presumption rather than mine - I didn't 'label' either of them. You obviously have an ontological view of such matters. I fear that may also be distressing to DavidWh.

As for the threat being labelled 'gay' discouraging emotional intimacy: this can only be occur if you think being gay is some sort of stigma, as you seem to. So now we see the real problem: the stigmatisation of being gay. If American society was more accepting of gay people, by your reasoning, then straight men would lead more emotionally fulfilled lives.

I hope that you are less unsettled by this particular form of difference in the future, and have an emotionally fulfilled life.

God be with you.

"It was *DavidWh* that made observations about David and Jonathan's relationship being sexual - I said nothing about it."

I wasn't addressing you, but making a general observation. At least, I didn't intend to address you.

"As for the threat being labelled 'gay' discouraging emotional intimacy: this can only be occur if you think being gay is some sort of stigma, as you seem to."

Huh?

*I* don't think that homosexuality is a stigma - American culture in general thinks that homosexuality is a stigma. Even "progressive" American culture does -- witness Jon Stewart's jokes about the photos of Bush holding hands with King Abdullah, or of Bush and McCain embracing. Witness the widespread use of the word "gay" as a term of disparagement ("That's so gay!"). If you were under the impression that we live in a society that celebrates gay people, then I apologize for disillusioning you.

DavidWh. Just who is 'obsessing about sex' here on this thread? I think you will find that the majority of contributors are indicating that sex is just a part of loving. LOVE is of God, and those who are loving are the children of God.
"Little children, love one another" (1 John)

I find it is usually the dominant hetero-sexual community who are more obsessed with what gay people do in their bedrooms that anyone else.

I guess this is at the root of the problems facing the Church at this time - the suspicion of anyone who happens to be 'different' in any way. this is why the anti-gay lobby are often anti-women's rights; anti-other religious systems, anti-biblical exposition and often anti-enlightenment on most subjects.

Faith can never be built on anathema. Faith, Hope and love go together - these three, and the greatest of them is LOVE. (consider God's own unconditional; love for you, for everyone).