Comments: Inclusive Church: sermon

You have done a good job of obfuscating the problem. But that seems to be the skill of "Philosophers" these days. Gay sex is sin and that is all there is to it. If you take no stands then you stand for nothing and that is why the Angelican Church is failing in this world. Look to the African leadership and you will see the right course to take. You, obviously, have not look to the Bible.
Sad.

Posted by David B. McIver at Friday, 13 February 2004 at 11:45pm GMT

In this respect I agree with Canon Professor Adams: the Church needs radically to address our sexuality in terms of a whole-cloth anthropology and ethic of Christian living that is rooted (there's the radical bit) in the witness of holy Scripture to the living Jesus and reasonably interpreted through catholic Tradition, an enterprise that wholly depends on God the Holy Spirit's guidance and direction. But narrowly defining this as Canon Adams would - "what Good News we might be able to proclaim through human sexuality today", or by a priori ruling out any conclusions or new construction that would look anything like "traditional...sexual mores", is to miss the mark entirely and to capitulate to the usual Western infatuations with chronological superiority and individualism (a concern which she dismisses out of hand). I do not believe that the good Canon Professor is ready to accept the possibility that "answer[ing] our call to dig down deeper into what God and we together might want to mean" (might "want to mean"?) would mean celibacy in singleness and chastity in marriage between one man and one woman. To the extent that she rejects that possibility out of hand, her calls for anything radical, for rebuilding again from the skandalon that is Christ crucified, are just so much sloganeering.

Posted by Todd Granger at Saturday, 14 February 2004 at 1:46pm GMT

Professor Adams points out the fly in the ointment for conservatives who like having their freedom with their sexuality while righeously denying gay people theirs.We have accepted the divorce culture without a peep, and on abortion we favor legalisation of the slaughter of the innocents. It is well to see that the actions of ECUSA are an outrage against scripture and tradition, But repentance for what heterosexuals have done in defiance of scripture and tradition is also required.

Posted by Hugh Comer at Saturday, 14 February 2004 at 3:23pm GMT

All who are acquainted with Adam's work are not surprised by her sermon. And she is certainly correct that the present challenge of homosexuality (and other sexualities) demand that we dig deeper into God's Word and the Holy Tradition. It is insufficient simply to cite biblical texts. Thus I find myself turning to Pope John Paul II's writings on his "theology of the body"--or perhaps more accurately I'm turning to his expositors (e.g., Christopher West), since the Pope is not an easy read. Perhaps we Episcopalians really need to rethink many things and reconsider the intrinsic connection of the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual union. Perhaps.

http://www.theologyofthebody.net/

Posted by Al at Saturday, 14 February 2004 at 3:50pm GMT

Regretably, those who support the sexual identity movement, are able to point to the hypocrisy in the Anglican experience -- the progress of personal sexual freedom as a right --although a good deal of it has run counter to 2000 years of teaching. Each of the Church's decisions cited by Mother Adams has tended to move us further away from God. This is juxtaposed against our enormous sense of self in the West. We adore our cleverness, our sense of sophistication, and worship our "science." However, human nature, human experience, human impulse, and human biology will never change. These are real and enduring parts of each of us, no matter our religion, race, gender, class, or nationality.

Some people find the realization that we are just human boring, which is why I believe they are always searching for the next new thing. They require constant animation and stimulation to feel engaged.

I suppose also that if one comes from a background where homosexuals, blacks, women and others were hated and reviled, one must become a liberator to prove one's bona fides as a Christian in our social context. This is not a human rights issue.

Posted by Cristina at Sunday, 15 February 2004 at 9:38am GMT

The pathetic aspect about these debates on this boring sexual sideshow that is taking the church's time from more important matters is that people keep quoting the Bible to condemn homosexuality. Independently of which side is taken people just don't seem to understand that you can find Biblical support, yes support, for things such as polygamy, adultery, terrorism, genocide, infanticide.....should I go on? The point is that Bible is a culturally conditioned document - which doesn't make it any less holy or any less the word of God - but it does make us responsible for wrestling with the tough issues of our times the way our ancestors did in biblical times. There is nothing wrong with the church trying to come to terms with contemporary times, abandoning views that seem outdated - even if they were held correct in previous times. That is what the church has always done - all the religions have done it. Find whatever social sins you want to find today - you will find our ancestors had them and others. Let us have compassion and love for one another and for this holy and gracious time we are living in.

Posted by Rodolfo Guzman at Sunday, 15 February 2004 at 7:18pm GMT

It is hard for me to know, more than with a kind of personal preference definition, what exactly is meant by 'homo' or 'hetero' sexual. I understand something of what is not meant, but there is no means of evaluating love between same sex couples any more than there is between married or 'straight' couples. In earlier times, men and women as well were capable of opportunistic sexualities which offered liberation or just plain physical release. Now in the Church we are confronted with a demand for Equality of Sexual Status which seems an ethical slippery slope which we have no means of properly assessing ahead of time. Why can we not say what is patently obvious - that we are not at present competent to decide these issues ? We wait upon the Holy Spirit, not the Diocese of New Hampshire.

Posted by Jay Wilson at Saturday, 28 February 2004 at 5:22pm GMT

THE ADAMS' FAMILY

Read "the article":http://trushare.com/0106MAR04/MR0430DA.htm in *New Directions*

Posted by M Stewart at Tuesday, 23 March 2004 at 1:39am GMT