Thinking Anglicans

InclusiveChurch comment on the ACC

The ACC has created a serious challenge for the Anglican Church
original here
The result of the vote at the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham on Weds 22nd June represents a serious challenge to the future of the Anglican Church. It is vital that those who celebrate the breadth and depth of the Anglican tradition begin to take seriously the threat to the future of our church.

St Paul says in the first letter to the Corinthians ‘Now the body is not made up of one part, but of many…..The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you.” ’ It is clear that the continued exclusion of the Episcopal Church of the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in spite of their open, honest and generous responses to the Windsor Report and the Primates’ request is a contradiction of the words of St Paul.

The preface to the Book of Common Prayer, published in 1662, opens with the words “It hath ever been the wisdom of the Church of England to keep the mean between two extremes.” The Church has lived with diversity and difference since its foundation. Anglicans from a vast breadth of theological and liturgical understandings have respected one another’s right to be members. The path has not always been easy but the Church has held together over nearly five centuries.

The Anglican Church has made a unique contribution to Christian witness. We have always been Catholic and Reformed, standing between the extreme certainties which caused such terror and suffering in the Reformation era. We are commtted to maintaining the value of that inheritance. We are not surprised when something that has so much within it that works for good and redemption is under attack.

But this Church that we love is now under threat. The Gospel of broad and generous inclusion is being undermined by a dangerously monochrome interpretation of scripture.

The loss of our voice; the change in our ecclesiology; the equating of our Anglican tradition with other hard-line, protestant, or neo-conservative churches would be a serious and permanent diminishing of Christian witness to the world.

InclusiveChurch and its thirteen partner organisations in the Church of England have welcomed the process of reception of the Windsor Report and the institution of the “Listening process” agreed by the Anglican Consultative Council. We are working closely with other groups within the Anglican Commuion, both in the UK and abroad. We are committed to this so that we can try to ensure that the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion is not subverted.

The decision taken at the ACC meeting in Nottingham to include all the Primates as full members of the Anglican Consultative Council sets an alarming precedent. There is a real possibility of imposed doctrinal and theological positions from a conservative grouping.

We cannot risk becoming a church where the Primates can equate homosexuality with bestiality; or where there is permanent subjugation of women and institutionalised inequality; or where genuine debate and searching are replaced by an imposed orthodoxy.

We are aware that the Church faces very different challenges around the world, and we have no wish to exclude from the church those who have a different interpretation of the Gospel. But for the sake of the Church we repeat clearly that we are committed to finding ways to ensure that the diversity of the Anglican Communion continues to be celebrated and encouraged.

InclusiveChurch deeply regrets the continued exclusion of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada from full participation in the life of the Anglican Communion. We express our full support for their respect for the Anglican Communion and their membership of it.

We believe that the Gospel witness we offer must continue to grow and to that end we call on all members of our Communion to become aware of the risks we are facing. ‘The eye cannot say to the hand – “I do not need you.”’

Giles Goddard
Executive Secretary
InclusiveChurch

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
62 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin Hambrook
Martin Hambrook
16 years ago

“It is clear that the continued exclusion of the Episcopal Church of the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in spite of their open, honest and generous responses to the Windsor Report and the Primates’ request is a contradiction of the words of St Paul.” I’d be careful about quoting St Paul, Giles, like he was some kind of authority for today – you don’t know where that could lead … Anyway, I thought Ecusa and ACCan weren’t excluded, they voluntarily withdrew. So what’s the problem? Did Ecusa and ACCan *listen to the Primates in October 2003 and at… Read more »

John Henry
John Henry
16 years ago

“Monochrome interpretation of scripture…” That is putting it kindly. “Monolithic” and “pre-critical” might be more apt adjectives to describe the position of the neo-puritan reasserters.

Chris McMullen
Chris McMullen
16 years ago

On “keeping the mean between two extremes”: We all like to think of ourselves as moderates –I know I do– and our opponents as extremists. Those who share the same discipline of sexual expression and the same interpretation of Scripture that the overwhelming majority of other Christians do, around the world and across the centuries –rightly or wrongly– are now the “extremists”. Pray tell, who would be the “extremists” on the opposite side, if the re-appraisers’ program is “moderate” or “middle of the road”? Should we apply the same reasoning to other variations on sexual discipline? Are polygamists “moderate” and… Read more »

Martin Hambrook
Martin Hambrook
16 years ago

John Henry: Spatial metaphors and descriptors like ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’ are apt to tell us more about the user than the content of an actual belief. Who would not want to be ‘extremely’ faithful to Christ? Is it not desirable to be a genuine ‘liberal’, freely considering all views – even when you have to decide in the end which is nearer the truth? Aye, there’s the rub. The issue is really truth, whether and how it can be known. What is wrong with being ‘old fashioned’ if the new fashion is fascism? Long ago G K Chesterton (now there’s… Read more »

Vincent Coles
Vincent Coles
16 years ago

In order for there to be dialog there has to be listening on both sides. Unforunately the delegations from ECUSA and Canada came to Nottingham, not to listen to the concerns of the Anglican Communion but to inform it that they were right and that everyone else would simply have to fall into line.

By any realistic assessment they are the ones who have jeopardised the unity of the Body, having pushed generosity and inclusion beyond reasonable interpretation. Now that they are perched at the end of the branch, they are sawing it off.

David Golden
16 years ago

I also worry about where we draw the line as far as interpreting scripture. I have always considered myself a moderate, but where does the church draw the line in regard to sexuality? In five years from now do we accept a bishop that is a pedophiliac, just because we do not want to exclude anyone from the church? I am having a real moral struggle with this, because I cannot justify the fact that I do not want to discriminate, but I would have a real problem accepting an openly gay priest or bishop.

Christopher Shell
Christopher Shell
16 years ago

Surely the fact that the specific changes which are proposed just so happen by coincidence to be exactly those which have recently happened in society should show us what the big picture is here. We all know that the main predictor of a person’s beliefs is the society which they are born into and/or live in. Whereas when it comes to truth, social convention is not a factor at all, but an irelevance.

bls
bls
16 years ago

Why these constant comparisons of faithful gay partnerships with pedophilia?

If people truly believe that an “openly gay priest or bishop” is in any way equivalent to pedophilia (the rape of children, after all!), then the problem is certainly not ours.

bls
bls
16 years ago

“Whereas when it comes to truth, social convention is not a factor at all, but an irelevance.”

Then why is it so difficult for traditionalists to accept the fact that some people are gay, and that faithful gay partnerships ought to be encouraged, not discouraged?

Perhaps it’s because the conservative prejudice against gay people is simply a product of the society into which most conservatives were born, and takes no account of the “truth” of the way things actually are.

Dave
Dave
16 years ago

BCP 1662 Preface: “IT hath been the wisdom of the Church of England, ever since the first compiling of her Public Liturgy, to keep the mean between the two extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and too much easiness in admitting any variation from it.” This was talking about flexibility in use of liturgy… how do “LiberalChurch” manage to interprete that to mean flexible morality ? … OK, interpretation was never their strong point! I think that the authors would have put “blessings” of gay relationships into the following category in the preface: “…. of the sundry Alterations proposed… Read more »

Antony
Antony
16 years ago

Dear bls, I have some sympathy for your reaction regarding homosexuality and pedophilia, but I believe that the slippery, revisionist, slope will get us (you!) close to that position. The heresy, and sin, that the revisionists are preaching is the one regarding “sexual orientation”. If the heretics would be honest this, “orientation”, should include polygamy and also small minorities who prefer their sibling or mother/father as their sexual partner and perhaps even make some room for those who prefer non-human relationships (as long as they will not violate any animal rights laws). Even if you include that the relationship must… Read more »

DGus
DGus
16 years ago

Dear BLS: Hello again. You ask, “Why these constant comparisons of faithful gay partnerships with pedophilia?” Because–however different the two things may be in important ways–you are unable to demonstrate to us how a Church that tolerates homosexuality will resist pedophilia. Some on this site have even brushed off such questions with the observation that this is “not my issue”. (Translation: I don’t care about pedophiles or their victims; I don’t care what the Church does about pedophilia; and people who think like me are not going to take responsibility for constructing a defensible ethic.) It’s a simple question: How… Read more »

Merseymike
16 years ago

I certainly don’t regard myself as a moderate. I think its about time we liberals reclaimed the insult of revisionist, for its clear enough to me that Christianity needs revision in order to be anything else than an outdated set of superstitions and book-worshipo.

Wink, Hopkins, Spong – excellent stuff.

Scotus
Scotus
16 years ago

Martin Hambrook: Chesterton’s concept of “chronological snobbery” has always seemed to be to be a quite valid observation. However, herein lies my difficulty with how that concept is all-too-frequently deployed in debates on The Current Anglican Troubles: There always seems to be an implication (including by you in your post above, unless I am misreading it, as I very well may be) that the *reverse* is in fact true, a sort of “contra-chronological snobbery,” if you will — in other words, that Tuesday must always be considered privileged above Thursday, merely because Tuesday came first. Such an idea might come… Read more »

Scotus
Scotus
16 years ago

“Surely the fact that the specific changes which are proposed just so happen by coincidence to be exactly those which have recently happened in society should show us what the big picture is here. We all know that the main predictor of a person’s beliefs is the society which they are born into and/or live in. Whereas when it comes to truth, social convention is not a factor at all, but an irelevance.” Dr. Shell, it seems entirely likely to me that this actually works in both directions. In other words, even “traditionalists” are often more reflective of a social/cultural… Read more »

Ray S.
Ray S.
16 years ago

1 Corinthians 5

Immorality Must Be Judged
9I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner–not even to eat with such a person.

J. C. Fisher
16 years ago

I have no problem saying that Scripture says some WRONG things (all that cr*p about menstruating women being “unclean” for one). . . . but condemnation of “homosexuality” (or “homosexual sex”) simply isn’t one of them. To Chris McM, who asked: “Pray tell, who would be the “extremists” on the opposite side, if the re-appraisers’ program is “moderate” or “middle of the road”?” “Nothing is permitted/Everything is permitted” are flip-sides of each other: both are unfaithful to God *and* our brothers&sisters. LGBT Christians (and our straight allies) find ourselves walking a tight-rope (the via media again) between theist puritans and… Read more »

Martin Hambrook
Martin Hambrook
16 years ago

John Henry: please tell me if I’ve got your views wrong. This is the nub of the question – everything else is beating round the bush.

Robert
Robert
16 years ago

“conservative prejudice against gay people “ Here we go again. This kind of talk has become almost a mantra on this web-site, as are the ambiguous terms “conservative” and “evangelical” as if they are people to be shunned. Funny, because the same people who use these terms in a derogatory sense are the first to argue for inclusivity. The issue, all along (as it seems to have been forgotten) is the place and authority of the Holy Scriptures. It is NOT, per se, any feelings one may have against gay people. What many of us are struggling with is the… Read more »

Merseymike
16 years ago

Sorry, Robert, that old chestnut of trying to separate ‘practice’and ‘orientation’ just doesn’t wash. Its also not backed up in the Bible, which has no concept of sexual orientation. A conservative , literalist reading cannot make the separation you do – and indeed, the church did not, at one time, and could well have made this shift in order to appear less bigoted in the light of social change. Quite simply, if you do not regard gay people and their relationships as the moral equivalent of straight people and their relationships, amnd wish to discriminate against them legally, socially or… Read more »

Christopher Shell
Christopher Shell
16 years ago

There will always be positive things one can learn from the surrounding culture, simply because the surrounding culture is full of millions of things. Some of those millions of things are bound to be positive. But they are not positive by being part of the surrounding culture, but by virtue of being intrinsically beneficial. Whereas trends and beliefs tend to follow the surrounding culture (or the culture that is being pressed on them by those with the wherewithal to do so) simply because it is the surrounding culture, because it is fashionable, because it is what people do and believe… Read more »

Robert
Robert
16 years ago

Not for the first time, Merseymike, you are either misinterpreting or seeking to misrepresent what I said. I know perfectly well, and do not need to be told, that the Bible says nothing about sexual orientation. Actually, I only made the distinction because it is the gay community who often bring this distinction up when one refers to what the Bible says about homosexuality. It is the practice of homosexuality that we believe the Bible to declare as sin. It’s not what I choose say that matters in the slightest, Merseymike. It’s what the Bible says. If the Bible says… Read more »

Martin Hambrook
Martin Hambrook
16 years ago

Scotus: thank you for your comments on my piece. As you wonder about my own views, you do me the service of making this Thinking Anglican reflect and express them here. So – 1. Yes, quite often I will prefer ‘Tuesday’ over ‘Thursday’ – if Tuesday (maybe I should say Monday!) is understood as the original apostolic testimony to the risen Christ and (less authoritatively but still very valuable)the sub-apostolic period covering thosae who knew and were taught by the apostles (Ignatius; Clement of Rome; Polycarp etc). The NT doesn’t have a privileged place in Christian theology because the apostles… Read more »

Martin Hambrook
Martin Hambrook
16 years ago

Merseymike writes: ‘Sorry, Robert, that old chestnut of trying to separate ‘practice’and ‘orientation’ just doesn’t wash. Its also not backed up in the Bible, which has no concept of sexual orientation. A conservative , literalist reading cannot make the separation you do – and indeed, the church did not, at one time, and could well have made this shift in order to appear less bigoted in the light of social change.’ Mike, I appreciate that you are a plain speaker and don’t usually obfuscate or ‘do nuance’. Unfortunately, you don’t do theology either. The term ‘sexual orientation’ presumably means ‘the… Read more »

Henry
Henry
16 years ago

David Golden has given me an idea. Why not embrace paedophiles as well. Actually, they have more a case than gays, because I can confidently say that the word does not feature in the Bible. After all, we must be inclusive, musn’t we! But why stop there? Why do we not make a list of all the sins we can think of, and declare that in the interests of inclusivity all these cease to be sins. That will shorten the Sunday service, as there won’t be anything to confess. And Jesus Christ becomes redundant because He came to save sinners,… Read more »

Jake
16 years ago

Two adults members who are in love request that the Church bless their relationship. They have been in a committed relationship for many years. Their love and devotion to one another is evident to the entire community. On what basis do we tell them no? Are we really suggesting that we can tell this couple that the love they experience, sometimes their only experience of love in their life, is not of God? The couple will have two choices; either run from the Church, never to return, or accept a twisted undersanding of love. Tossing in things like pedophelia is… Read more »

Merseymike
16 years ago

You are quite right, Robert. I’m not in the least convinced. The Bible has an anti-gay stance, and as far as I am concerned, it is neither inerrant nor infallible. I do not bel;ieve that one is obliged, as a Christian, to read it in the literal and conservative way you do. But you know that already. One thing which I do share with some conservatives is a belief that conservative and liberal Christianity are really totally different beliefs. Thats why, again, unlike some on both sides, I wanrt to see a split in the CofE as well as the… Read more »

Martin Hambrook
Martin Hambrook
16 years ago

Mike writes: ‘One thing which I do share with some conservatives is a belief that conservative and liberal Christianity are really totally different beliefs. That’s why, again, unlike some on both sides, I want to see a split in the CofE as well as the Communion. It makes no conceivable sense for us to be within the same denomination.’ You need to learn some theology, Mike. Gresham Machen did write a book in 1920s called ‘Christianity and Liberalism’ in which he stated that they were indeed two different religions, and insofar ‘liberalism’ here denoted anti-miraculous, anti-incarnational unitarianism, this would be… Read more »

Merseymike
16 years ago

Dear me, Martin. All this ‘you should learn some theology’ stuff – its getting a bit boring. What you really mean is ‘you should think the same as me’. Still, I have never claimed to be a theologian, sociology is my subject. Having said that, I am familiar with the references you have given, but it isn’t only the liberals who have changed. The conservatives have too. Certainly, the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ compromise with regard to gay people really doesn’t work in a society where to be openly gay is no longer problematic. But the acceptance of liberals within… Read more »

Christian
Christian
16 years ago

I have to say my need for a dictionary and technique of re-reading have to be employed here quite frequently. I thank you all for that. I have a few questions. Why do gay folk want to come to church? Why do conservatives not want Gay folk in church? Who is to be the judge of what is right or wrong? Weren’t scriptures written in committee? If the Holy Spirit can be present when the church was deciding on what was to be included and what was to be excluded from the Bible, Why couldn’t the Holy Spirit guide those… Read more »

Martin Hambrook
Martin Hambrook
16 years ago

Well, Mike, I’m glad I made you laugh. I assumed you knew what I meant by ‘cultural Marxism’, which is to be distinguished from the economic and political theories of that unlamented prophet. If you are not at all inspired by Adorno, Fromm, Reich and Marcuse, my apologies for misinterpreting you. I will ignore your rhetorical flights about ‘hordes of liberals infiltrating etc’ which serve no purpose other than to avoid answering my points, and your ad hominem assumptions about me and my ‘agenda’. I do, however, agree with you that the normalization of homosexuality in society puts pressure on… Read more »

Christian
Christian
16 years ago

Martin: I liked the blurb cited above concerning Newton etr. I do believe in the Nicean Creed, i.e., virgin birth, resurrection of the body et al. I would be someone who say “yes,” to inclusivity but no to those whom want to classify “that He rose bodily and will return in person etc etc (‘Mythology’ – Hich et al).” There are those of us labeled as liberals who do believe the creed and biblical authority. What I wrestle with is what do we do with Gay folks? I have, through my profession as a teacher, recieved a great deal of… Read more »

J. C. Fisher
16 years ago

I confess, MM, that I am not at all sure that *our* theology is the same . . . it is the historic charism of Anglicanism, however, that IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE. (If someone can recite the Creed in worship, I neither know nor care what is “in their heart”, when we both—equally undeserving—come to the altar. That’s for God to sort out!) Are liberal and conservative Anglicanisms different faiths? I honestly don’t know. It is my (S, T & R-informed) *gut instinct* that many conservatives have their “orthodoxy ABOUT Jesus” . . . but simply don’t KNOW the… Read more »

John Henry
John Henry
16 years ago

Martin Hambrook: In answer to two of your responses about my earlier statement about the neo-puritan reasserters’ use of scripture, may I refer you to a seminal book by a reputable NT scholar and author of a Bible commentary in the Anchor Bible Series (#35A), Luke Timothy Jonhson, professor of NT Exegesis at Emory University, Atlanta, GA? It is entilted, Scripture & Discernment: Decision-Making in the Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1983/rev.1996), which deals with hermeneutical issues, and how the Church in history, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, made decisions – inclusion of and table-fellowship with Gentiles, leadership role… Read more »

Merseymike
16 years ago

JCF ; I actually think that liberals have changed far less than conservatives,many of whom have veered alarmingly towards a narrow intolerance of other parts of the broad Anglican church. Many of the historical references they use are exactly that – part of Anglican history – and almost all have been firecely contested at one time or other. Liberals, as one would expect, are sensitive to social and cultural influence and far more able to be responsive to new revalation, not being beholden to the aspects of bibliolatry which lead to worship of the mores of the first century and… Read more »

Martin Hambrook
Martin Hambrook
16 years ago

John Henry, I repeat my question which you avoid answering by referring to Johnson’s book, which isn’t available to me. ‘Walter Wink, Michael Hopkins, Jack Spong etc are quite open and clear about this and do not play verbal tricks, pretending that the problem lies with our reading rather than Scripture’s meaning. The meaning is clear enough; the question is, is it true? John Henry, have the courage of your convictions to say, along with Michael Hopkins, ‘Scripture does say these things – but it’s wrong.’ When all is said and done, there really are only 4 possibilities (I think… Read more »

Martin Hambrook
Martin Hambrook
16 years ago

Mike, please read me carefully! 1. I am perfectly aware that you have never asked me to ‘leave’ Anglicanism. Why should you? I’ve been an Anglican for many years, involved in many kinds of leadership and ministry in different countries and fully persuaded of Anglican teaching. What I asked was, why do YOU stick it out since you seem to believe so little of its ‘fairy tales’ (your term for its doctrines)? Your repeated calls for a split in Anglicanism seem really quite un-Anglican to me. 2. My OED defines ‘invective’ as ‘abusive rhetoric’. Please tell me where my language… Read more »

Henry
Henry
16 years ago

Merseymike: “which is actually a liberal site” I was once informed that the site may have a leaning to liberalism by virtue of those who post messages, but that it was an open site for those who feel they come under the category of “Thinking Anglicans.” Does your craving for inclusivity not extend beyond the realm of those who agree with you? Or are you inferring that conservative Christians, by definition, are incapable of thinking? In any case, I would have thought that, in the interests of healthy debate, you would welcome and respect those who adopt a more conservative… Read more »

Merseymike
16 years ago

Martin: 1. I choose to stay within the Church of England as I think it has space for those of liberal theological disposition. Should that no longer be the case, then I may look elsewhere 2. Perhaps it may be helpful for you to realise how your style may communicate itself to those of other views? 3. Fine. Then even less reason to ask questions to which you already know answers. I don’t have any need to prove myself to you, Martin. I’m not answerable to you. Incidentally, under what name do you write, as I’m not aware of such… Read more »

DGus
DGus
16 years ago

Dear Jake: You say, “Two adults members who are in love request that the Church bless their relationship. They have been in a committed relationship for many years. Their love and devotion to one another is evident to the entire community. On what basis do we tell them no?” Let me add a detail: They are a heterosexual couple, and they are biological brother an sister. They have commitment, love, devotion, and blah blah blah. On what basis do we tell THEM no? Let me guess your answer: “This incest question does not interest me.” Or “It’s not my issue.”… Read more »

Henry
Henry
16 years ago

Merseymike, I note your comment about few wishing to discover more, in case they need to revise their position. What a pity. I visit other sites from time to time, and have learned and benefited from this. I find myself always on a learning curve – sometimes quite steep – and the thought that this site was set up solely to give vent to one’s thoughts with no thought of seeking the other person’s point of view makes me quite sad. But, contrary to what you implied earlier, I would like to think that this site is for all Thinking… Read more »

AM Nicklin
AM Nicklin
16 years ago

Re: brother and sister, paedophilia etc. The point is that the same sex relationships being talked about are healthy committed adult same sex relationships. There are good medical reasons why incest should not be – the genetics are too dicey, plus there is a very real possiblity of an imbalance of power. Paedophilia is very definitely an imbalance of power as well as being an issue of power rather than love and committment. To constantly throw out the red herring of – if we allow blessing of same sex unions these other things will happen is irresponsible and is relying… Read more »

DGus
DGus
16 years ago

Dear Christian (aka GB Chris): You ask a few questions. Some of them are not mine to answer. (E.g., “Why do gay folk want to come to church?”) But here are my responses to some of the others: + “Why do conservatives not want Gay folk in church?” I must dispute your premise most emphatically. We urgently want “Gay folks” in church. We want ALL folks in church. Church is where we they will hear the Gospel, where they will learn to repent and believe. I know the joy of sins forgiven, and I want other sinners to find forgiveness… Read more »

Merseymike
16 years ago

DGus – how are the two situations related? To me, its like comparing , or trying to compare,two utterly unrelated issues. I think that issues should be judged on their own merits, not by means of saying how much they are like or unlike something else. After all, incest is not a sexual orientation, so to me there is no obvious comparative. Sociology has very little connection with social psychology – some branches of it which were particularly popular in the 70’s may have appeared that way at a surface level, but the disciplines are very different. I see the… Read more »

DGus
DGus
16 years ago

Dear Merseymike: Fine. Assume that the two situations (homosexuality and adult incest) are absolutely and utterly unrelated, so that no one would ever think of them in the same discussion. Pretend that homosexuality never came up, and I just asked you this easy, easy question: What’s wrong with adult incest? Your post criticizes those who “fail to state where they stand and why”. So tell me where you stand on the question of adult incest, and why. Assure us that, if we follow you, we won’t find that we’ve been led into moral chaos. Prediction: You won’t answer this in… Read more »

Dave
Dave
16 years ago

Merseymike, I really wonder whether you think of Christianity as a sociological phenomenon rather than as a set of beliefs, values and behaviours…. that would explain why you think that folk like Richard Holloway can still be Christians, even though they have explicitely stated that they do not believe Christian propositions. If you see Christians as purely a sociological group within society, then we aren’t even arguing about two versions of a religion (or two religions). We are discussing two completely different phenomena: A belief system versus a social grouping. But the Christian grouping gets it’s sense of identity, and… Read more »

Merseymike
16 years ago

DGus ; just maybe a God who decides that some of us, at random, have a ‘special challenge’ is not one any gay person with a modicum of sense would want anything to do with.

Fortunately , I do not believe that sort of God exists, other than in the mind of conservatives.

Christian
Christian
16 years ago

Thanks Dgus. I do appreciate your help in answering those questions. I have a hard time equating +Gene Robinson with Judas Iscariot. I’ve been reading about translation of words in reference to Leviticus and I’m also trying to read “to set our hope in Christ.” I do want to ask what do we do with people like ++Akinola whom refer to gays using “ghastly language,(ABY)?” I find the one thing that concerns with the conservative leadership is the ghastly language I here. I live in Duncan’s Diocese and have heard him do the ghastly languagetoward gays in person. I was… Read more »

J. C. Fisher
16 years ago

No, I wouldn’t sanction the marriage of brother/sister . . . but I wouldn’t sanction the marriage of brother/brother or sister/sister, either.

Why do same-sex couples get compared to EVERYTHING *except* their only true analog: married opposite-sex couples? (Only people who don’t actually *know* any same-sex couples—particularly Christian ones—could see them as qualitatively different from het couples. All the *same* strengths and weaknesses, folks!)

Merseymike
16 years ago

DGus – why should I muddy the waters by telling you my views on another, unrelated topic? It really is such a diversion, and one which is only ever used by conservatives in order to try and create a link between two unrelated matters. And whatever I answer, you will then turn my answer back to revisit the invalid comparison. Not playing your underhand conservative games – sorry. JCF has got it right. Dave – all human groupings are social phenomena. The term covers a very wide range of beliefs and outlooks. I wouldn’t and don’t relate to conservative Christianity,… Read more »

62
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x