In Archbishop Rowan’s quick essay of 27 July 2009, “Communion, Covenant, and our Anglican Future,” he rightly perceives our tension; and he writes, at best, descriptively of our present Anglican situation. He is certainly correct in acknowledging that the Episcopal Church yearns to remain in Anglican communion. But he is also correct that ongoing decisions in The Episcopal Church have been the occasion for anxiety in some other parts of the communion.
Though descriptive, Archbishop Rowan’s essay also dips into diagnosis and prescription. In some of these matters, he will be open to theological critique. A primary critique will certainly be directed toward his repetition of the common perception that homosexuality is a “chosen lifestyle.” Within two paragraphs, he uses “chosen lifestyle” and “choice” three different times.
The Episcopal Church’s General Convention resolutions concerning homosexuality have never claimed that homosexuality was simply a choice, or, much more, a “chosen lifestyle.” Rather, Episcopal leaders have realized, over time, that being gay or lesbian was definitely not a choice for those members of our Church. Indeed, for many heterosexual persons, the realization that homosexuality is not chosen at all ”“ no more than heterosexual persons choose their heterosexuality””has been the turning point in their ability to recognize God’s grace in homosexual relationships.
Obviously, the most prescriptive of Archbishop Rowan’s remarks is his suggestion, again, that the Anglican Communion of churches might develop a “two-tier”, or, less provocatively, a “two-way” structure of formal Anglicanism. One way of being Anglican would stress the values of local faith and theology, and local autonomy; the other way would stress the values of more global, and probably more ordered, forms of the church.
I find it curious that Archbishop Rowan repeats the language of “choice” not only in relation to homosexuality, but also in relation to Anglican Communion matters. He suggests that there may be those who will, in good faith, decline a covenanted structure. He implies that those who “elect this model” will also “not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the ‘covenanted’ body participates.”
I believe that Dean Candler misreads the ABC. +++Rowan’s use of “choice” was not in reference to a person’s sexual passions. No one seriously disputes that we can not choose the passions that well up in our hearts. We can choose, however, what to do with those passions once we discern whether they are holy or unholy. The ABC rightly argued that to live a lifestyle expressing same-sex desires in a committed relationship is a choice. TEC’s support of this choice is what may result in a second order relationship with the rest of the Anglican Communion.
#1 – Well said!
It’s a choice, but an unholy choice since it defies 5000 years of JudeoChristian understanding and the whole counsel of Scripture. It is also an unhealthy choice in the light of the combined weight of evidence in clinical practice of medicine and mental health, science research, CDC statistics, police reports and public records.
Political cultural changes and popular vote cannot change facts or reality. God’s Law is simply a statement of fact. We cannot break God’s Law or the Permanent Ikons He has erected…these are eternal, unchanging, unbreakable. God has instituted Truth, Love and Life, Male and Female, Good and Evil and these are delineated and defined by His Word…spoken by the mouth of God, written in stone by His own Hand. His wisdom authored them; His will sustains them, His power defends them. To oppose God is futile, stupid and insane.
To obey God is life, peace, joy, freedom.
The choice is ours. We are free to choose either way, but we are not able to change the Law or Word of God or the Way of Salvation He has made for us. It is the Way of the Cross and it is the way of crucifixion of the flesh and natural mind. It is the way of pain and the way of glory.
We are always free to choose whether to obey God or not.
Deuteronomy 30:11-20
Rowan Williams never said that “homosexuality” was a “lifestyle choice.” He said that homosexuals living in same gender relationships were making a lifestyle choice. One example in Rowan’s piece was: [blockquote]”And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.[/blockquote]
[i]Of course . . . Sam Candler knows this already about what Rowan said, without anyone needing to point it out to him.[/i]
How typical, now, for us to all simply recognize that Candler is merely [i]lying[/i] in his statements about what Rowan Williams actually said.
Why is it that Candler and many other revisionist “misread” the ABC’s words about a “chosen lifestyle”? Afterall, it is clear that the ABC is not referring to feelings or desires and that has been made clear perhaps ten thousand times on these blogs during the last several years. Setting aside, for the moment, that it’s just obtuseness, I would suggest that the revisionists have in many cases uncritically swallowed a Humean notion of the human being as being defined by his desires with human reasoning being solely an instrument to achieve the object of his desires. Lewis in the “Abolition of Man” makes this point about the classical conception of man as being governed by reason versus the modern conception of human reason being a mere instrument to help man achieve the objects of his desiring self. Unfortunately, the revisionsts keep repeating this canard because it doesn’t dawn on them that there could be another conception of man. In order to have an argument you have to agree as to what you disagree about. We are not there, yet.
What seems to be missing entirely is any conversation about the spiritual efficacy of a “chosen lifestyle” of ordaining partnered gay and lesbian clergy as long as they choose to lie about who they are and how they live.
As we know, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality — but he had a word or two to say about telling the truth.
What a very odd essay of Candler’s. Engaging in same-sex relations is not a “choice” and neither is being Anglican, he says. To define Anglicans as having a common faith and practice is contrary to “catholicity.” I am sure the Roman Catholic church would be stunned to find that common faith and practice do not define it.
Of course, no homosexual not living “in such a union” — or “heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond” — would need to “lie” at all.
That is merely another boilerplate red herring put out by people who choose not to deal with the actual words that Rowan said.
Kind of like Sam Candler [i]lying[/i] about what Rowan Williams said.
I don’t know if #6 is implying Jesus’ silence on homosexuality was an implicit approval of such behavior since He also didn’t say anything about incest or bestiality either. I can’t assume He would approve of something simply because He didn’t mention it.
He did have a lot to say about carrying ones cross, dying to oneself, etc…I guess that only applies to other people.
Jesus said nothing about racism, Susan. So I guess it’s okay with you if I join the Ku Klux Klan. My God, try a little harder than that, will you?
It’s just too easy, isn’t it? Shooting fish in a barrel doesn’t even begin to describe it…it’s more like sticking a 12-gauge into a goldfish bowl and pulling the trigger.
This line, “Jesus said nothing about …” reminds me so much Muslims. If the prophet made no mention of something specifically by name, then it’s okay, despite the logical application of principles which would argue otherwise. For instance, Muslims are specifically forbidden wine and beer. There were Ottoman sultans who held, unconvincingly, that since the prophet didn’t mention brandy, it wasn’t covered. More generally accepted is the idea that it’s okay to sit for hours in a cafe with strong Turkish coffee and a shisha (flavored tobacco in a water pipe). Stimulants and mind-altering, both, but unknown to the prophet, so never mind.
And of course biblical scholars point out that Jesus’s “sexual immorality” does cover same-sex activity — but that would wreck Integrity’s narrative, so shhh.
No wonder Episcopalians find no problem with a layman being a Muslim at the same time.
[blockquote]Rather, Episcopal leaders have realized, over time, that being gay or lesbian was definitely not a choice for those members of our Church.
Indeed, for many heterosexual persons, the realization that homosexuality is not chosen at all – no more than heterosexual persons choose their heterosexuality—has been the turning point in their ability to recognize God’s grace in homosexual relationships.[/blockquote]
These statements seem to need a footnote. Better yet, an analysis with references. What does the term “being gay” mean? What “realization” is he speaking of? What grace is there in a sexual relationship outside marriage between one man and one woman? Except in cases of rape, you always choose who you have sex with, and when.
#6, the statement, “…conversation about the spiritual efficacy of a “chosen lifestyle†of ordaining partnered gay and lesbian clergy as long as they choose to lie about who they are and how they live” makes little sense to me, so it’s hard to engage in conversation. The way I read it, I would simply respond that it would seem that if a self-avowed, practicing and unrepentant homosexual chooses to lie about his or her sexual practices (or other grievous sins), in the process leading towards Holy Orders, then that person’s ordination would be null and void.
As for Jesus, the Levitical prohibitions are so clear, there would be no need for Him to have elaborated on them further. So, the Gospels are silent, except for porneia, which of course encompasses homosexual practice and other perversions.
There are, of course, absolutely no positive examples of homosexual practice in all of Scripture.
Susan,
No one is asking anyone to lie about who they are or how they live. That would be just as sinful as having sex outside of marriage.
However, is it too much to ask that the leaders of the Church teach what the Church teaches?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#6: I am confused by your statement “about the spiritual efficacy of a “chosen lifestyle†of ordaining partnered gay and lesbian clergy as long as they choose to lie about who they are and how they live.”
Is this a question ie we need to have a conversation about it? Or a statement of support for this approach to ordination? I’m just confused about what you are asking. The archbishop said
#8- 9 “their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires. ……So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. ”
I think what he is saying is clear. “Serious incongruity” would seem to describe the situation – whether it is as a result of a lie or not. While this position is stated in stronger terms than I have heard from him in the past – it is now laid out.
I would say there will be some fierce debate as to whether this is the direction the communion (or even the church of England) should/will go. Perhaps this is the goal of him saying it, (I doubt there will be much “fierce” debate about this in TEC)
However – I don’t think he is saying that a good spiritual approach is to “just lie”
Much of what is coming from the “liberal” camp is simply post-modern deconstruction of language. If one can succede in so defining language as to make it impossible to say (or for that matter even think) something contrary to the Party line, then one has successfully brainwashed society. There are definitions of the word “lifestyle” which would indicated that large parts of what is mean are not innate or even culturally determined — that indeed, a lifestyle includes many chosen behaviors.
It is probably too much to expect Susan Russell to buy into, but Jesus does speak unflatteringly of porneia which means “sexual immorality” which certainly for a first century Palestinian Jew would include any sexual activity other than between husband and wife.
Once upon a time, when I was ordained, it was expected that clergy would strive to be examples of Christian living — and there was a promise to that effect in the ordination rite. It’s very, very Anglican. What the Archbishop is saying is that someone who is officially representing the Christian Church ought to strive to live in accordance with the doctrine and discipline of the Christian Church, which whether the GLBT apologists like it or not includes the discipline that sexual relationships are appropriate only within the context of the marriage of a man and a woman. Someone who is striving to live in such an manner does not have to lie. The lie comes when someone who lives in such a manner insists that (s)he represents the doctrine and discipline of the Christian Church.
I would observe that the apostle Paul doesn’t worry too much about what non-Christians may do or not do with regard to sex and a great many other things. But he does have quite a bit to say about what Christians do. And the Archbishop appears to be following the apostles’ teaching (see the first promise of the Baptismal Covenant) in that the secular state can do whatever it jolly well pleases, and pagans can do whatever they jolly well please — but Christians, and especially Christians who officially represent the Christian Church, are held to a different standard, not determined by either the state or pagans, but by the consensus of the faithful grounded in Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
Oh, and something else about Russell’s comment.
Indeed what is missing is conversation. Conversation requires at least two people; and it isn’t “I’ll talk, and you listen.” I see no evidence that the GLBT activitist are listening to anyone other than themselves. That’s not conversation.
Rowan Williams wrote:
[blockquote]And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond[/blockquote]
But this is NOT the case in at least one obvious way–the heterosexual has CHOSEN to refuse the opportunity for Christian marriage, and can at any time choose to enter the marriage bond with his/her partner.
The members of a same-sex couple do not yet have such a choice even available to them. This is hardly the “same case” as an opposite-sex couple that has rejected the bond of marriage.
I went to seminary with Sam Candler at Yale/Berkeley in the early 1980s. He’s always been highly articulate and devout, and ambitious. I’d call him “a smooth talker” (see Romans 16:17-18). Unfortunately, this isn’t one of his better efforts.
I wouldn’t go so far as Sarah has repeztedly done here and accuse him of outright lying. But I do think he has muddied the waters, perhaps deliberately, and he’s thrown out a big red herring. So I think we should ignore the bait. Candler hasn’t given a serious answer to the very serious problems that ++RW has outlined in his letter, and so Candler’s post doesn’t deserve a serious reply.
I found the vehement critique of Cantaur’s letter by Mark Harris+ over at his Preludium blog to be much clearer and far more helpful in terms of clarifying the issues at stake, although I naturally think that Harris is totally wrong. At least Harris takes the implicit challenge in ++RW’s letter seriously. Sadly, Candler doesn’t.
David Handy+
And no, Sam and I were never friends in seminary either.
[blockquote]Jesus does speak unflatteringly of porneia which means “sexual immorality†which certainly for a first century Palestinian Jew would include any sexual activity other than between husband and wife.[/blockquote]
Jesus also clearly considers remarriage after divorce to be adultery, and yet no one threatens schism over the Church’s decision to bless such relationships.
[blockquote]Jesus also clearly considers remarriage after divorce to be adultery, and yet no one threatens schism over the Church’s decision to bless such relationships.[/blockquote]
And we see the tragic consequence of that for the children every day in the news.
[blockquote]But this is NOT the case in at least one obvious way—the heterosexual has CHOSEN to refuse the opportunity for Christian marriage, and can at any time choose to enter the marriage bond with his/her partner.
The members of a same-sex couple do not yet have such a choice even available to them. This is hardly the “same case†as an opposite-sex couple that has rejected the bond of marriage.[/blockquote]
Of course, there are 2 dichotomous choices.
1. Go and sin no more, or
2. keep on sinning.
If called to sexual practice, get married to a person of the opposite sex.
[blockquote]Jesus also clearly considers remarriage after divorce to be adultery, and yet no one threatens schism over the Church’s decision to bless such relationships.[/blockquote]
I don’t understand the point here. So what does this have to do with homosexual practice? Sounds like variant 3f of the “shellfish” argument.
Now, none of you REALLY think that Rev. Russell is going to come back here and actually engage any of you, do you? This was just another one of her typical drive-by’s, I would wager to say.
Tegularius,
I will ask you, since Susan Russell has done her famous drive by commenting.
Shouldn’t a leader of the Church teach what the Church teaches?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[re: remarriage after divorce, and schism or lack thereof]
[blockquote]I don’t understand the point here. So what does this have to do with homosexual practice? Sounds like variant 3f of the “shellfish†argument.[/blockquote]
It’s not the “shellfish” argument–it is a point about the honesty of the schismatics’ motivation (or the lack thereof). Schismatics say “we cannot be in a church with people who will bless a sinful relationship”, or “we cannot be in a church with a bishop who lives in a sinful relationship”.
And yet, in the case of remarriage after divorce (ADULTERY), they have been and are quite able to stay in a church that blesses such relationships and that does not consider such a relationship an absolute bar to the priesthood or the episcopate.
Therefore, there must be SOME motivation other than endorsement of “sinful relationships” such that adultery is considered far more tolerable than homosexuality. Otherwise, one is left with the punchline: “we know what you are, now we’re simply haggling over the price”.
[blockquote]Shouldn’t a leader of the Church teach what the Church teaches?[/blockquote]
I think the debate here is largely over “what the Church teaches” (or should teach), and so the question as worded is a tautology.
[blockquote]I don’t understand the point here. So what does [remarriage after divorce] have to do with homosexual practice? Sounds like variant 3f of the “shellfish†argument.[/blockquote].
Yes, that is what it is. If it is alright to eat shrimp and lobster, then is alright to consult mediums and wizards, and it is alright to have sex with your kin, in laws, beasts, corpses — whatever turns you on. after all, Jesus never said any of this defiles one.
Re: Susan Russell’s comment: “about the spiritual efficacy of a “chosen lifestyle†of ordaining partnered gay and lesbian clergy as long as they choose to lie about who they are and how they live.†I think this was a shot at the Archbishop and the Church of England, where the Church, being established, has been forced to accept a political compromise which allows partnered gay and lesbian clergy to have legal registered domestic partnerships so long as they assure their bishops that the relationship is celibate.
I think Tegularius has a point about divorce and remarriage. Personally, I do not believe that someone who has been divorced and remarried should be a bishop (and I know some fine priests who have been divorced and remarried). As for priests, the cause for the divorce needs to be taken into account.
When deciding about whether to bless a subsequent marriage after divorce, the individual aspects as to the cause for the divorce needs to be examined.
Homosexual sex is never sanctioned as acceptable.
[blockquote]Shouldn’t a leader of the Church teach what the Church teaches?[/blockquote]
What a novel idea!
It occurs to me that the Ford salesman who drives to work in his Honda Accord and tells the customers what a bunch of junk Fords are and that they should buy a Honda isn’t going to be a Ford salesman very long.
It also occurs to me that if MIT hires a biologist to teach evolution and the biologist decides to teach Creationism instead, he’s not going to teach a MIT very long.
[blockquote]When deciding about whether to bless a subsequent marriage after divorce, the individual aspects as to the cause for the divorce needs to be examined.[/blockquote]
I don’t believe there is scriptural justification for this. A divorce may be justified, but even in that case remarriage is still considered adultery.
The only way for a divorced person to avoid being an adulterer is to refrain from any and all sexual relationships–the same discipline that is being urged on those who are not interested in members of the opposite sex.
Does anyone seriously think that His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t aware of the potshots from some noted revisionist heretics at TEC’s General Convention? Such tactics won’t work in their favor, I’m afraid. It wasn’t a good idea then, and it isn’t now.
I was stunned by Candler’s repeated implication that catholicity is so much of a gift from God that it apparently does not require any vigilance to guard or maintain it, nor any mutual accountability. No, to be catholic according to Candler seems to be as unmerited a gift of God’s grace as to receive salvation, and nothing that anyone can do can add to it. I would think that the logical conclusion from Candler’s point of view is that you are most catholic when you are being most true to who you believe yourself to be, and so TEC was being most truly catholic (though not “classically catholic,” with its apparently dreaded uniformity) when it expressed itself with D025 and C056. And if I’m right in my reading of Candler — wow (and not in a good way).
Looks like Tegularius wins. The real winner, in this case, seems to be the Roman Catholic Church that doesn’t allow anyone married to be a priest. (That is, if Tegularius is without sin.)
There are no real winners or loosers. Just little dust mites throwing around their little dust stones. (on a slippery slope to nowhere.)
But still…Tegularius, a “half right” does not a “full wrong” make.
Tegul arius would draw the discussion off topic, just like my 6-year-old might try. The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures unite with Holy Tradition (including the rabbinical tradition) and the modern patriarchs in rejecting homosexual practice. Some of the modern patriarchs have used exceedingly strong language in doing so.
For example, Pope Shenouda (would that he and the Abp of Canterbury have a little meeting with each other):
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/ShenoudaHomosexuality.php
There’s no way to weasel out of it, other than to take the topic off track. Let’s see: blending different types of fabric. Variant 4b of the shellfish argument.
Modern Christianity (in the patriarchal tradition) takes remarriage after divorce very seriously. But, that’s not what’s being discussed here.
I’ve been waiting for years to hear a new, cogent argument in favor of supporting homosexual practice. There hasn’t been one.
It is quite simply the case that [i]any[/i] “gift†requires the [i]appropriate[/i] response. What therefore is seriously at issue among us, whether regarding the supposed gift of homosexual persons and/or the Anglican Communion itself, is how to respond – duly.
The ABC has offered us all his understanding – which is thoroughly catholic, what’s more – of how we might [i]now[/i] respond – in accordance with what God has done in Christ Jesus, the New Covenant Mediator Himself, which is a thoroughly evangelical requirement. All the RCD tries to do is reflect the history of how the Anglican churches have already responded, in order that they may continue to respond appropriately, together, in the future.
Ralph,
There is no arguement that Tegularius can give since s/he went back to total justice trumping Scripture. It is much like finding a body that has become sick and then deciding that by pumping it more full of sickness, that will some how make it “better”. Quite a twisted way of thinking, don’t you think!
Ralph, I don’t know if Dr. Williams has met Pope Shenouda, but I do know that Bishop Mouneer, of the Episcopal Diocese of Egypt and the Middle East, knows him, and is in agreement with him on the subject of the non-acceptability of same-sex practice in the church.
Re # 32
Tegularius,
[blockquote] I don’t believe there is scriptural justification for this. A divorce may be justified, but even in that case remarriage is still considered adultery.[/blockquote]
That is certainly the position of the Roman Church. If one subscribes to such then logically this casts a wide pall over the non-Roman Christian confessions. However it is not necessarily an accurate reflection either of scripture or the consensus patri. The canons of the OECumenical Councils make provision for remarriage after divorce although it was also the ancient discipline of the Church to prohibit 4th marriages. I would encourage you to read Basil the Great on the subject.
Even in the West second marriages were permitted in variou places until the latter part of the first millennium when the Latin Church adopted its much more rigorous discipline.
In ICXC
John
And so the tedious semi-debate goes on. First of all, marriage is open to all, with absolutely no discrimination whatsoever against those who suffer from homosexuality. Such persons, as well as the left-handed, alcoholics, Republicans, Mennonites, physicists, and Harry Potter fans are all welcome. All any of these has to do is find someone who (in descending order of difficulty) 1) wants to marry them, 2) they want to marry, 3) isn’t already married, 4) isn’t too close a relative, 5) is at or above the age of consent, and 6) is of the opposite sex. It’s quite tiring to hear this nonsense that homosexuals aren’t allowed to marry – hogwash. Indeed, if a homosexual man marries a homosexual woman, we – presto! – get a “gay” marriage. Uh, yeah, entering a marriage – or any non-marital imitation thereof – is, well, a choice. Something tells me that neither fate nor natural selection caused a certain by now well-known clergyman to leave his wife (a tragic event in any case, but doubly so here given that the purported reason was something as relatively insignificant as the fact that he happened to suffer from homosexuality – a painful and unchosen condition that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, but still hardly justification for something as monumental as a divorce) and later to enter into an imitation of marriage with a member of his own sex. The notion that this is something other than a “chosen lifestyle” is utterly ridiculous and unworthy of further comment.
I am well aware that the combination of (2) and (6) in my list above is a difficult one for those afflicted with homosexuality. Such people have my sympathy – and that of everyone I know who does not support the attempt to redefine marriage to accommodate the desiderata of the Homosexual Movement. The notion that this combination presents by definition an impossibility for such people requires at the least more explication than has heretofore been offered. Is there pain in such marriages? Of course. But guess what? There’s pain in all our marriages. It has not been shown that those afflicted with homosexuality necessarily suffer any more than the rest of us nor that marriage any more an impossibility for them. They may wish for something else. Yeah, well so do I and so does pretty much everybody. It’s still a sinful, broken world and being a so-called “heterosexual” in a marriage is not necessarily the one-way ticket to Neverending Happyville the avatars of the Homosexual Movement seem to think it is.
Justice, justice and more justice shrieks.
Tegularius, your are exactly right that the reasserters in TEC were complicit in accommodating the sexual desires of divorced heterosexual members, but have found it impossible to extend the same privilege to homosexuals. The responses you got were pitiful. However, the solution is not to tank Holy Scripture, but to take another look at divorce and remarriage in TEC. As messy as it has been, at least annulment as practiced in the Catholic Church preserves Christ’s teaching.
The over-all problem for our Beloved opposition, seems to not be a mis-reading of the ABC’s statement (though they do delight in spreading the false reading) but because they really DO get the statement. These days, by labeling any of our traditional sins “choices” we imply, somehow, that people are actually free to do what they want to do and are not simply pre-destined by psychology and genetics to turn into “normal humans”. “I over-eat because I am genetically inclined toward obesity and my mother taught me to comfort myself with food, I can’t help it, it’s the way I am.” “Human beings are obviously not inclined toward monogamy, so marriage is obviously not meant for the human creature, you are able to practice it because you were born with a weak sex drive.” “I’m violent because of an overabundance of testosterone in my system, and my father beat me.” For those things we simply cannot have, like obesity and anger-management issues (or, as they were known “gluttony” and “wrath”), we have medication that may or may not be effective. For anything which could possibly be objected on the grounds of gross-sanitary practices, well, we invented the condom. And for those pesky feelings of guilt and shame, there is yet more medication and psychiatry.
What use, then, for Christ? If these people are willing to reject everything He commanded, then why do they seek to torture His Body in such a way? Why hang on so tightly to a Church they treat so disdainfully? Two reasons: First, the synthesis of the Christian Gospel with the Modern Point of View results in a Christ who died to tell us “hey, we’re all okay” and thus the blood negates sin, not by giving us power to overcome, but by merely saying it never existed in the first place (this is why it is so easy for them to sheepskin themselves as Evangelicals, they come so close to the justification by Faith and not works. Anglo-catholicism is even easier to ape, just use a few high sounding ‘theological’ words like “ecumenical” and “tradition” and then it’s all dress-up.) The second reason is this: deep down they know they have sinned, and thus see the Church’s continued existence as a reminder of that sin. Nevermind the medicine cabinet full of prescriptions and the fifteen hundred dollar a month bill for psychiatry, it’s those damned Fundamentalists that are constantly reminding us that “normal” humans are not at all “well-adjusted” to the world. The worst ones of all are those that don’t go around telling everyone how wrong they are (those Fundamentalists are fun and like shooting fish in a barrel), the worst ones of all are the ones that actually LIVE a holy life to the consternation of the rest of us.
The shellfish argument is, of course, a red herring (or lobster as the case would have it).
#15 — Heading off on vacation shortly so just dropping by (as opposed to “drive by”) to clarify my earlier comment.
My question was when is someone going to call the Archbishop of Canterbury on the “chosen lifestyle” so prevalent in the CofE — and that would ordaining partnered LGBT clergy so long as they don’t tell the truth about their lives and relationships. Many of us have long mantained the real issue here isn’t sexuality but honesty … and +Rowan’s twisting-like-a-pretzel to response to our actions in Anaheim is yet another example of how failing to tell the truth does exactly the opposite of setting us free.