As you know over the years I have shared with you my thinking about how the Gospel of embrace might be felt by those who are gay. I am beginning to wonder how the church historians of the 22nd Century will view our current debate. I think it may seem then to them extraordinary that the litmus paper test of orthodoxy centred on whether or not one had a generous attitude to those who are gay. I believe that there is a difference between heterosexual union and same gender intimacy and that it is appropriate to maintain that difference in the language we use. But if the Church now recognises Civil Partnerships to be a just response to the needs of gay people then surely the Church now has to ask the question whether or not it can deny the blessing of God to that which is just.
Furthermore, if we take 1 Corinthians 7 seriously and acknowledge truthfully that there is a proportion within society and in the Church who are naturally gay in that they have not chosen this as a disposition but find it both a given and a genuine expression of their sexuality why should we deprive them the biblical discipline of being able to channel their sexuality into a committed relationship of mutual trust and love.
Read it all and there is a press release here
I don’t know what to say. To become a leader of a christian community and to teach what one later regards as extraordinary falsehoods, must be a humbling, even heart-breaking, thing. If one had been through that experience, one would imagine that it would lead to a kind of deep penitence.
I wish the Bishop well in his retirement.
[blockquote] “I will always stand for the inclusion of those who cannot accept Episcopal ministry from a woman” [/blockquote]
No, bishop Jones, you won’t, because you have never done so in the past.
You voted for the last women bishops measure in the House of Bishops, even though every opponents’ group complained that it did not offer sufficient protection for their members: Reform, Church Society, Forward-in-Faith, CEEC, SHW, etc.
You have never lifted a finger to protect those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops, and no sane person would believe that you will ever do so in future. You mouth platitudes while voting for their eradication from the CofE.
[blockquote] “Furthermore, if we take 1 Corinthians 7 seriously and acknowledge truthfully that there is a proportion within society and in the Church who are naturally gay in that they have not chosen this as a disposition but find it both a given and a genuine expression of their sexuality why should we deprive them the biblical discipline of being able to channel their sexuality into a committed relationship of mutual trust and love.” [/blockquote]
1 Corinthians does not teach anything of the kind, but lets put that to one side. What is really interesting is the virtually total lack of response from other bishops in the Church of England to Bishop Jones’ sermon.
Bishops who claim to be “evangelical” and expect evangelical Anglicans to follow them, are conveniently and safely silent. Will they be surprised when nobody in future wants their leadership?
[i]But if the Church now recognises Civil Partnerships to be a just response to the needs of gay people then surely the Church now has to ask the question whether or not it can deny the blessing of God to that which is just.[/i]
I couldn’t help thinking that if one substituted “divorce” for “Civil Partnerships” and “a broken relationship” for “gay people,” then the Bishop’s logic would be much less self-evident. What is “just” in civil society is not [i]necessarily[/i] identical to what is “just” for the Church.