(Fulcrum) Andrew Goddard–Responding Reasonably and Faithfully to the Sexual Revolution

The challenge is that there is a diversity of views and disagreement about the truthfulness of the doctrine and the faithfulness, integrity and wisdom of the discipline. The key questions here were set out by Archbishop Rowan in 2005: “What is the nature of a holy and Christ-like life for someone who has consistent homosexual desires? And what is the appropriate discipline to be applied to the personal life of the pastor in the Church?”. Our diversity is about “what the Church requires in its ordained leaders and what patterns of relationship it will explicitly recognise as unquestionably revealing of God”. There is similarly diversity in response to civil partnerships (as General Synod noted in a Feb 2007 motion) and, to a lesser extent, in response to the new legal definition of marriage barely on the horizon when the Pilling Group started its work.

The problem is that this diversity increasingly risks pushing the church nationally and internationally into division or at least increased structural differentiation. Facing this, General Synod, in another Feb 2007 resolution, commended “continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion”.

We need a report which can help us reason together by defining and explaining the theo-logic of our church doctrine and discipline and relating these to our diversity and potential division.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, - Anglican: Analysis, --Civil Unions & Partnerships, Anglican Provinces, Anthropology, Church of England (CoE), Ethics / Moral Theology, History, Marriage & Family, Men, Psychology, Sexuality, Theology, Theology: Scripture, Women

One comment on “(Fulcrum) Andrew Goddard–Responding Reasonably and Faithfully to the Sexual Revolution

  1. Adam 12 says:

    The problem is that when you depart too far from the Bible and do things that aren’t Biblican in worship, traditionalists believe that a different god is being worshipped. That is quite a void to span. Attempts to use theo-language fail because once-standard God words now have two different meanings. At its extreme, it is sort of like Moses trying to reconcile with the People of the Golden Calf. And you will remember that that dispute was over commandments.