“My own view is that what is needed in the Church at present is gracious restraint. We need a cool and calm period in which to explore the issues. To those among clergy and ordinands contemplating entering a same-sex marriage I would say, “Might you hold back while the Church reflects?” Gracious restraint. To those who might make a complaint against a priest who, despite that, does enter such a marriage I would say, “Might you hold back while the Church reflects?” Gracious restraint. To those who contemplate leaving the Church of England because of its perceived position I would say, “Might you hold back while the Church reflects?” Gracious restraint. To those who condemn the Church of England from other parts of the Anglican Communion I would say, “Might you hold back while the Church of England reflects?” Gracious restraint to give us space.
“The next steps for the Church of England are to have facilitated conversations at a national and diocesan level. This should involve profound reflection on the interpretation and application of Scripture. The outcomes that are hoped for, certainly what I will pray for are of two sorts.
“One sort is that we seek to listen together with sufficient commitment that we lift the issue out of its present situation where people of entrenched views fail to hear one another or respect one another’s integrity. We need to listen very carefully to the beliefs and opinions that come out of a profound change of attitudes in our society to gender, sexuality and marriage. We need to listen very carefully to the experience of gay and lesbian people, both those who are celibate and those who are in sexual relationships, including gay and lesbian clergy. We need to listen, in some cases, to their pain, and we need also to listen to their sense of joy, love and blessing in a faithful partnership. We need to listen very carefully to what the world and medicine and science can tell us about homosexuality. We need to listen very carefully to those who believe we are sitting light to the teaching of Jesus and the authority of the scriptures. We need to listen to one another and we need to listen to what the Spirit may be saying to the churches. And each and every one of us needs to participate in that listening with a humility that recognises that we have things to learn and may be some opinions to revise and that the Church’s teaching in this area of life may need to be expressed in a new language. I say “may”, for we must also allow for the possibility that what emerges, at the end of profound reflection, is a clear restatement of a traditional view.
Nonsence. Scripture is completely clear. The Church cannot bless what God has called sin. There is no need for further listening or discussion.
I would say that we do need to think and discuss, not to discard Scripture, but to faithfully apply Scripture in a new context. We are to love God with our minds. I like the thinking exhibited in a recent essay posted on this site, “Against Heterosexuality,” by Michael Hannon, published in a recent issue of [i]First Things[/i]. Believers need to study the “gay rights” issue, and those on the other side can help that effort by bringing up points that need to be considered.
I agree with Br. Michael. Unfortunately, +Perham doesn’t practice what he preaches here. He has already made up his own mind, and he has been an open advocate for the pro-gay position. So his rhetoric rings hollow, and comes off as merely a tactic to ease the process of gradual acception of same sex marriage.
This is NOT a time for “gracious restraint.” On the contrary, it is a time to boldly stand firm for the truth, and to firmly reject the well-intentioned, but erroneous position taken by wolves in sheeps’ clothing like the retired bishop of Glouscester.
I hope Pageantmaster will weigh in on this thread. He has exposed +Perham on other threads for the notorious progressive that he is on this issue. I will simply restate here what I’ve said before when this highly influential bishop has come up on other threads. +Perham has been a key leader in the so-called “Affirming Catholicism” movement. Alas, the reality is that “Affirming Catholics” are actually Pseudo-Catholics. I don’t care how high your view of the Church, the episcopate, and the sacraments may be. If you reject the moral concensus of the Church on this point that is black and white, and not some shade of gray, you place yourself outside the Catholic Tradition. No exceptions. Not even for Rowan Williams.
I mean that literally.
David Handy+
Once an ordinand of Albany, always an ordinand of Albany
2. what new context? No where, at any time, has two men or two women “pleasuring” each other ever birthed a baby or given honor and glory to God. A man and a woman is the natural order of human sex and any new context can only be illusory.
The new context is the dissolution of the prior moral consensus, so that the evil of Sodomy is not obvious to the younger generation. The other side claims scientific validation and such claims need to be critiqued. In addition, the details of Scripture need to be looked at. For example, the death penalty warning in the Law of Moses apparently applies to Sodomy but not lesbian acts. Is that because Sodomy is much more damaging to people than the lesbian acts? And why are we not bound to advocate for the death penalty now for Sodomy and adultery? I can give an answer, but I would like to discuss this with other Christians.
As the article by Hannan points out, the Bible does not classify people into the categories of “homosexual” or “heterosexual.” These are inventions of late 19th Century thinkers like Freud, and now some leading pro-gay “queer theorists” are apparently saying that these are behaviors, not indelible identities. I want to be a part of the debate over whether these desires and behaviors really define a person.
Also, there may be more sexual abnormalities now from excessive use of pesticides, etc. We need to have answers for young men who, for whatever reason, find themselves sexually abnormal.
If you don’t know what Scripture says, talk about it. Once you learn, come join us who already understand it – one man, one woman – marriage within the church.
Luke – I’m 50/50 on whether you’re joking. If you’re not, you’re essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, “la la la la la.”
I’ve tried, but I have to apologize to you…I’m just not sufficiently sophisticated to grasp your meaning.
RE: “If you’re not, you’re essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, “la la la la la.—
No he’s not — he’s saying precisely what Br. Michael said in the first comment. If liberal deconstructionists wish to chat among themselves and “listen” to one another they should feel free to go right ahead.
It will further highlight the chasm between the two faiths being represented.
I guess it was around 2012 when drivel like this stopped being depressing and started being funny.
Sure. Gracious restraint until the traditional view can be crushed and outlawed. Look at what is happening to those who follow the traditional pattern of ordained leadership. Tradition and scripture will not be tolerated.
Please read Hannon’s [url=http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality]excellent article[/url] that sandlapper cites. Contrary to what Freud would have us think, a sexual inclination is not the basis for one’s identity. In the West, we have bought into this false assumption of self-identifying as homosexual or heterosexual.
Leviticus proscribes certain sexual actions, not inclinations. The idea of establishing one’s identity on an inclination to sin, whether it be sexual sin or theft or sloth, is not biblical.
We are not our sins. We are not our inclinations to sin. By the blood of Jesus Christ, we have been liberated.
I’ve never understood why churches allow this no-win dispute to destroy them. Scripture is crystal clear on this. Churches should not be wasting their energy, money or resources on having the never-ending discussion on why sexual immorality is not sin. This is all Satan’s distraction from reaching the lost and carrying out the Great Commission.
I have to agree with sandlapper here: we need at the very least to explain why and how the Church has to take a strong counter-cultural position here, and why this means we may need to reverse earlier unwise compromises made earlier. Gagnon’s works (for example) represent a major component here.