He’s absolutely right that conservatives need to present better arguments in such debates. In particular the reasons must take into account that to stand against homosexuality is a counter-cultural position. It is as strange to the wider culture as (say) pacifism or opposition to remarriage after divorce, to pick two positions that divide us theological conservatives.
As one of the traditional clergy who spoke against the motion, I have to wonder if Michael Daley was in the same room I was. The conservative/orthodox/tradionalist positions were more theologically grounded and more scriptuarlly based than those of the revisionists who seemed to speak mostly from experience. And where the revisionists did refer to the scriptures we heard the same tired arguments that invoked the emancipation of slaves, women’s ordination, and acceptance of divorce to support their positions. Still, the revisionists carried the day. It just shows how captive we are to the Spirit of the Age.
He’s absolutely right that conservatives need to present better arguments in such debates. In particular the reasons must take into account that to stand against homosexuality is a counter-cultural position. It is as strange to the wider culture as (say) pacifism or opposition to remarriage after divorce, to pick two positions that divide us theological conservatives.
As one of the traditional clergy who spoke against the motion, I have to wonder if Michael Daley was in the same room I was. The conservative/orthodox/tradionalist positions were more theologically grounded and more scriptuarlly based than those of the revisionists who seemed to speak mostly from experience. And where the revisionists did refer to the scriptures we heard the same tired arguments that invoked the emancipation of slaves, women’s ordination, and acceptance of divorce to support their positions. Still, the revisionists carried the day. It just shows how captive we are to the Spirit of the Age.
Ross Gill
that’s scripturally