Earlier this year Bishop Scott-Joynt also said that it would be important to “speak the truth in love” at the Lambeth Conference, the 10 yearly gathering of Anglican bishops which starts this week.
He said he still believed in the 1991 House of Bishop’s decision that Christians in same-sex relationships should be made welcome in churches, but should not be invited to take up positions of leadership.
He said: “I see no future for the Anglican Communion as we know it, or for the Church of England as we know it, if either deserts this teaching.”
I’m starting to think we’ll be able to put a “QED” on that last statement after Lambeth.
God bless Bishop Michael. Please pray for God’s Holy Spirit to encourage and strengthen men like him at Lambeth.
Prayers rising.
Exactly, +Michael, that is the Christian attitude, for all have come short.
Gloria in SC
[blockquote] He said he still believed in the 1991 House of Bishop’s decision that Christians in same-sex relationships should be made welcome in churches, but should not be invited to take up positions of leadership.
[/blockquote]
Am I the only one who sees a disconnect in logic here? If they are doing nothing wrong than of course they should be welcomed in the church. And for that matter they should not be barred from leadership positions. If on the other hand they are engaging in immoral activities (especially in a manner that by its very public nature causes scandal) then their welcome in the church must be qualified with a summons to repentance and suspension from the Holy Mysteries until that repentance has been manifested.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
I thought the church was a hospital for sinners, John. It’s only for perfect people?
6, Yes, but I think John is saying we should then strive for sanctification.
[/blockquote]He said he still believed in the 1991 House of Bishop’s decision that Christians in same-sex relationships should be made welcome in churches, but should not be invited to take up positions of leadership. [/blockquote]
Ad Orientem
No you are not the only one. Its the compromise of the highest order by ruling bishops. Tutu did it in 1991 and its continuing.
Its called leaven in scriptures and it has leaven the whole Anglican C lump.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Sherri,
The church must always be welcoming of sinners. But that does not mean we need to also welcome their sins. We all fall short indeed. Thats what confession is for. However the bishop is suggesting that persons in homosexual relationships should be welcomed. I find that disturbing since it did not include the qualifier that they would be called to repentance.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
I suppose it all depends how you parse “welcome.” By the same token, if we’re going – as we should – to call sexual sins to repentance (and most of us I suspect are prone to them at least in thought and word) then we should be equally concerned to call other failings to repentance. Remember the old Litany?
[i]From all blindness of heart; from pride, vain-glory and hypocrisy; from envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness, Good Lord, deliver us.[/i]
A few sermons along these lines might even shake up some reasserter parishes.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Hear, hear, Jeremy (#10)! What’s too often lost in the rhetoric of these controversies is an emphasis on Christ’s love as transformative — for all of us. Reappraisers go on and on about inclusion, but what’s implicit in their stance is that God’s love accepts us where we are and leaves us there. It merely affirms. (I’m not sure whether Bp. Scott-Joynt is making that statement as well). What if reasserters focus on the message that the gospel is inclusive but for the sake of accepting us — all of us — where we are and transforming us, slow though the transormation generally is. And what if reasserters were to show, in words and actions, that transformations are not easy for any of us, that they may take lifetimes (and beyond), but that the very “process” is already a life-changing relationship with God, His Church, and the world. What if we all learned to glory in our infirmities, as St. Paul put it, so that grace could effect these transformations? I’d be interested to know how reappraisers would respond.
Jeremy (and Monksgate)
Many on this forum have been saying this ever since I first joined the lists. There is seen or implied a wide gap between those who decry same-sex relationships among the clergy and those who allow for divorce and remarriage (and divorce and remarriage, etc.).
However, what I’ve been seeing posted here is that we (as the Church) need to be consistent in our standards regarding the Biblical view of ALL sinful behaviour — that is, all sin needs to be repented of and lives redeemed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. That includes gluttony, gossip, sexual immorality, falsehoods, etc.
The Christian is called to a higher standard than the World, and those in leadership positions in the Church are called to even higher standards, according to the Bible.
So, I agree — let’s see some great sermons on the topic of repentance and being washed by the blood for holiness, and seeking the mind of Christ.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
So, is it a correct understanding of the bishop that persons in a same-sex relationship( engaging in homogenital sexual acts) should be baptized and receive Holy Communion without the necessity of confessing that sin and intending not to further engage in that sin? Surely, Sietz-ACI isn’t endorsing this (mis)understanding. The “welcoming” referred to in the ’91 decision can’t possibly mean baptism without the confession of grave sin and the intention not to sin. If so, the Co E doesn’t have a catholic understanding of the sacraments.
Phil (#13)
Agreed, but, by same logic, clergy should plan to be as active as I recall Matt Kennedy once describing his own approach to marriage preparation (i.e. if you’re presently living together then I’m not willing to prepare you for marriage unless you commit to a chaste relationship in the interim). I wonder how many actually do that at present (and not just in the First World).
Also, if one believes that the sacraments should be refused in cases of egregious sin (and I see the point of that), is it appropriate to limit this to one such category? If, for example, as a priest, one is aware that one of your flock is making somebody else’s life hell for no good reason, should you not sanction them in a similar way? It is clear that such a penalty is always available to a priest, but under what circumstances should he employ it and how can he achieve consistency?
Jeremy, it sounds like +Matt has a wonderful ministry to young couples( just think how lucky those couples are compared to those couples who go to a priest who’s too lazy to tell them the truth). I wouldn’t call what a good priest is doing as employing sanctions and penalties. A priest doesn’t have to be a busy-body. But if a person comes to a priest seeking to be baptized and tells that priest that he intends to continue to engage in behavior that is a grave sin then it’s that priest’s Godly duty not to baptize that person-for the eternal good of that person. Of course, we’re all sinners, but hopefully we don’t intend to engage in sinful behavior.