The Archbishop of Canterbury has continued his quest for Anglican unity with a strong statement against living in sin and gay sex.
Dr Williams said: “I do not believe that sex outside marriage is as God purposes it.”
And he said he remained “committed” to the Church’s official stance against gay sex, which aims to preserve Biblical norms.
Dr Williams denied that the Anglican Communion was at an end and said he did not believe the Church of England had entered the Lambeth conference as βa bleeding, hunted animal with arrows in its sideβΒ as a result of the vote on women bishops which took place at the General Synod last month.
[blockquote] Dr Williams said: “I do not believe that sex outside marriage is as God purposes it.” [/blockquote]
So perhaps when Lambeth Conference is behind us, the Archbishop could be persuaded to come to California and help us keep marriage available to all who wish to enter it and keep sex inside what God has purposed.
When will that be? Not anytime soon I think.
Susan, as you well know, holy marrage is between men and women and, I think that it is in this since, that the ABC is talking.
Br. Michael,
Correct. I believe that in another statement, the Archbishop DID reference Lambeth 1.10. which restates marriage as between one man and one woman.
I just wish the ABC had done all in his power to enforce it.
[blockquote]So perhaps when Lambeth Conference is behind us, the Archbishop could be persuaded to come to California and help us keep marriage available to all who wish to enter it and keep sex inside what God has purposed.[/blockquote]
How does that work with bisexuals? How can one be a monogomous bisexual?
Jefferson, they never answer this question.
Hypothetically if one of the committed partners were a synchronous hermaphrodite then a monogomous bisexual relationship could be possible, no?
Again, not what the AB was thinking of I’m sure.
8, that’s more than I needed to know. π
#6
The same way one is a monogamous heterosexual.
The fact that one is in a monogamous marriage, doe snot mean one feels no sexual attraction to others. It means we elect not to act on those attractions. That is no different for a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual
The identity argument for same sex marriage works so long as we accept that one cannot reasonably limit marriage to those who have heterosexual desire.
Thus aren’t we asking the bisexuals to deny their identity (“don’t tell me who I am”) by being monogamous? If their identity is defined by desiring both males and females then who are you to oppressively limit its expression. (“Hate crime”!)
Or is it that people can reasonably be expected to manage their desires. In which case…
Goodness, Rev. Russell, have you not heard it said in old times, “Thee mayest put lipstick on a pig, but thine action makest it no less a pig?”
Conversely, the decision of *any* body or group to allow a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman does not make it any more a marriage.
(BTW, since I’m a “new regular” to this blog and StandFirm, I’d like to ask if the poster “Susan Russell” is really the self-same cleric from California? I ask this in all honesty.)
[blockquote]The same way one is a monogamous heterosexual.
The fact that one is in a monogamous marriage, doe snot mean one feels no sexual attraction to others. It means we elect not to act on those attractions. That is no different for a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual [/blockquote]
That means that the bisexual in question is, in practice, either homosexual or heterosexual, making the bisexual component of the LGBT coalition essentially superfluous.
#12, it is. But she will never return to answer.
Actually, I think that they do support polyamourous arrangements. They just aren’t ready to haul that out of the closet. They also tend to avoid the transgender part. One thing at a time.
But to use the logic of the arguments they use, if bisexuality is an orientation then on what basis, according to their own arguments, can you insist that they choose only one gender to which they are oriented too. They reject the argument that any homosexual is free to marry someone of the the opposite gender based on the compelling nature of their same sex orientation. So using the same logic, it would that a bisexual is entitled to two partners if he or she is to remain true to their orientation.
If on the other hand it is controllable behavior then we arrive at 11’s conclusion.
hmmm, if orientation is not a choice, then to deny multiple partners is to deny how god made them.
If, on the other hand, orientation IS a choice, and a bi-sexual person can CHOOSE either a same-sex or opposite sex partner with whom to make a life-long commitment, then the whole argument of genetic disposition is rendered invalid.
Sounds like a quandry to me. π
A quandry is a marriage of four people. Five is a cinquey. And you can guess what six is. LM
Br. Michael, has it been said by others that sexuality is one of God’s greatest gifts and blessings to mankind? If one holds that view, I could see easily how it’s possible to reach the conclusion that more and more varied sexual congress is blessed of God. It seems too easy an understanding; I *must* be oversimplifying it?
Susan Russell: [blockquote]Dr Williams said: “I do not believe that sex outside marriage is as God purposes it.” And he said he remained “committed” to the Church’s official stance against gay sex, which aims to preserve Biblical norms.[/blockquote]
How typical. She hears Dr. Williams just like she reads the Bible…picking out what she likes and ignoring the rest.
18, I guess that’s the logic.
Are there any transgendered clergy in TEC? I know England has some, but have we crossed that bridge? Is it wrong for me to hold out a tiny hope that a line has been drawn there?
Clayton,
They ALL wear dresses on Sunday mornings.
π
The struggle for the church in any age is between the human ideologies of the day and the Lordship of Christ. Elitists, of whatever kind, would accomodate and reform the Church to the spirit of the age. Just as the Germans saw nation and race as Godly revelation, the force that has captured portions of Anglicanism, sees sexuality in a similar way — falleness and brokeness are embraced.
We are made in God’s image, but we are not God in the flesh. When emotions and imagination rule beliefs, it is easy to fall away from faith.
I remind myself daily that I am called to be faithful — it guides me toward the light and away from darkness.
#23 Good points. I am reminded of Jesus, and the temptation in the wilderness. As much as the prince of this world tried, He could not get Christ to indulge His flesh above the weightier matters of the spirit-obedience to the word and will of God.
The devil also tried what revisionists are doing now-twisting scripture to suit godless ends.
The Lord Jesus gave His followers an example for all time in His temptation, so that we may “do all, and stand.”
1) Live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
2) Don’t allow wolves in sheep’s clothing to misuse scripture to tempt you to pursue ungodly ends or embrace falsehood.
3) Subordinate all of our desires and ambitions to the will and worship of the living God.
#22. That is also a quandary. L