The Rev. Canon Philip Groves, the facilitator for the Anglican Communion’s Listening Process, told ENS that the goal of the day was for the bishops to have “safe space” in which “to genuinely talk and share what’s on their heart” and “genuinely sharing in one another’s dilemmas and struggles.”
At the beginning of the day’s discussions, the bishops also watched a 10-minute film of people from all over the communion answering the first question from their perspective. About a third of the film’s audio was played for reporters. In that segment, among the opinions expressed were that homosexuality is an abnormality according to the creation story in Genesis, that “these people are also human,” and that “the marginalized of the most marginalized are welcome in the kingdom of God.”
Williams encouraged the bishops to “go deep,” saying “we need to look at what we believe about human nature, human relationships and about God, God’s nature [and] God’s relationship with us.”
“And we need dispassion, not in the sense of being cold and analytical about it but actually trying to see the question whole; not letting our emotions, our prejudices immediately dictate not only a conclusion, but also an attitude towards other people,” he added.
I have pondered the truth elsewhere that my grandparents and great-grandparents, my mother and father – 7 couples in all, who rarely spoke of sex yet had successful families and manged to stay married to each one’s mate until one died. More recently, sex has been a regular discourse since early in school, movies, and the dinner table. Sex, and the knowlege thereof, is as thoroughly explored as any subject could possibly be and yet most of my nieces and nephews are divorced, single mothers, etc.. It is not a happy nor pleasant family portrait.
I have no evidence to indicate that talk of sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex produces much of any social, moral, or spiritual good.
My ancestors had it right – God bless them all!
I know of little benfit to Sexuality discussions. They will poison the spirit and corrupt the mind.
Don
THE RULE HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOR ALL SINNERS, AND WE ALL ARE, LOVE THE SINNER, DEPLORE THE SIN. NOT THE TEC, APPROVE THE SIN AS NORMAL IF ITS HOMOSEXUAL.
If you hate the sin, then it must be – if sin is to mean anything – that the sinner is tainted by his own mind set and acts. Why would you “love” the sinner? Jesus sat among them, not because he “loved” them but because he saw it was necessary for him to do so to terminate the sin. When He forgave, his father forgave. If this is what “love” properly means, we don’t have it. He had the power to interfere with sin’s course. Our evidence is that we ourselves don’t, which explains our need for Christ and which explains why TEC is so successful. WE should “love” the sinner? The evidence is that if we do so, the sinner, forgiven, continues on his course and we have become the enabler of evil. Consider, the reason we hang really bad men is that if we do not, they will continue on their course and we will become accomplices by virtue of our own weakness. WE may forgive our brother 70 times 7, but there is no evidence that this will cause him to change his behavior. Now it may be for the sake of our own souls, we must forgive and forgive, but that doesn’t mean those who are forgiven will do anything but despise us. Consider Saul: Did Christ save “I forgive you” or did he demand a reckoning with a town bully? Larry
“homosexuality is”….
a product of the fall, like many other sinful proclivities we are all indeed born with…
say it with me now… product of the fall…. product of the fall… product of the fall…
why is this (1) so hard for revisionists to get and (2) so hard, sometimes, for the orthodox to say quickly and succintly?