Those who have been supporting the process of Bible Study followed by an Indaba were vindicated this morning. I sat, listened and contributed as one of 40 bishops engaging with issues in human sexuality. As far as I could tell, everyone was able to make a contribution and the challenges facing us were clarified. There was no ”˜grandstanding’ and people were able to make their contribution without having to run the gauntlet of a plenary of 660 bishops – which would have ensured that only a minority were heard.
In my Indaba, one thing about which there was unanimity was that our attitude to homosexual people must be positive, generous and full of Christian love. There, however, the unanimity ended. In my Bible Study group there had been a recognition that we are each trying to be faithful to God and to our understanding of the nature and authority of scripture. By the time we came to the Indaba I detected the underlying presumption that a ”˜real Christian’ is essentially fundamentalist when it comes to using the Bible.
What an asinine statement:
“We need to remember however that the Church is still trying to accommodate the theological implications of a Sun-centered theory of the universe which Galileo posed in about 1610, of Darwin’s theory of evolution from the 1840s, of the double helix in the 1950s and of Lemaître’s Big Bang theory from the 1920/30s”.
It’s really simple bishop. Darwin is dead. Naturally-selected out by God.
why is it an asinine statement? It’s true. Scriptural interpretation has been changing for a long time. We’re commended to have an inquiring heart.
Remind me, John Wilkins, what’s the new breakthrough in science that has caused the liberals to embrace the goodness of homogenital acts?
Who needs science when the culture gives you all you need to trample thousands of years of practice along with Scripture, Phil? And don’t think the “monogomous” requirement is going to survive for so long as a fruitfly:
[blockquote]There is often an implicit assumption in using the words ‘faithfulness’ and ‘commitment’ in this discussion that we are always talking about sexual relationships persisting over a long period of time. And of course time provides the vital conditions for development, change and growth. To be committed is to take things seriously. It is to say ‘Tomorrow I will be here as well as today, which means that we have time. Time for facing up to the reality of each other. I am not going to run away (from you or myself).’
However, the biblical theme is primarily about the overwhelming demand to remain faithful to our covenantal relationship with God through the Spirit (which, as the gospels warn, may challenge conventional family obligations) Thus while it is clear to us as LGBTs when we survey the gay scene, and indeed much of contemporary social life, that casual sex can often be addictive and destructive, [b]we think it is important to remain open to the possibility that brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace.[/b] Risky, but then as Paul Tillich said ‘A Christian is safest taking risks!’[/blockquote]
That is from a 2004 document on sexual ethics by Changing Attitudes, booster of LGBT mascot/bloody-shirt/poster-boy Davis Mac-Iyalls who apparently had himself a gay old time at an Epicopal seminary. [url=http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/07/30/what-are-acceptable-sexual-morals-for-a-christian-leader/]LINK[/url]
John Wilkins: We should have inquiring hearts when we read the Holy Scriptures. Our inquiry should be, what is the Truth that God has written for the world to read, and sent to us incarnate as the Word, not what can I find in here that agrees with what I want to believe. Inquiring hearts are open, not to finding themselves proven correct, but instead to finding themselves proven incorrect.
#5:
Well put. This is the sad destination of much of the un-redeemed behavior which is currently being passed off for “praxis” and “theology” in today’s Episcopal Church. The goal of the “project” has never been in doubt if one cares the read the literature.
Phil Swain, the breakthrough is recognizing that sexual acts among gay people isn’t pr0n. Most reasserters put it in the same category. Another breakthrough is the recognition of the diversity of sexual activity in the natural world.
#6 – exactly! And I have found that I was incorrect about blaming gay people. Instead, searching the scriptures, I found that God loved gay people as He loved me. I recognized I wasn’t any better or worse than a gay person. Scripture taught me not to judge, or to fear God’s wrath. I love scripture.
Jefferson’s link is uninteresting. The behavior of Mac Iyalla is irrelevant. Its not much different than your average heterosexual guy.
If anything, it is the consequence of being in the closet. It happens all the time: someone who is suppressed, given freedom to act out. It is unfortunate.
One answer is to keep suppressing. Good luck with that. Anther is to encourage people to develop bonds with one person, a promise before God being the way.
Reasserters don’t understand human nature very well.
Whilst I comb the internet for links John finds more diverting, I’ll chuckle at the idea that the behavior of the mascot Changing Attitudes picked for their Committed And Monogmous Relationship Tour 2008 is irrelevant. Tom Jackson of Oasis sure didn’t think so, and was pretty torqued that a fellow revisionist had the bad manners to have enough moral sense to object to said mascot spending his free time rutting with Episcopal seminarians and surfing gay porn on the web. One question, John…are you an average heterosexual guy?
What I found interesting was the not-so-subtle sledgehammer the Changing Attitude essayist took to the whole “monogonmycommittedrelatshipshipbeforeGod” edifice so cynically erected by the revisionists. Oh, sure, we might “encourage people to develop bonds with one person,” but if that cute leatherboy at the club gives you a sly wink, well “we think it is important to remain open to the possibility that brief and loving sexual engagement between mature adults in special circumstances can be occasions of grace.”
As I said before John, you won’t have to wait long for your fellow revisionists to move beyond your current talking points. It’s already going on. You know this…I just can’t decide if you’re being dishonest with yourself or us.
John: Much as I love the new you, I have to agree with Jeffersonian’s last sentence: Whom are you deluding?
As regards your own last sentence, you are simply just plain wrong. Reasserters understand human nature only too well. We know how fallible our hearts are. We just believe, that as our creator, God is smarter than we are, so we strive to listen to what He has chosen to tell us. We also figure that we are not going to learn anything in 2000 years that He doesn’t already know.
I’m glad that you don’t fear God. I wish I could feel the same way, but as scripture says: “The Fear of the Lord, that is Wisdom, and to Depart from Evil is Understanding”.
Be safe in the Lord…
Oscar Wilde once quipped that one should not strive to be too modern lest one quickly become old-fashioned. I do believe we’re seeing the rumblings of that phenomenon with our friend John, whose sexual revolution in the Church now threatens to consume his ideals of committed, monogmous homosexual relationships. Blessings are now being meted out for one-night stands. I’d say JW is in dire peril of becoming a (gasp!) conservative the way most in TEC have: by standing perfectly still.
Blessings for one night stands sounds like fun. Jefferson, you are absolutely right that the culture is moving. As a straight man, I see it all the time – the culture moved about 35 years ago in the straight world. Once straight people started having sex outside of marriage, it wasn’t that long before gay people would wonder why straight people were imitating them.
I’ll have to recant a bit, because Mr Mac Iyala’s clearly getting a lot more play than I ever did (perhaps if I preferred men it would be different – I have no problem with women in leather). But using his example is a reason FOR marriage, not against. Time for someone to suggest that David settle down.
As far as the culture of straight men, you might check out the newstands and what passes for culture. I wouldn’t want to elevate it, but it’s not much different, in my view, than the stuff you’re finding over the internet, except that one is women, and the other is men. I’m thinking Maxim, FHM, etc.
I’ve noticed (assumed) that almost all the couples who have come to me have fornicated. And they’re straight. Why aren’t reasserters aren’t spending more time asking young people to repent?
In my world, I have to convince people first that there is a God. Eventually, I’ll get to the sex part. There are a lot of steps in between. I’m just happy they’re even considering church in the first place. Perhaps I’ll tell them that gay sex is a sin when we do marriage counseling. Think it’s useful evangelism?
Robert, scripture is right – it says clearly that it is better to marry than to burn. It is better to have one drink than to be an alcoholic secretly. The a more accurate understanding of the liberal belief is that the promise between two people takes priority theologically than the peculiar acts that happen within a covanent.
[blockquote]Blessings for one night stands sounds like fun.[/blockquote]
I knew the “committed, monogmous” angle was a ruse. It always has been, hasn’t it? I appreciate the candor, delayed as it has been in coming. Your eyes are wide open, and you’re lying to us.