Their main concern, they write, is with the \u201cdirection of travel\u201d of the diocese. \u201cIn its desire for new expressions of \u2018inclusion\u2019, it could end up excluding those who hold to the traditional teaching of scripture, and doing a great disservice to those of us who experience same-sex attraction.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are not here simply stating an aversion to change; we are, however, convinced that failing to hold the Bible\u2019s teaching out to everyone, including those who identify as LGBTI+, is to show a lack of that very love the letter urges us to exhibit.\u201d<\/p>\n
The signatories disavow any sense of being \u201cmorally superior\u201d and acknowledge that they have \u201cmuch to learn from others, including those with whom we disagree\u201d; but they conclude that \u201cthe issue concerns the teaching of Christ\u2019s Church, however lacking we may be as disciples of Christ. . .<\/p>\n
\u201cWe would love our bishops to articulate clearly God\u2019s love for us in helping us see both the attractiveness of deep friendships, but also the appropriate setting for sexual intimacy \u2014 namely in marriage between a man and a woman. However, if they are unwilling to do this, we would ask them to recognise the seriousness of the difference between us: advocacy of same-sex sexual intimacy is either an expression of the love of God or it creates an obstacle to people entering the kingdom of God. It cannot be both.<\/p>\n
Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWe would ask them to recognise the seriousness of the difference between us: advocacy of same-sex sexual intimacy is either an expression of the love of God or it creates an obstacle to people entering the kingdom of God. It cannot be both.”https:\/\/t.co\/qPdvZO98Zg<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Church Times (@ChurchTimes) January 11, 2019<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n